Energy East Causing Uproar

[ReeferMadness]

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

Identified - not rectified.

If you take the time to see what the whistle blower (a materials engineer who had accountability for QA) said, you'll see that Trans Canada has a track record of putting profits ahead of safety.

[poochy]

Identified - not rectified.

If you take the time to see what the whistle blower (a materials engineer who had accountability for QA) said, you'll see that Trans Canada has a track record of putting profits ahead of safety.

O look a business that wants to make money! If they were to follow your demands that would be impossible, which means they wouldn't build it....wait a minute!

[Accountability Now]

: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?

Yup...break out the ad hominem when you have no other way to go. The simple fact is the respondents had the ability to say "Don't know" or refuse to answer. Even with those two options, the resounding option was import Western Oil or exploit their own oil resources.

Of course, if you are that distraught, perhaps you can contact Leger who did the poll and ask them about the uncertainty.

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?

You're right...those things are missing because Leger is a professional company that wouldn't take part in deliberate, biased and clearly ignorant poll questions. Having said that, feel free to contact 1,000 people from Quebec and ask them what they think.

Do you support the construction of the Energy East pipeline?

I'm sure that most people in Quebec either don't really know or care much about it. However, even the largest opponent of this pipeline (Mr. Coderre) even seems to be coming around:

After emerging from a later meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Coderre indicated he could be persuaded to support Energy East depending on the conditions.

I guess it can't be as horrendous as you make it out if ol' Coderre can be persuaded. Cha-ching!

Take your self serving propaganda elsewhere.

This is the largest pot in the history of pots calling the kettle black.

[Accountability Now]

I was speaking of the last line only.

The first line gives context to the last line however if you prefer to read things out of context then be my guest.

[Accountability Now]

Identified - not rectified.

If you take the time to see what the whistle blower (a materials engineer who had accountability for QA) said, you'll see that Trans Canada has a track record of putting profits ahead of safety.

You really could save yourself some embarrassment if you actually followed up on your 2014 article. Here:

TransCanada whistleblower's concerns resolved, says NEB

Investigation finds some allegations could not be verified, others rectified by TransCanada

The federal regulator said Friday that six of the 16 allegations against the company were partially substantiated, but that TransCanada had taken the appropriate steps to fix the problems. The remaining 10 allegations could not be verified.

The environment and public safety were not at risk and no enforcement action was required, the NEB added. It said the matter is now closed.

[Smallc]

The first line gives context to the last line however if you prefer to read things out of context then be my guest.

The last line says doesn't necessarily. It doesn't really inspire confidence, as it just as easily means, may.

[ReeferMadness]

O look a business that wants to make money! If they were to follow your demands that would be impossible, which means they wouldn't build it....wait a minute!

And you seem to think that they have the right to demand that other parts of Canada subsidize them by risking their drinking water, local economy and health and welfare for their profits. Funny how you guys are so against subsidies except when it comes to the oil industry. Then, they don't have to pay for anything.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

Oh. The realists who insist the rest of the world should subsidize their mindless addictions to fossil fuels?

[ReeferMadness]

Of course, if you are that distraught, perhaps you can contact Leger who did the poll and ask them about the uncertainty.

You're right...those things are missing because Leger is a professional company that wouldn't take part in deliberate, biased and clearly ignorant poll questions. Having said that, feel free to contact 1,000 people from Quebec and ask them what they think.

Seems like you're not too happy I called out your ridiculously poor excuse for a poll. And we'll never know what Leger did or didn't ask because the propaganda rag that printed the story didn't link to the full poll.

But based on the questions asked, it appears to have been designed to provide cover for Trans Canada.

And we can't know who really paid for it because the Montreal Institute doesn't reveal its funding sources. It's pretty transparent though. It doesn't take much intelligence to see what's going on here.

[Accountability Now]

The last line says doesn't necessarily. It doesn't really inspire confidence, as it just as easily means, may.

From just a logical point, they wouldn't say it unless they are leaning that way, however from a point of semantics you are correct.

