Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[PIK]

...

Edited January 21, 2014 by PIK

[Accountability Now]

But then on Sunday, he said he was fine with all of it — he could actually support the expansion of the oilsands — if “the First Nations treaties (are) honoured.”

This is the part that drives me crazy. Natives claim they are the wards of the environment which is why they stand up to these oil companies and block roads. In the end, its all about money. The only green they care about is the money.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is the part that drives me crazy. Natives claim they are the wards of the environment which is why they stand up to these oil companies and block roads. In the end, its all about money. The only green they care about is the money.

Pretty much...no matter what the game may be around here or how loud they whine, it is always about the money in the end.

[overthere]

"near Young’s massive 1,500-acre estate"

1500 acres is not massive, I doubt you could make a living farming anything on that, not taday (weed, poppies and intensive chicken operations excepted)

"neil mention his 300 acre ranch "

That would be the worlds smallest ranch........

[overthere]

We used to have, according to environment Canada, at least 31, 752 lakes in Canada. Now, under bill c-45 we have 97 lakes and 62 rivers. Fish habitat has been taken out of the equation and guess who helped out come up with these new numbers? Apparently pipeline companys had a bit to do with it. And here's a funny correlation. All those rivers and lakes happen to be in conservative ridings.

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?

[overthere]

This is the part that drives me crazy. Natives claim they are the wards of the environment which is why they stand up to these oil companies and block roads. In the end, its all about money. The only green they care about is the money.

First Nations claim they are the wards of the environment on their land, often land ceded to them by treaty with the federal government.

Resource ownership and extraction in Canada is largely a provincial responsibility under the constitution. Bands are trying to enforce their treaty rights, but the whole legal framework of ownership, control and yes, money is a quagmire. The bands are often impoverished and have no resources to fight eoither government, so they blockade roads to stop the only element in the whole fandango that they can see and recognize: oil companies.

There will be blood.

[TimG]

There is quite a lot of evidence that carcinogens are a danger.

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?

[PIK]

There is quite a lot of evidence that carcinogens are a danger. They cause cancer, which is why they are called carcinogens. Do you think that the reduction in car exhaust levels would have been reduced as much as they have been if it would have been left to ,say, Exxon Mobil or the Ford Motor company? They would have probably said "not economically viable at this time"

Ever BBQ???

[Accountability Now]

First Nations claim they are the wards of the environment on their land, often land ceded to them by treaty with the federal government.

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.

[Hudson Jones]

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.

[jacee]

You think everyone lives in a city and can afford the hydro. You need to get out more and see how the rural fold live. Do the have electric 4x4's???

Do you know what a hybrid is PIK?

Doesn't everybody want to spend less on gas?

[jacee]

Not really. Rejecting the only two means of getting products to market and then claiming you're open to constructive discussion is disingenuous.

I'm open to discussion on keeping the oil here, employing people here in refining, manufacturing and shipping goods ... not oil.

Just too dangerous, and too little value for Canadians.

[jacee]

First Nations claim they are the wards of the environment on their land, often land ceded to them by treaty with the federal government.

You have it backwards.

The treaties allow us to live on their land ... to a plough's depth.

Resource ownership and extraction in Canada is largely a provincial responsibility under the constitution. Bands are trying to enforce their treaty rights, but the whole legal framework of ownership, control and yes, money is a quagmire. The bands are often impoverished and have no resources to fight eoither government, so they blockade roads to stop the only element in the whole fandango that they can see and recognize: oil companies.

There will be blood.

It seems the oil companies have figured out that they can't go ahead legally until they have an agreement with First Nations. Now that the province and the oil/pipeline companies know the proper way to do business, that should reduce their need for "blood".

[Keepitsimple]

I'm open to discussion on keeping the oil here, employing people here in refining, manufacturing and shipping goods ... not oil.

Just too dangerous, and too little value for Canadians.

It's been stated before. Refining the oil here means that we create products like gasoline, kerosene, motor oil, fuel oil, and others - all of which have to be shipped by truck or rail to their markets. Some of these products are more dangerous than oil itself - and certainly create more dangerous scenarios than shipping oil through a pipeline. Is that what you are advocating?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[jacee]

It's been stated before. Refining the oil here means that we create products like gasoline, kerosene, motor oil, fuel oil, and others - all of which have to be shipped by truck or rail to their markets. Some of these products are more dangerous than oil itself - and certainly create more dangerous scenarios than shipping oil through a pipeline. Is that what you are advocating?

I'm advocating focuusing on plastics that provide more employment and can be shipped safely.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/tar_sands_pipeline_safety_risk.html

Since then, information has continued to pile up confirming many of the concerns raised by NRDC information showing

that pipelines moving tar sands are more likely to leak,

that leak detection systems are unlikely to detect tar sands spills when they happen,

that tar sands spills are significantly more damaging than conventional spills,

and that conventional spills response measures are inadequate for containing and cleaning tar sands spills.

[TimG]

I'm advocating focuusing on plastics that provide more employment and can be shipped safely.

The oil sands will produce up to 1000 million a barrels per year of heavy crude yet the entire plastics production in the US only requires 200 million barrels per year of *light* crude. See

In 20101, about 191 million barrels of LPG and NGL were used in the United States to make plastic products in the plastic materials and resins industry, equal to about 2.7% of total U.S. petroleum consumption. Of those 191 million barrels, 190 million barrels were used as feedstock and 1 million barrels were consumed as fuel.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6

If the oil sands is to be developed the output needs to be largely converted to diesel fuel. Your musings about plastics are just another attempt to rationalize your obstructionism. You should just admit that you just want to shut the oil sands down because you are not offering any remotely plausible alternatives to shipping liquid petroleum products.

Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

The oil sands will produce up to 1000 million a barrels per year of heavy crude yet the entire plastics production in the the US only requires 200 million barrels per year of *light* crude. See

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6

If the oil sands is to be developed the output needs to be largely converted to diesel fuel. Your musings about plastics are just another attempt to rationalize your obstructionism. You should just admit that you just want to shut the oil sands down because you are not offering any remotely plausible alternatives to shipping liquid petroleum products.

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.

We are all 'stakeholders' and have every right to speak out, protest, boycott, blockade if necessary. That's the 21st century business environment. Get used to it.

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

My pension company had a discussion, due to protest by members, about divesting from tar sands investments. The company resisted because tar sands stocks provide by far the best profits, best returns to allow them to meet their payout obligations to members. They came up with a compromise - some divestment now, more in the future, and pressuring the oil and ancilliary industries to clean up their act and do their business plans using the triple bottom line model.

All good.

But the question I have is this:

Why do oil-related industries think they deserve to destroy the environment that sustains us all, and provide minimal and nasty jobs to gain profits so massively greater than other industries?

Ridiculous.

Who made them so 'entitled'?

They can learn to operate in a socially and environmentally responsible manner for reasonable profits, like everybody else!

I have another beef about their profits too:

subsidies by taxpayers

Why can a startup oil company get $250m in free money out of our pockets, and then post and distribute $250m in profits to their shareholders in their first year of operation?!?!,

(Sorry, no longer have the links to government and company budget docs, but I did and it happened ... after Harper became PM. Gee ... were those 'shareholders' Harper political contributers perhaps?!!?)

And another issue about subsidies is this:

how-big-is-canadas-oil-subsidy-to-the-US

The rest of the oil sands industry may need to take a page from Suncors playbook. Before rushing ahead to double oil sands production to 3 million barrels a dayand sending billions more in de facto energy subsidies to U.S. refinersinvestors and the Canadian economy may be better off if producers figure out how to capture more value from what they're already digging out of the ground.

BOTTOM LINE:

The tar sands companies still have

A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM

to operate more responsibly,

and we - stakeholders ... and shareholders - INSIST that they do so ... NOW!

And obviously, as an investor through my pension fund, I AM willing to put my money where my mouth is!

/end rant

Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

The tar sands companies still have A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM to operate more responsibly, and we - stakeholders ... and shareholders - INSIST that they do so ... NOW!

Yawn. You did not address my point: oil sands operators need to get the product to market if they can't get their product to market there will be no revenue for governments to benefit from. No stocks for pensions to invest in. Nothing in your rant address that issue.

Your response is a tactic admission that, despite your claims otherwise, you really just want to shut the oil sands down and forego all of the benefits that come from extracting them. You are entitled to your opinion but in this case your opinion offers nothing helpful.

[jacee]

Yawn. You did not address my point: oil sands operators need to get the product to market if they can't get their product to market there will be no revenue for governments to benefit from. No stocks for pensions to invest in. Nothing in your rant address that issue.

I gave them the framework for business planning.

Are you saying oil related industries are not capable of coming up with responsible triple-bottom-line business plans on their own?

I guess I have more faith in them than you do.

And I doubt you're in a position to speak for them, TimG. Their manner of addressing stakeholder concerns has done a 180 in recent years, and you are not 'on trend'.

Your response is a tactic admission

I believe you mean 'tacit'

that, despite your claims otherwise, you really just want to shut the oil sands down and forego all of the benefits that come from extracting them.

I guess you missed the part about my pension/investment.

You are entitled to your opinion but in this case your opinion offers nothing helpful.

Whose opinion offers more food for thought for oil companies? Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

I gave them the framework for planning.

They don't need a "framework for planning". They need to get product to market. They can't get product to market if they can't build pipelines or ship by rail.

Please explain what you are willing to support that will allow them to get product to market. Lectures about running businesses which you know nothing about are not relevant.

Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

They don't need a "framework for planning". They need to get product to market. They can't get product to market if they can't build pipelines or ship by rail.

Please explain what you are willing to support that will allow them to get product to market. Lectures about running businesses which you know nothing about are not relevant.

What products?

What markets?

They need to restart their planning process because the archaic business plan you're flogging is a non-starter.

But I realize you're not the one who can do that, TimG.

Leave it to the big boys.

They're getting the message even if you're not.

.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jacee

[overthere]

"Do you know what a hybrid is PIK?"

A hydrid is a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine with assist from electric motors that are powered by energy that also comes from the internal combustion engine. Hydrocarbons are the only fuel used.

[overthere]

You have it backwards.

The treaties allow us to live on their land ... to a plough's depth.

It seems the oil companies have figured out that they can't go ahead legally until they have an agreement with First Nations. Now that the province and the oil/pipeline companies know the proper way to do business, that should reduce their need for "blood".

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.

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 oil will come out of the ground.

It will get to overseas markets.

And there will be blood.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a clusterf%$#!

The oil will come out of the ground.

It will get to overseas markets.

Getting it out of the ground is not the main obstacle...getting it to markets overseas is the main problem. Alberta's (not Canada's) bitumen mostly pools in the American Midwest, and even with Keystone XL, the slim margins on discounted "heavy crude" needs at least $65 - $70 dollar oil to break even.

[Keepitsimple]

What products?

What markets?

They need to restart their planning process because the archaic business plan you're flogging is a non-starter.

But I realize you're not the one who can do that, TimG.

Leave it to the big boys.

They're getting the message even if you're not.

.

Oil.

The US. Malaysia, India. China. The EU.

And you're saying that's a non-starter.

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

Just say it - instead of spouting off meaningless babblespeak.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple