Energy East Causing Uproar

[Accountability Now]

where did the 2007 date come from? I didn't make it up. The many mainstream media sourced articles referencing 2007 are written by differing journalists from distinctly separate media outlets:

- all those mainstream media articles referencing 2007 are based on something - what?

- all those mainstream media articles associating 2007 to the City of Montreal are based on something - what?

- all those mainstream media articles referencing the Mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, referring to 2007 (and directly quoting Mayor Denis Coderre referring to 2007) are based on something - what?

As I've said before, its possible that Coderre said 2005 in one interview and 2007 in another interview. What is also just as likely is there was some confusion about the 2003-2007 duration that has often been quoted for the Mulclair time....especially since that part of the story was a main focus before the election. Like I have said, there was an obvious error made in that some thought the event was in 2005 and some thought it was 2007. I can understand how and why you would think its 2007 but what I can't for the life of me understand is how or why:

1. You would make the claim that Harper had TWO prior events when CLEARLY the one event was in 2003 and you admit another was in 2005. There is no way there were two events even if one event happened in 2007. Remember...you used the word PRIOR to this recent event so don't even try using that one as a last ditch effort.

2. You still persist on 2007 when the article that YOU quoted has now retracted its statement about the 2007 event and has confirmed it was in 2005. Clearly they did another check...clearly they contacted the City to make absolutely sure because making a mistake once is understandable but a second time is just poor journalism.

If so, only a petulant juvenile would charge the journalists and media outlets as being liars... as being purveyors of lies!

I'm not charging them with lies....I'm charging you with that dishonor. I see that you steered clear away from your go to "where's your quote from Coderre" argument. EPIC FAIL! So tell me....could you not read or were you being dishonest? Those are the only two options.

again! You keep insisting the 2015 wastewater discharge event can't be associated with Harper Conservatives!

Who signed off on it?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Accountability Now

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think that Montreal should be dumping raw sewage but what it has to do with the pipeline is beyond me.

[waldo]

Who signed off on it?

this is the epitome of just how far you will go! The Harper Conservative government fraudulently delayed the original planned Oct 16-25 wastewater discharge, a flat-out election campaign ploy... falsely stating they had never heard of the City of Montreal planned intent... planing that had been undertaken with the full knowledge and/or direct participation with the Harper Conservative Environment department and/or Environment Canada for a full year+ prior to that initial planned event. I provided full details/citation reference that supports this. The window was absolutely short to ensure the discharge had the least impact on the river ecosystem and that it occurred prior to winter. The election result and subsequent formal transfer of government meant there were quite literally days before the window closed... one week after formal government transfer on Nov 4th, the discharge began on Nov 11th.

you can't simply choose to "wish away" or offer unfounded musings on the origination of all those mainstream media article references to 2007 attributed to the City of Montreal and/or the Mayor of Montreal... or the actual direct quote from the Mayor speaking to 2007. It originates from somewhere within the City of Montreal and/or the office of the mayor and/or the Mayor himself. You would presume to suggest otherwise yet are most reluctant to share the particulars of your claimed contact and the contextually relevant nature of discussion... notably, where/how did the 2007 date originate.

as for your continued want to charge "lie", I could care less - use and referenced citation of all those mainstream media sources that referenced 2007 was done correctly and properly. It truly begs the question of just how invested you are that you would go to such extremes to try to prove a point... simply to call someone a liar? On an anonymous discussion board? I do validate your existence here, but really... . Reflecting back it seems I set you off in calling out your actually thread related pronouncement where you had the audacity to suggest the "NEB holds oil companies to the highest standards in building and maintaining the pipelines". You clearly took extreme exception to my introducing that most recent Environment Commissioner's audit report that absolutely showed that piece of your oil-industry shilling/cheer-leading to be false. It seems that set the tone/path for you.

.

[waldo]

I don't think that Montreal should be dumping raw sewage but what it has to do with the pipeline is beyond me.

agreed, of course. It's an uncomforting suggestion to align with the fall-back position taken by the City of Montreal that states "we had no choice... major repairs were an absolute necessity". But yes, absolutely... it was and remains a thread derail/distraction - one I pointed out many times at the beginning of the guy's mission.