With that said, the most recent article I posted above should remove all concerns you may have. Specifically, this:

The environment and public safety were not at risk and no enforcement action was required, the NEB added. It said the matter is now closed.

[Accountability Now]

Seems like you're not too happy I called out your ridiculously poor excuse for a poll.

Its not my poll. It was done by Leger....do you know who they are?

And we'll never know what Leger did or didn't ask because the propaganda rag that printed the story didn't link to the full poll.

Oh facepalm. Do I seriously need to hold your hand through this whole process. The poll was commissioned by the Montreal Economic Institute....did you possibly think to look there? Here....since you seem to have troubles with this.

http://www.iedm.org/files/sondage0216_en.pdf

It doesn't take much intelligence to see what's going on here.

Exactly....it doesn't take much to see that a majority of Quebec wants Western Oil.

[ReeferMadness]

Its not my poll. It was done by Leger....do you know who they are?

They're a polling firm that apparently can recognize which side of the bread is buttered.

The poll was commissioned by the Montreal Economic Institute....did you possibly think to look there? Here....since you seem to have troubles with this.

http://www.iedm.org/files/sondage0216_en.pdf

Yes, the Montreal Institute which won't list its donors (and so there's no way of telling who really paid for this useless poll). It's safe to assume it was paid for by the industry, probably Trans Canada, since it was clearly designed to produce a result that they wanted.

Exactly....it doesn't take much to see that a majority of Quebec wants Western Oil.

What it actually says is that a majority of Quebeccers prefer western oil to oil somewhere else. But it says nothing about whether a majority of Quebeccers might prefer clean, safe energy to dirty, dangerous, environmental destructive energy. In fact, if it pointed out how dirty your sludge was, it might even have revealed a different result on western oil vs say, Saudi oil. And, strangely enough, it asked nothing about the Energy East pipeline.

Maybe not so strange once you figure out who bought the poll and why.

[ReeferMadness]

TransCanada whistleblower's concerns resolved, says NEB

Investigation finds some allegations could not be verified, others rectified by TransCanada

Toothless lapdog agency hand-picked by oil cheerleading PM sweeps expert whistle blowers concerns under the carpet.

Headline news.

[Accountability Now]

What it actually says is that a majority of Quebeccers prefer western oil to oil somewhere else.

Because that is all that really needs to be determined. Your extreme fringe belief that we can live in a world without oil is just that....fringe. The vast majority of people understand that we live in a world of oil and therefore the only rational and reasonable question to ask is where do we get the oil from. A resounding number of people in this poll stated Western Canada.

If you want to continue your ad hominen attacks on the legitimacy of the Montreal Economic Institute or on Leger then I suggest you take them elsewhere as you're wasting your time spewing your ignorance on me.

Toothless lapdog agency hand-picked by oil cheerleading PM sweeps expert whistle blowers concerns under the carpet.

Whaaaaaat? Just a few posts back you used the NEB audit showing 4 out 9 to be your game changer.....your shining point. Now they are toothless? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That is priceless. You question the credibility of Leger and MEI but yet can't get your own sources straight. I question YOUR credibility.

I really don't think debating is for you. I mean most people back their points up with facts that help their cause. You just continually refute your own points with every sentence you speak.

Again, I can't waste my time participating in your tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

[ReeferMadness]

Because that is all that really needs to be determined. Your extreme fringe belief that we can live in a world without oil is just that....fringe. The vast majority of people understand that we live in a world of oil and therefore the only rational and reasonable question to ask is where do we get the oil from. A resounding number of people in this poll stated Western Canada.

Meh. What's fringe? Everything was fringe before it became mainstream. You go ahead and live in the past while the rest of the world embraces clean energy.

Whaaaaaat? Just a few posts back you used the NEB audit showing 4 out 9 to be your game changer.....your shining point. Now they are toothless? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That is priceless. You question the credibility of Leger and MEI but yet can't get your own sources straight. I question YOUR credibility.

The fact that even Harper appointed lackeys flunked them so badly shows what a poor culture they have. That they swept the expert whistle blower's concerns under the rug during an election time period changes nothing.

Your response seems a little over the top. I think that, like most Albertans, you're afraid that I'm right. You're afraid that the price of dirty energy isn't going to come back to what it was. You're afraid that the world will move on and all that lovely biotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, flammable sludge will have to stay in the ground.

Again, I can't waste my time participating in your tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

I'm sure you're very busy praying that the price of biotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, flammable sludge will rise again soon!

[Accountability Now]

The fact that even Harper appointed lackeys flunked them so badly shows what a poor culture they have. That they swept the expert whistle blower's concerns under the rug during an election time period changes nothing.

This is your opinion and have nothing to back it up other than other opinions from similar fringe places like Rabble. Again, the NEB fully investigated the whistle blower's concerns and found nothing. Too bad for the ol' whiste blower I guess because much like your debating tactics, his argument lacked a little thing called 'substance'.

Your response seems a little over the top. I think that, like most Albertans, you're afraid that I'm right. You're afraid that the price of dirty energy isn't going to come back to what it was. You're afraid that the world will move on and all that lovely biotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, flammable sludge will have to stay in the ground.

Afraid you're right? No...I'm afraid that rabid, fringe extremists like yourself actually get in the way of proper decision making. A decision that not only affects proper decisions about technology/advancements but also affects our economy. At any point that you want to bring a rational discussion into the picture then I'm game, however so far all I have heard you talk about is YOUR fears about Alberta crude. You came close to a reasonable argument by saying that Alberta should refine it here however you opted instead for conspiracy theories and tin foil hat assessments.

I'm sure you're very busy praying that the price of biotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, flammable sludge will rise again soon!

If you have followed any of my past posts you would realize that my personal stake in this game benefits if oil does stay low. I own a company that incurs 'oil field' costs even though I do little to no work in Alberta nor do I do any work in the oil field. As such it would help me personally if wages, materials and overall costs decreased.

Having said that, I am not a selfish, inconsiderate person. I fully realize that the economy of Alberta AND the economy of Canada greatly depends on oil and therefore I do want it to get to a sustainable level once again.

Again, you sit in BC where you like to sit on your pedestal and proclaim this is how its done. Having said that, anything outside of the Southwest BC is hurting as much as Alberta largely due to real estate.

In the north, central and east of the province, there have been reports for a few years of layoffs in the mining industry, natural gas is down, and forestry has been stable at best, he said. "It's not going gangbusters right now."

The disparity is showing up in Employment Insurance data. In November, calculated using a three-month average, the number of EI beneficiaries in the Lower Mainland was down 5.9 per cent from a year earlier, Yu wrote in a February briefing.

But over the same time, the number of people receiving EI benefits grew by 20 per cent in each of the Northeast, Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay regions, he found. In the Cariboo, the number was up by 17 per cent.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/03/01/BC-Not-So-Sunny-Economy/

[Argus]

Oh. The realists who insist the rest of the world should subsidize their mindless addictions to fossil fuels?

The fossil fuels which pay for the welfare and health care the dreamers don't because they don't pay much, if any tax.

[ReeferMadness]

The fossil fuels which pay for the welfare and health care the dreamers don't because they don't pay much, if any tax.

You want to talk about welfare? The biggest welfare recipients in this country are the fossil fuel companies. They pay a pittance for the resource, pollute the land, air and water, skew the economy, drive the dollar up artificially and compromise the climate and environment for future generations. Everyone knows that when we burn fossil fuels, we're mortgaging the future and yet, there is this relentless mindless drumbeat of nonsense.

Walk away. Think independently. You can do it.

[ReeferMadness]

People hold onto fossil fuels like junkies to heroin. Get help.

[ReeferMadness]

Meanwhile, scientists are urging Prime Minister Trudeau to invest in clean energy, not dirty pipelines.

