Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[Accountability Now]

Accountability Now, on 21 Jan 2014 - 3:05 PM, said:

Yet when an oil company comes along and says we'll pay you a bunch of cash to get oil from THEIR land....they have no problems with screwing over the environment.

I'm sure you will be following this up with many links to the many times that this occurs.

Sure. Keeping with the native mantra that oil development equals screwing over the environment, then all i have to do is show you places on reserves that have no problems with developing those resources therefore 'screwing over the environment'.

Onion Lake, Sask - http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1377775603370/1377775783343

(They have their own oil company here)

Samson Cree, Alberta - http://www.ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/agreement-signed-between-samson-cree-atco

(Can you believe they let the pipeline go right through their land?)

Of course, we all remember DeBeers up by Attiwapiskat too. You know....lets make an agreement but then go back on the agreement because its not enough money.

[jacee]

No I have it right.

The treaties were obviously a sop to First Nations at the time of signing. The treaties were mainly done to ease the conscience of the colonizers for the outright theft of the continent. There was nothing much the First Nations could do about it then, perhaps a bit more now.

The treaties are the law in Canada.

You don't understand the relationships, or the stance of First Nations. They don't want a peer relationship, a business relationship, with either the provinces (who control the resources by and large) or any oil companies(because they a soveriegn nations and want to deal with the only othger soveriegn nation, the govt of Canada). The feds ahve a constitutional duty to First Nations, but not much control over the business deals cut between oil company and province for extraction.

It's a clusterf%$#!

"the Crown" has the duty to ensure meaningful consultation with Indigenous Nations about any development that affects Aboriginal and treaty rights, and to ensure adequate accommodate of those rights.

"the Crown" includes the federal and provincial governments in their respective areas of jurisdiction ... and the courts, of course.

I respect the right of the people of Indigenous Nation to make their own decisions about any development on their traditional lands.

The oil will come out of the ground.

It will get to overseas markets.

What kind of odds are you giving on that bet?

And there will be blood.

That would just be stupid ... some stupid yahoos with backhoes perhaps?

.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

In other words - you are saying "shut down the oil sands"

Just say it - .

Never have, never will.

I like my pension!

But we really need to jack up the quality of planning that's driving development of the tar sands.

The 19th century is long gone.

So is the 20th.

We are all stakeholders.

We all have a say, each have a piece of the puzzle of 'best solutions'.

.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[carepov]

I want the oil business to crawl into the 21st century and catch up to the rest of us:

/Triple_bottom_line

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility lies with stakeholdersrather than shareholders. In this case, "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm. According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.

Good jobs, healthy environment and effective use of resources for reasonable profit. Seems quite sensible to me.

/end rant

Nice rant. I get it and I agree. Successful companies get it too. In the long term the interests of all stakeholders converge. The only way to succeed in the long term is to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

From my point of view, energy companies are actually leading the business world, not catching up as you claim. For example:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability.html

http://www.statoil.com/en/environmentsociety/pages/default.aspx

http://www.suncor.com/en/responsible/302.aspx

[TimG]

Nice rant. I get it and I agree. Successful companies get it too. In the long term the interests of all stakeholders converge. The only way to succeed in the long term is to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

What you are missing is the poster that you quoted has absolutely no interest in seeing the business of the companies in question succeed. She would rather see them fail than accept that petroleum products need to be shipped by pipeline or rail to the large population centers.

[carepov]

What you are missing is the poster that you quoted has absolutely no interest in seeing the business of the companies in question succeed. She would rather see them fail than accept that petroleum products need to be shipped by pipeline or rail to the large population centers.

I disagree with your interpretation of jacee's position.

[TimG]

I disagree with your interpretation of jacee's position.

She has not acknowledged that businesses need to get their products to market in order to succeed. When pressed she either comes up with nonsense about plastics (which is a tiny market which can't consume oil sands production even if it was economic) or changes the topic. My interpretation is correct until she comes out and directly says that she understands that for the oil sands to succeed that they must get their product to market and that means petroleum products need to be shipped by pipeline, rail and truck. As long as she refuses to acknowledge that reality then the only reasonable conclusion is she wants oil sands companies to fail. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[PIK]

Do you know what a hybrid is PIK?

Doesn't everybody want to spend less on gas?

They could easily build cars and trucks with great gas mileage if they wanted to. So do they have hybred 4x4's and how much.

[jacee]

What you are missing is the poster that you quoted has absolutely no interest in seeing the business of the companies in question succeed. She would rather see them fail than accept that petroleum products need to be shipped by pipeline or rail to the large population centers.

