Energy East Causing Uproar

[waldo]

Hey...if you want to make said claims then go for it. Don't state that I made such claims and purport them in your standard deflection ways. That would be dishonest waldo....you're not dishonest...are you?

what claims did I make?... what claims did I state you made?

[ReeferMadness]

There can be no consensus on pipeline construction. It is impossible. Completely impossible.

Here you go. Once you understand the word, then maybe you can participate in a discussion about it.

But the building of this economic infrastructure means much more to the economic health of this country than everybody holding hands in fellowship and harmony. It is one of the things, and a crucial element, of paying for the social contract of which you are so very fervently fond. I get that you don't understand that. But does Trudeau? Is his deep need to be loved by all greater than his ability to objectively assess the situation and base decisions on facts rather than sunny ways?

If digging toxic sludge out of Northern Alberta is crucial to Canada, then we're screwed. Because it won't continue forever. The world is moving on. It might be 5 years, 10 years, 50 years or 100. But it will stop. What then?

[waldo]

No, it only takes thew response, not the quoted bit. It is a serious shortcoming, not the case on other forums.

But if you object to the form or content, snitch to your hearts content. It is your habit, after all.

I don't recall ever reporting on any of your posts. Again, your practice in purposely removing a member's name from a quote is counter-productive to meaningful discussion... again, aside from not allowing anyone to readily know the member name you're replying to, aside from not allowing anyone to readily check on the complete post you're replying to, say for context... it doesn't provide a notification alert to the member you're replying to. Point in fact is it gives you the latitude to reply to something without affording the member you're replying to a direct notification that they have been quoted. One can only wonder why you would so choose to limit opportunity for discussion in this regard; in regard to these 3 related implications of your purposeful removing of a member's name from a quote following your quotation practice:

- no immediate/direct understanding of who you're replying to

- no opportunity to check on the complete posted content of what you're replying to (say for context purposes)

- no opportunity to have a quote notification sent directly to the member you presume to reply to

[ReeferMadness]

Why would I do research a scientific topic when I clearly posted this in Provincial politics. With that said, I don't need to research the items as I

The definition of toxic sludge is hardly a scientific issue. Use dictionary.com. It's not that hard.

Vitamins can be toxic....http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vitamin+Toxicity

Good point. I'll take vitamins - you drink dilbit.

Gasoline is toxic....but you use that every day.....don't you.

No, I don't. I do drive but not a lot. And if gasoline and other fossil fuels were taxed to reflect the level of damage they do, it would spur the development of electric vehicles to the point where they'd be affordable.

Municipal sludge is toxic but when treated properly and applied under the right conditions will go right on farmers fields.

Hell...even water is toxic at high levels.

Seems like I've hit a nerve here. I'll give you time to vent.

The fact of the matter is that everything is determined in a risk/benefit analysis and the reality is that until we stop using oil we need to have ways to move the oil and pipelines are the safest way of moving this product.

I'll dismiss the false choice you've offered and focus on analysis. Go look at the scientific analysis on the long terms costs of our addiction to fossil fuels. There's plenty of it out there.

In fact, one of the main reasons for the catastrophe in Kalamazoo is that they never dealt with it before and didn't respond accordingly.

Ohhhhh.... They did the analysis on the cheapest way to ship the sludge but nobody bothered to do the analysis on what would happen when it spilled. Convenient, that. It's the new way of doing business. Don't bother to look at the risks and then when the worst happens look surprised and say we've never dealt with that before.

[overthere]

Once you understand the word, then maybe you can participate in a discussion about it.

The word means 'general agreement'. That will be utterly impossible with any of these pipelines or any pipelines.

One camp is either completely opposed to all pipelines, or wants terms that make them wholly untenable.

Others think that in the real world, it is possible to build them with a reasonable lebveel of safety, and that their benefits outweigh mitigated risks.

Trudeau has two choices, which appear to be three choices. In the end, you can only dick around so long before it becomes even more embarrassing that it already is for him. It is not going to just go away, unless.......

They are what I described: approve, reject or delay. He will almost certainly choose delay, which is the same as rejection ultimately. He would love to turn this onto another Mackenzie Valley pipeline fiasco, with a 15 year review. Of course, the money will again be long long gone by then. Capital never rests.