.

[Accountability Now]

this is the epitome of just how far you will go! The Harper Conservative government fraudulently delayed the original planned Oct 16-25 wastewater discharge, a flat-out election campaign ploy... falsely stating they had never heard of the City of Montreal planned intent... planing that had been undertaken with the full knowledge and/or direct participation with the Harper Conservative Environment department and/or Environment Canada for a full year+ prior to that initial planned event. I provided full details/citation reference that supports this. The window was absolutely short to ensure the discharge had the least impact on the river ecosystem and that it occurred prior to winter. The election result and subsequent formal transfer of government meant there were quite literally days before the window closed... one week after formal government transfer on Nov 4th, the discharge began on Nov 11th.

you can't simply choose to "wish away" or offer unfounded musings on the origination of all those mainstream media article references to 2007 attributed to the City of Montreal and/or the Mayor of Montreal... or the actual direct quote from the Mayor speaking to 2007. It originates from somewhere within the City of Montreal and/or the office of the mayor and/or the Mayor himself. You would presume to suggest otherwise yet are most reluctant to share the particulars of your claimed contact and the contextually relevant nature of discussion... notably, where/how did the 2007 date originate.

as for your continued want to charge "lie", I could care less - use and referenced citation of all those mainstream media sources that referenced 2007 was done correctly and properly. It truly begs the question of just how invested you are that you would go to such extremes to try to prove a point... simply to call someone a liar? On an anonymous discussion board? I do validate your existence here, but really... . Reflecting back it seems I set you off in calling out your actually thread related pronouncement where you had the audacity to suggest the "NEB holds oil companies to the highest standards in building and maintaining the pipelines". You clearly took extreme exception to my introducing that most recent Environment Commissioner's audit report that absolutely showed that piece of your oil-industry shilling/cheer-leading to be false. It seems that set the tone/path for you.

.

Who signed off?

[Accountability Now]

I don't think that Montreal should be dumping raw sewage but what it has to do with the pipeline is beyond me.

When the Mayor of Montreal raises environmental concerns about the said pipeline but has no problem with the sewage dump then the credibility of said mayor needs to be questioned.

Similar to questioning the credibility of people who erroneously claim previous dumps were under the Harper watch.

[overthere]

I wonder how Denis Coderre would feel if another municipality dumped a few billion liters of fresh nasty upstream from Montreal?

[waldo]

Who signed off?

what government falsely... and fraudulently... denied knowledge of the discharge planing intent/event? What government actively worked with the City of Montreal all through the preceding year+ lead-up to the original planned discharge date? What government played a failed election campaign ploy to delay the original planned discharge date (Oct 16-25) by a mere couple of weeks and force the new date (Nov 11) into the immediate week period after the formal handover of government from the losing Harper Conservatives to the winning Trudeau Liberals?

.

[waldo]

I wonder how Denis Coderre would feel if another municipality dumped a few billion liters of fresh nasty upstream from Montreal?

I expect he would trust proper oversight had occurred to sanction your hypothetical musing... "trust but verify". And in regards to the actual thread topic and the Energy East pipeline, I trust he will recognize the review, outcome and recommendations from properly undertaken oversight regulatory review - something that has yet to complete.

.

[Accountability Now]

what government falsely... and fraudulently... denied knowledge of the discharge planing intent/event? What government actively worked with the City of Montreal all through the preceding year+ lead-up to the original planned discharge date? What government played a failed election campaign ploy to delay the original planned discharge date (Oct 16-25) by a mere couple of weeks and force the new date (Nov 11) into the immediate week period after the formal handover of government from the losing Harper Conservatives to the winning Trudeau Liberals?

.

Who signed off?

[waldo]

... BigOil leaders confident PM Trudeau understands oilpatch challenges after Calgary meetings

Justin Trudeau blames Conservatives for 'politicized' NEB process, won't rush Energy East

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would not commit to green-lighting the divisive Energy East pipeline today and instead slammed his predecessors for interfering in what he said should be a rigorous scientific process.

"One of the challenges we're in right now is that my predecessors have politicized that process. I'm not going to prejudge or shortcut the [National Energy Board] process as it goes forward," he said.

.

[Accountability Now]

Who signed off?

Since I've had no honest replies, I will answer this question myself. Catherine McKenna of the Liberal Party authorized this dump.

While I'm at it I will also answer the other question that nobody will honestly answer. Did two similar prior events occur under Harper. The answer....no...not even close.

Lots of dumping by the Liberals!

[waldo]

further to the EC study/report I spoke to in an earlier post... confirming the following conventional understandings on dilbit:

The major results of the studies were:

- Like conventional crude oil, both diluted bitumen products floated on saltwater (free of sediment), even after evaporation and exposure to light and mixing with water;

- When fine sediments were suspended in the saltwater, high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with the diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as floating tarballs

as pertains to the use/designation of "light versus medium versus heavy" crude oil... the determiner in categorization is the viscosity level of the respective grades. Drag Reducing Agents (DRA's) applied to the inside of pipelies have been in long-standing use to reduce friction and increase pipeline throughput for the varying oil grades. However, it is my understanding this DRA use has not yet been deployed to a commercial scale in regards to raw bitumen (which is more dense, with the highest viscosity as compared to 'conventional' heavy crude oil). I understand there is active research underway to attempt to realize an effective DRA with raw bitumen transport; however, as I understand, this remains under laboratory conditions only. As I'm aware, today, raw bitumen must be liquefied (using condensates) to allow efficient... to allow any... effective pipeline transfer - termed 'dilbit'... diluted bitumen.

as for concerns over dilbit, as for the expressed concerns from Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and the other 81 Mayors of the Montreal Metropolitan Community (MMC)... the recent Enbridge Michigan Kalamazoo River pipeline spill: the condensate within the dilbit that spilled soon evaporated, and the heavy bitumen gradually sank to the riverbed.

.

[ReeferMadness]

I just listened to Cross Country Checkup on CBC - today's segment was on the Energy East pipeline. The more I hear about this debate, the more I realize it has nothing to do with the fate of Alberta workers. After all, Energy East wouldn't be completed for at least another decade even if Trudeau pulled a Harper and decreed it go ahead.

This is about competing views of Canada. In one corner, we see those who view Canada as a nation of resource extractors, 'hewers of wood and drawers of water". in the other are those who want Canada to move beyond that and use resources as a base, a lever on which to build an advanced economy.

[TimG]

This is about competing views of Canada. In one corner, we see those who view Canada as a nation of resource extractors, 'hewers of wood and drawers of water". in the other are those who want Canada to move beyond that and use resources as a base, a lever on which to build an advanced economy.

And there are those sane people who understand that we can do both. It has never been an either or proposition and turning it into an either or proposition is nothing but propaganda for self-centered people looking for excuses to rationalize killing off industries that they don't like and don't directly benefit from. Edited February 8, 2016 by TimG

[overthere]

I expect he would trust proper oversight had occurred to sanction your hypothetical musing... "trust but verify". And in regards to the actual thread topic and the Energy East pipeline, I trust he will recognize the review, outcome and recommendations from properly undertaken oversight regulatory review - something that has yet to complete.

.

No, he wouldn't and won't do any of that in either case. He has already rejected Energy East. Did you miss that?

Oh, and thank you for the belly laugh regarding thread drift.... how many posts have you made already about the Greater Montreal Deuce Dump??

[Argus]

IThis is about competing views of Canada. In one corner, we see those who view Canada as a nation of resource extractors, 'hewers of wood and drawers of water". in the other are those who want Canada to move beyond that and use resources as a base, a lever on which to build an advanced economy.

No, the competing views are the realists and the pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

Needless to say, most of the bills around here get paid by the realists.

[poochy]

No, the competing views are the realists and the pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

Needless to say, most of the bills around here get paid by the realists.

The dreamers serve at our convenience so long as living is relatively easy.

[Accountability Now]

Some recent news on the Energy East topic, in particular to Quebec itself, is a recent poll that came from Montreal:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/15/montreal-prefers-pipelines-and-western-oil-poll-shows

A new poll suggests Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre may not be representing his constituents' views on pipelines after all.

On Jan. 21, Coderre announced that all Montreal-area municipalities were opposed to the construction of the Energy East pipeline, which would travel through Quebec. But a new poll out from Leger shows respondents prefer pipelines over all the other options, and they prefer their oil comes from Western Canada, too.

The online poll of over 1,000 respondents taken in early February and commissioned by the Montreal Economic Institute asks where Quebecers think the best place is from which to import their oil.

Western Canada is by far the top choice at 59%, followed by Mexico at 5%, Saudi Arabia at 3% and Algeria at 2%. The remaining respondents chose "other," "don't know" or refused to answer.

The poll is only 1,000 people so I'm not sure that qualifies as resounding support but if the numbers are true then 59% would be a no brainer on this project.

Apparently this poll also suggests what many have already noted, that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil:

Respondents were also asked "which of the following means is the safest to transport oil?" The top choice was by pipeline, which 41% of respondents selected. "Tank truck" garnered 14%, with "tank ship" at 10% and rail at 9%. The rest either refused to answer or didn't know.

[ReeferMadness]

The debate over the Energy East pipeline has featured a relative handful of public figures who have been brave enough to challenge the financial interests who stand to make vast fortunes by piping highly explosive light bakken crude (this is what exploded in lac Megantic) and incredibly messy dilbit from Alberta's tar sands.

Since the disaster of the Kalamazoo River oil spill in 2010 established that you can spend years and a billion dollars without completely cleaning up the mess, it's worthwhile asking about TransCanada's commitment to pipeline safety. Spoiler Alert: the answer isn't good. Even the lapdog National Energy Board skewered Trans Canada in a 2014 audit, finding it non-compliant in 4 of 9 areas,

• Hazard identification, risk assessment and control.
• Operational control in upset or abnormal operating condition.
• Inspection, measurement and monitoring.
• Management review.

And Evan Vokes, a former engineer with Trans Canada (since turned whistle blower) has questioned the safety of transforming a 40 year old gas pipeline to an oil pipeline and the culture of TransCanada when it comes to pipeline safety. Specifically, he accuses the company of putting profits before safety.

Is it prudent to trust this company to a venture which could pollute a Canadian river system for years to come? And what of the threat of it threatening Canada's second largest city?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Charles Anthony
thread merged; "Can Trans Canada be Trusted on Energy East?"

[Accountability Now]

Even the lapdog National Energy Board skewered Trans Canada in a 2014 audit, finding it non-compliant in 4 of 9 areas,

Try reading the first two paragraphs of the article. That might help you sleep at night.

A National Energy Board audit has found room for improvement when it comes to TransCanada's pipeline safety practices.

Although the federal energy watchdog is "of the view that the processes presently used by TransCanada have identified the majority, and most significant, of its hazards and risks," it says the company is still breaking the rules in some areas.

Also might want to look at this one:

In a news release, the NEB said a finding of non-compliance does not necessarily mean there's an immediate safety hazard.

[Smallc]

By that reading, it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an immediate safety risk, either.

[Accountability Now]

By that reading, it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an immediate safety risk, either.

Read the first part....TransCanada has identified the majority and most significant of its hazards and risks.

[ReeferMadness]

Some recent news on the Energy East topic, in particular to Quebec itself, is a recent poll that came from Montreal:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/15/montreal-prefers-pipelines-and-western-oil-poll-shows

The poll is only 1,000 people so I'm not sure that qualifies as resounding support but if the numbers are true then 59% would be a no brainer on this project.

Apparently this poll also suggests what many have already noted, that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil:

:rolleyes:

Really? The Montreal equivalent of the Fraser Institute commissions a poll to get exactly the answer it wants and you think that proves something?

I notice a few things are lacking in this poll. Like:

- Would you prefer clean renewable energy to energy derived from biotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, dangerous sources that foul the air and water?

- Would you support a project that will serve to increase tar sands production and increase the chances of dangerous climate change?

- Are you OK with a company piping sludge that couldn't be cleaned up even after dredging the Kalamazoo River over the source of your drinking water?

Or how about even:

- Do you support the construction of the Energy East pipeline?

Take your self serving propaganda elsewhere.

[Smallc]

Read the first part....TransCanada has identified the majority and most significant of its hazards and risks.

I was speaking of the last line only.