Horse apples.

[carepov]

She has not acknowledged that businesses need to get their products to market in order to succeed. When pressed she either comes up with nonsense about plastics (which is a tiny market which can't consume oil sands production even if it was economic) or changes the topic. My interpretation is correct until she comes out and directly says that she understands that for the oil sands to succeed that they must get their product to market and that means petroleum products need to be shipped by pipeline, rail and truck. As long as she refuses to acknowledge that reality then the only reasonable conclusion is she wants oil sands companies to fail.

jacee has specifically said that she wants oil sands companies to succeed. Again, I don't agree with your interpretation of her position.

You, and others with similar positions, seem to be saying that people with environmental concerns want to "shut down business" or "ruin the economy". This is as false as others posters saying that you want to "ruin the environment".

I am saying that both sides are being foolish:

-The only way for business to succeed in the long term is to protect the evironment

-The only way to protect the environment is with a strong economy

Edited January 22, 2014 by carepov

[jacee]

They could easily build cars and trucks with great gas mileage if they wanted to.

They have.

They're called hybrids.

Great for town or country.

So do they have hybred 4x4's and how much.

Look it up.

[Boges]

They have.

They're called hybrids.

Great for town or country.

Look it up.

Hybrids aren't affordable to many. The cost-benefit analysis of owning one doesn't make sense.

How about we make cars that run on Natural Gas?

[jacee]

Nice rant. I get it and I agree. Successful companies get it too. In the long term the interests of all stakeholders converge. The only way to succeed in the long term is to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

From my point of view, energy companies are actually leading the business world, not catching up as you claim. For example:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability.html

http://www.statoil.com/en/environmentsociety/pages/default.aspx

http://www.suncor.com/en/responsible/302.aspx

I'll give credit where it's due:

new-group-shows-oil-sands-industry-serious-about-environment/

I have to note the date too though: 2012 ... They're doing it only recently in response to public outcry.

That's good too.

And we need to keep it up, because it's working.

As TimG keeps pointing out, it's piping/shipping/marketing we need to address immediately.

But that discussion has to start with what we're shipping.

I say it should be refined/manufactured products, not dilbit.

.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

jacee has specifically said that she wants oil sands companies to succeed.

Saying that she wants them to succeed and then saying that she wants to prevent the companies from shipping their products is a nonsensical position. She is being dishonest about one of of her statements. I have asked her to simply state that she understands that getting products to market require transport by pipeline and rail but she refuses. Therefore she is not telling the truth when she says that she wants oil sands companies to succeed.

There is simply no other rational conclusion based on her statements.

The only way for business to succeed in the long term is to protect the evironment

Jacee has succeeded is distracting you from the point. I agree that businesses cannot succeed in the long run if they despoil the environment. But this is not relevant to question of getting products to market. A oil sands company could do everything that jacee wants but it would still fail if they can't get their product to market. This is why I am asking her to acknowledge the need for transportation infrastructure. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[carepov]

I'll give credit where it's due:

new-group-shows-oil-sands-industry-serious-about-environment/

I have to note the date too though: 2012 ... They're doing it only recently in response to public outcry.

That's good too.

And we need to keep it up, because it's working.

Agreed, except that it's not only since 2012, many oil companies have been taking positive actions for many years.

As TimG keeps pointing out, it's piping/shipping/marketing we need to address immediately.

But that discussion has to start with what we're shipping.

I say it should be refined/manufactured products, not dilbit.

What is there to discuss?

The market has spoken; generally it is not feasible to set up refining/manufacturing at extraction sites. If it was it would have been done a long time ago. There are many reasons for this such as:

-There are no obvious advantages in terms of safety (you still need to transport the refined products)

-Refineries need economies of scale and a large pool of labour

-Often the by-product of one process is the input to another process

If you disagree with the market then simply develop a business plan and start convincing potential investors to put up the capital...

[carepov]

Saying that she wants them to succeed and then saying that she wants to prevent the companies from shipping their products is a nonsensical position. She is being dishonest about one of of her statements. I have asked her to simply state that she understands that getting products to market require transport by pipeline and rail but she refuses. Therefore she is not telling the truth when she says that she wants oil sands companies to succeed.

There is simply no other rational conclusion based on her statements.

Again, I must disagree. I have heard arguments similar to jacee's before, her sugestion to "add-value locally" as much as possible instead of shipping out raw materials is very common and does have some merit. In my experience she is not being dishonest, it's a lack of understanding of the petro-chemical business realities.

[TimG]

Again, I must disagree. I have heard arguments similar to jacee's before, her sugestion to "add-value locally" as much as possible instead of shipping out raw materials is very common and does have some merit.

Sure - but only if the 'value-add' proposals have some connection to reality and do not require massive subsidies (either directly or via heavily discounted input stock). For example, laws that require resource extractors to sell to Canadian processors first at market rates (i.e. prevent producers from entering into long term contracts with deep pocketed foreign buyers that starve local processors) would be a good thing.

In my experience she is not being dishonest, it's a lack of understanding of the petro-chemical business realities.

Which still means she is not being constructive. Note that this sub-thread started because she accused others of not being constructive when her own positions were clearly obstructionist. Perhaps this can be blamed on her ignorance of the realities of the oil business but these realities have been explained before and she does not listen. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

Accountability Now, on 21 Jan 2014 - 3:05 PM, said:

Sure. Keeping with the native mantra that oil development equals screwing over the environment, then all i have to do is show you places on reserves that have no problems with developing those resources therefore 'screwing over the environment'.

Onion Lake, Sask - http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1377775603370/1377775783343

(They have their own oil company here)

Samson Cree, Alberta - http://www.ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/agreement-signed-between-samson-cree-atco

(Can you believe they let the pipeline go right through their land?)

Of course, we all remember DeBeers up by Attiwapiskat too. You know....lets make an agreement but then go back on the agreement because its not enough money.

Thanks for providing the links. I never knew there was a mantra that oil development is screwing with the environment. The links are a good starter, but where can you show me how these developments, that are agreed upon, are 'screwing up the environment'?

What the tarsands do to the environment and how these developments on the reserves effect the environment are different in many ways.

[jacee]

Hybrids aren't affordable to many. The cost-benefit analysis of owning one doesn't make sense.

How about we make cars that run on Natural Gas?

Seems to be different opinions on hybrids ...

/hybrid-cars-are-a-better-deal-than-you-think

Hybrids do make the most sense for the 80% of Canadians who live and drive in urban areas, and sometimes go out of town. If you do most of your driving in town on electric power, your gas mileage would be far better than the 'average' usually reported.

[jacee]

What the tarsands do to the environment and how these developments on the reserves effect the environment are different in many ways.

Just a clarification:

The projects don't necessarily have to be on reserve land.

Aboriginal and treaty rights apply to the entire traditional territory of each Indigenous Nation at the time of 'contact'.

Edited January 23, 2014 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

You are missing the critical point: dose. Almost everything will cause cancer if administered at high enough quantities so claiming that there are carcinogens is meaningless. Do you have any evidence that the concentration of these carcinogens exceeds limits set by the government?

Do you mean the current government, how would we ever know find out. All the scientists have been sent home!

[On Guard for Thee]

Ever BBQ???

Never

[On Guard for Thee]

Those are lakes and rivers still under federal jurisdiction.

All the rest are under provincial jurisdiction, and the provinces have their own assessment procedures.

You wouldn't want the feds interfering in a consitutional duty, now would you?

You have a valid point there. Let's leave the feds out of it while we can still go for a swim without going to a pool.

[Boges]

Seems to be different opinions on hybrids ...

/hybrid-cars-are-a-better-deal-than-you-think

Hybrids do make the most sense for the 80% of Canadians who live and drive in urban areas, and sometimes go out of town. If you do most of your driving in town on electric power, your gas mileage would be far better than the 'average' usually reported.

Well if you live in an environment like that, then why not just use public transit or buy an E-bike or a Vespa and rent a car when you leave?

BTW that article is stupid. Who keeps a car for 15 years? If it takes 15 years to realize a gas savings, that's not a good investment. Also I've heard that the batteries on these cars last no longer than 7 years. So you'd need to replace the batter twice over that period. ALSO don't the hybrids also plug-in? Where's the increased cost of hydro in that equation?

[jacee]

Sure - but only if the 'value-add' proposals have some connection to reality and do not require massive subsidies (either directly or via heavily discounted input stock). For example, laws that require resource extractors to sell to Canadian processors first at market rates (i.e. prevent producers from entering into long term contracts with deep pocketed foreign buyers that starve local processors) would be a good thing.

Interesting info.

Which still means she is not being constructive. Note that this sub-thread started because she accused others of not being constructive when her own positions were clearly obstructionist. Perhaps this can be blamed on her ignorance of the realities of the oil business .

These are the challenges of consulting with diverse stakeholders, a necessity now.