"We're trying to bring our best perspective as to what's going on in the global oil market and what are the good investments for Canada," said James Byrne, a climatologist at the University of Lethbridge.

He's one of 28 signatories to a letter from members of Sustainable Canada Dialogues, made up of 60 academics across the country representing disciplines from social science to engineering. The letter argues that oil prices have permanently changed, depressed by high Saudi production and threatened by shifts away from gas-powered vehicles.

The high tech industry agrees

They argue Canada has been the world's third greatest loser of market share in the industry since 2008, falling from 14th to 19th. Other studies have found Canadian investment in renewables dropped by half last year as other countries register double-digit increases.

"The world will produce and consume more than $1 trillion of cleantech solutions," the letter says. "The only question is whether Canada will be a buyer or a seller."

[bush_cheney2004]

People hold onto fossil fuels like junkies to heroin. Get help.

There must be a lot of heroin in British Columbia:

B.C.                 2011   2012    2013     2014    2015 
New motor vehicles 160,582 176,319 184,838 197,903 211,517

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade36j-eng.htm

Edited March 2, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Accountability Now]

There must be a lot of heroin in British Columbia:

Not just the new cars but the excitement over the LNG industry that apparently is 'different' from what those guys in 'Berta do. I thought this article was really interesting as it puts recent events as well as recent conversations about economic diversity into perspective.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2016/2/10/BC-blasts-Alberta-but-may-regret-LNG-bet-.aspx

“Over the decades, Alberta lost its focus,” the speech declares in its most direct swipe. “They expected their resource boom never to end, failed to diversify the economy and lost control of government spending.”

The unprompted criticism was every bit as unnecessary (relations between Canada’s two westernmost provinces have rarely been better) as it was inaccurate, at least on the diversification side. Energy accounted for roughly 25.5 percent of Alberta’s gross domestic product in 2014; a substantial chunk to be sure, but down significantly from the 36.1 percent of Alberta GDP that the energy sector commanded in 1985.

Earlier this month, the Alberta government unveiled a $500-million program to kick-start a petrochemical industry in the province to further accelerate that diversification. The province did not respond to BNN’s request for a reaction to the B.C. throne speech.

There were points that I made earlier in this thread but I'm just glad to them repeated here.

Of course the interesting part is how the 'holier than thou' people in BC have no problem slamming Alberta for its oil/gas industry yet they are making the same bets on their LNG.

As BNN has extensively reported, the implications of the oil sands no longer being able to create nearly 100,000 new jobs over the next decade are immense. However, B.C. is continuing to make a similar bet on liquefied natural gas exports as the bet Alberta just lost on oil sands growth.

While acknowledging “new challenges” facing the nascent sector, specifically that “low global prices” will have an impact on “initial timelines,” the B.C. throne speech steadfastly maintains “success is not for quitters” and the province “must begin to export” as “demand for LNG will increase, and with it, the price.”

Analysts almost unanimously disagree, with aggressive global competition and the collapsed price premium between North American and Asian LNG making any significant development in B.C. at best, unlikely. Yet the province continues to boast of 100,000 new jobs and $100-billion in government revenue expected from LNG over three decades.

[Topaz]

One can't blame Quebec's views on TransCanada , Quebec doesn't have pipelines to start with and the province has too many areas of lakes and rivers and cities, so just forget about a pipeline in Quebec and find another way to take it from Ontario to location it needs to go.

[Accountability Now]

Quebec doesn't have pipelines to start with

How about the ol' Portland Montreal pipeline that pumps oil right under the St. Lawrence river?

http://www.pmpl.com/

Or how about Line 9 and its soon reversal

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/ln9brvrsl/index-eng.html

[Topaz]

How about the ol' Portland Montreal pipeline that pumps oil right under the St. Lawrence river?

http://www.pmpl.com/

Or how about Line 9 and its soon reversal

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/ln9brvrsl/index-eng.html

The premier said there would have to be all NEW pipeline, so how can one debate him?