It is hard to imagine our country being a better, more prosperous or fairer place by being systematically impoverished for the sake of some amateur social engineering.

Edited January 23, 2016 by overthere

[waldo]

It is hard to imagine our country being a better, more prosperous or fairer place by being systematically impoverished for the sake of some amateur social engineering.

versus the prior 10 years? By the by, given your overt targeted criticism, why didn't Harper git-R-done with those pipelines?

.

[ReeferMadness]

You're really fond of unattributed quotations. Are you afraid to debate people who might run circles around you?

The word means 'general agreement'. That will be utterly impossible with any of these pipelines or any pipelines.

One camp is either completely opposed to all pipelines, or wants terms that make them wholly untenable.

Others think that in the real world, it is possible to build them with a reasonable lebveel of safety, and that their benefits outweigh mitigated risks.

General agreement, not total agreement. There are plenty of people in the middle who can be swayed. Right wingers have become used to 9 years of "my way or the highway" Harper who, by the way, accomplished absolutely nothing in the way of pipeline building. .

Trudeau has two choices, which appear to be three choices. In the end, you can only dick around so long before it becomes even more embarrassing that it already is for him. It is not going to just go away, unless.......

They are what I described: approve, reject or delay. He will almost certainly choose delay, which is the same as rejection ultimately. He would love to turn this onto another Mackenzie Valley pipeline fiasco, with a 15 year review. Of course, the money will again be long long gone by then. Capital never rests.

You need to start dealing with reality. And the reality is that people aren't going to sit by and accept the risk of huge toxic spills for no benefit. That includes the First Nations.

Most of the profit from these deals is disappearing into the fingers of foreign investors who could care less about what happens to the part of the biosphere that is Canada.

Also, you're wrong on another point. Trudeau is already on record siding with Wynne and Notley in being in favor of the pipeline expansion. When I read through the comments around here, I see the bitterness of Harper losing is clouding peoples' abilities to even see what is going on.

[Accountability Now]

The definition of toxic sludge is hardly a scientific issue. Use dictionary.com. It's not that hard.

Good point. I'll take vitamins - you drink dilbit.

Sure....but I'll pick the amounts of each. I trust your precious dictionary will guide you through this one.

And if gasoline and other fossil fuels were taxed to reflect the level of damage they do, it would spur the development of electric vehicles to the point where they'd be affordable.

Right...and that belongs in this thread how?

Seems like I've hit a nerve here. I'll give you time to vent.

The only nerve you've hit is the one where you won't actually address anything the OP is discussing. The rest of your enviro theories/fantasies belong elsewhere.

Ohhhhh.... They did the analysis on the cheapest way to ship the sludge but nobody bothered to do the analysis on what would happen when it spilled. Convenient, that. It's the new way of doing business. Don't bother to look at the risks and then when the worst happens look surprised and say we've never dealt with that before.

So I suppose having 43 train cars spilling 350,000 gallons of fuel oil into Lake Wabamun or 73 train cars carrying Bakken crude exploding and killing 47 is much preferred? Like I said, there is no discussion to be had on whether we are going to continue to use oil or not...its what is the safest method. So yes....pipelines are the safest method.

Of course...the OP is asking what effect this will have on interprovincial relationships. You have YET to come close to touching that topic. Your constant deflection is noted though.

[waldo]

Your constant deflection is noted though.

the only deflection I read is yours. If your premise is that 'pipelines are the safest'... that everything flows from that premise, then it is most apropos to discuss why local Quebec authorities, those directly responsible to their constituents, believe/interpret that your expressed premise is simply not enough... apparently they have reservations that simple statements that lack supporting detail and practical intent extension aren't enough to avail their concerns around safety. Go figure!

[ReeferMadness]

Sure....but I'll pick the amounts of each. I trust your precious dictionary will guide you through this one.

Funny you should mention amounts because that's exactly what makes your comparison of dilbit to vitamins so ridiculous. If someone were to want to pipe 35 million gallons per day of vitamin concentrate, you can bet environmentalists would want an assessment of the consequences of a leak. Fortunately nobody is dumb enough to want to do that. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for dilbit.

So I suppose having 43 train cars spilling 350,000 gallons of fuel oil into Lake Wabamun or 73 train cars carrying Bakken crude exploding and killing 47 is much preferred? Like I said, there is no discussion to be had on whether we are going to continue to use oil or not...its what is the safest method. So yes....pipelines are the safest method.

Of course, fossil fuel addicts like to limit the discussion to the false choice of train vs pipeline. The real discussion about the continued use of oil is how long and how much. In fact, all of the serious science on the topic (I know, you got comfortable ignoring science during the halcyon years of Harper) says that we need to get off of fossil fuels and the sooner the better.

Of course...the OP is asking what effect this will have on interprovincial relationships. You have YET to come close to touching that topic. Your constant deflection is noted though.

And you think that you can somehow divorce the long list of health, environmental and safety effects from the provincial trade discussions? That would be like Ontario tobacco farmers trying to sell their product to kids in Alberta and Saskatchewan and insisting that the health discussions should be separated from the trade issue. lol Good luck with that.

[Accountability Now]

the only deflection I read is yours.

Coming from the Grand Deflector himself who likes to claim that this is about the oil companies.....riiiiiight!!

If your premise is that 'pipelines are the safest'... that everything flows from that premise, then it is most apropos to discuss why local Quebec authorities, those directly responsible to their constituents, believe/interpret that your expressed premise is simply not enough... apparently they have reservations that simple statements that lack supporting detail and practical intent extension aren't enough to avail their concerns around safety. Go figure!

Now....finally someone is tying it back to the OP. Well done. It only took 35 posts. I have never said whether Montreal and surrounding areas were right or wrong for expressing their concerns. They are allowed to express whatever position they want however it appears that those in Quebec are at odds with the other provinces and now Trudeau over their opinions. As stated in my OP, what is intriguing is the dynamic between the ROC and Quebec and how it will evolve especially since Trudeau has strong support in Montreal.

Will they follow Trudeau and abandon their mayor's positions?

Or will they abandon Trudeau and look elsewhere for Federal support for these Quebec issues?

Or will this issue just fade away once the pipeline is approved/built and life will carry on as normal?

All I know is that it certainly sparked a war of words in social media among common folk and our leaders.

[Accountability Now]

Funny you should mention amounts because that's exactly what makes your comparison of dilbit to vitamins so ridiculous. If someone were to want to pipe 35 million gallons per day of vitamin concentrate, you can bet environmentalists would want an assessment of the consequences of a leak. Fortunately nobody is dumb enough to want to do that. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for dilbit

I bought up vitamins to show you its not as simple as a definition.....although you so desperately wanted it to be. There are other factors involved. As I said from the start, toxicity is related to intended use. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on our planet yet you still have it in LCD screens, Fluorescent Lights and even some batteries. Based solely on the 'definition' we shouldn't have it however it is used in common household items and even dental amalgams.

And you think that you can somehow divorce the long list of health, environmental and safety effects from the provincial trade discussions? That would be like Ontario tobacco farmers trying to sell their product to kids in Alberta and Saskatchewan and insisting that the health discussions should be separated from the trade issue. lol Good luck with that.

The oil is going to come by train or pipe. The same oil just different ways. Go ahead and discuss this....just not in this thread.

PS...your example of selling tobacco to kids is simply ridiculous. You honestly couldn't have picked a worse example. Comparing something that is actually used by most if not all of people for heating their homes, feeling their vehicles and providing products for daily living....VERSUS tobacco which is a declining drug used recreationally by adults and is illegal to sell to kids. Horrible comparison....but I have come to expect this from you.

Now....would you like to comment on how you think that Quebec might proceed in light of this balanced support from the other provinces and Trudeau. Or perhaps you can comment on how Trudeau will be seen in the environmental circles now that he supports this pipeline.

[Accountability Now]

An interesting article that sums this all up:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/23/energy-east-pipeline-far-from-a-nation-building-project-hbert.html

But in the real world, the latest developments have turned a challenging issue for Justin Trudeau’s government into a highly toxic one.

When Coderre formally announced his city’s opposition to the TransCanada pipeline, he was acting as the spokesperson for 81 other Montreal-area mayors. Together they represent more than half of all Quebecers. Their region is also home to the greatest concentration of Liberal voters in Quebec.

As I said, how is this decision going to affect Trudeau since this is his Quebec base. It might cost him the next election if it gets bad enough.

In the pipeline project, the sovereigntist movement has found an issue that stands to test the limits of Quebec’s autonomy within the federation and — in the event of a Quebec-Ottawa collision — rekindle support for its independence project.

And of course, we run the risk of Quebec separation if they don't get their way. I have to admit, I have actually heard rumblings of Alberta/Sask separation (which I don't support) too but I think the chances of that are much less.

Add to this already explosive mix the concerns of the pro-pipeline government of New Brunswick, a province that gave Trudeau all of its seats last fall and whose Liberal premier is a close ally, and you have a unity minefield.

And to top it off we have New Brunswick who fully supported Trudeau and wants the line built for its refineries. As the last line states and what I stated in the OP, this whole event is a UNITY minefield.

The battle continues....

Edited January 24, 2016 by Accountability Now

[ReeferMadness]

I bought up vitamins to show you its not as simple as a definition.....although you so desperately wanted it to be. There are other factors involved. As I said from the start, toxicity is related to intended use. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on our planet yet you still have it in LCD screens, Fluorescent Lights and even some batteries. Based solely on the 'definition' we shouldn't have it however it is used in common household items and even dental amalgams.

I never said it was as simple as a definition. The dilbit that people seem to assume they have an inalienable right to transport anywhere they want is both toxic (not to mention carcinogenic and mutagenic) and is being transported in huge volumes. You're the one who keeps comparing it to other things that come in tiny amounts - as you continue to do here.

The oil is going to come by train or pipe. The same oil just different ways. Go ahead and discuss this....just not in this thread.

For a period of time, it will be. How long that period of time continues depends heavily on the heroic stands taken by the likes of Coderre, First Nations and environmentalists. Your attempts to limit the scope of debate notwithstanding.

PS...your example of selling tobacco to kids is simply ridiculous. You honestly couldn't have picked a worse example. Comparing something that is actually used by most if not all of people for heating their homes, feeling their vehicles and providing products for daily living....VERSUS tobacco which is a declining drug used recreationally by adults and is illegal to sell to kids. Horrible comparison....but I have come to expect this from you.

Illegal and legal is not the same as wrong and right. It's a matter time and wisdom. Once upon at time, it wasn't illegal to sell tobacco to kids. Now, tobacco is recognized as an addictive substance and people use it mostly because it's addictive. You can choose to see your addiction to fossil fuels differently than peoples' addictions to tobacco but that doesn't make it so.

The comparison with tobacco is particularly relevant when you look at how the companies fight laws and regulations. The fossil fuel giants are fighting regulations tooth and nail, as well as burying evidence and denying the harm that their product is causing. Exactly the way the tobacco companies did it. In some cases, aided by the same morally bankrupt "scientists".

Now....would you like to comment on how you think that Quebec might proceed in light of this balanced support from the other provinces and Trudeau. Or perhaps you can comment on how Trudeau will be seen in the environmental circles now that he supports this pipeline.

I suspect that Quebec and Alberta will toss rhetoric back and forth. This is going to drag on for a while so it's unlikely to go nuclear anytime toon.

As for Trudeau, environmentalists will be disappointed but nobody will be terribly surprised. I roll my eyes when people refer to Trudeau as if he's some sort of socialist. When it comes to most things, he's a centrist. Trudeau's not really the problem anyway - the problem is the millions of people who can't (or won't) wrap their heads around the need to quit fossil fuels. Unlike Harper, Trudeau is playing the middle and if polls show that people support moving off fossil fuels, that's where he will go. Unfortunately, most people know that what we're doing is unsustainable but are too afraid to confront it.

Edited January 24, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[-1=e^ipi]

Dishonest is the pretense that we can keep on endlessly expanding in a finite world. It's the delusion that we can keep on poisoning the biosphere because we'll always have the technology to fix it by time it comes back to us.

For a finite resource, the socially optimal thing to do is extract if following Hotelling's rule, plus externalities of course. This was demonstrated in 1931.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

[Accountability Now]

I never said it was as simple as a definition.

Yes...you did. You said that all the research I needed was dictionary.com. Your over simplification was clearly noted:

The definition of toxic sludge is hardly a scientific issue. Use dictionary.com. It's not that hard.

I never said it was as simple as a definition. The dilbit that people seem to assume they have an inalienable right to transport anywhere they want is both toxic (not to mention carcinogenic and mutagenic) and is being transported in huge volumes. You're the one who keeps comparing it to other things that come in tiny amounts - as you continue to do here.

Facepalm....people want/need oil....simple as that. Its not a right...its a decision made by people every time the drive their cars, heat their homes or use other oil related products. I have no inherent love for oil. I make no money from it nor do I feel its the best thing in the world, however until something replaced the on demand power provided by oil, the majority of the planet will continue to want it. The conversation can only be pointed to how it gets shipped.

For a period of time, it will be. How long that period of time continues depends heavily on the heroic stands taken by the likes of Coderre, First Nations and environmentalists.

Finally you have stated something that is thread-worthy. There will certainly be opposition by people who take a moral stand. First Nations have always and will always oppose such projects until they are included in the payout...then its a non-concern. Environmentalists are really a non issue too. Its Coderre and his group of mayors that I find intriguing. As per the last article I posted, these mayors represent half of the Liberal votes in Quebec and may cause Trudeau some grief if he stays the course.

The comparison with tobacco is particularly relevant when you look at how the companies fight laws and regulations.

Horrible example....plain and simple!

I suspect that Quebec and Alberta will toss rhetoric back and forth. This is going to drag on for a while so it's unlikely to go nuclear anytime toon.

Its not just Quebec and Alberta though. Saskatchewan's premier has been the loudest voice so far. We also know that New Brunswick will have a say before this is over and of course Ontario approving it may drag them into it. The only ones free and clear will be BC the Territories and the other Atlantic provinces.

As for Trudeau, environmentalists will be disappointed but nobody will be terribly surprised. I roll my eyes when people refer to Trudeau as if he's some sort of socialist.

You have to admit, Trudeau platformed on higher environmental standards and just came back from COP21 shouting the climate change mantra. Now approving this must twerk some peoples heads as its a different side for him....including the western Canadians who say he only cares about the east. I also have to hold judgement on Rachel Notley who has gone to bat for this even though she has given off a strong anti-oil message.

Like I said, this is really intriguing and could really change how some of these politicians are viewed.

[-1=e^ipi]

In fact, all of the serious science on the topic (I know, you got comfortable ignoring science during the halcyon years of Harper) says that we need to get off of fossil fuels and the sooner the better.

No it doesn't. The scientific method does not tell people what to do. It doesn't tell me that I shouldn't take a gun and shoot myself right now.

Stop disrespecting the scientific method by misrepresenting it.

[ReeferMadness]

For a finite resource, the socially optimal thing to do is extract if following Hotelling's rule, plus externalities of course. This was demonstrated in 1931.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

Wow, you never quit. Do you run your life according to some magical happiness formula?

If the formula accounted for all of the damage done by fossil fuels, and if the formula actually works, you might be on to something. But wait. Turns out the formula is useless.

While the rule predicts exponentially increasing resource prices, the results of empirical studies do not confirm the rule. The results so far have showed either declining or constant resource prices over time. In response to this failure, many economists and researchers have tried to bridge this gap by including more variables to see their influence on resource price.

Back to the drawing board.....

[-1=e^ipi]

Wow, you never quit. Do you run your life according to some magical happiness formula?

Not yet.

If the formula accounted for all of the damage done by fossil fuels, and if the formula actually works, you might be on to something.

I said 'plus externalities of course'.

But wait. Turns out the formula is useless.

Back to the drawing board.....

Lack of an observation of exponentially increasing resource prices does not imply Hotelling's rule is wrong. Rather, it implies that we are not following Hotelling's rule.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes...you did. You said that all the research I needed was dictionary.com. Your over simplification was clearly noted:

Sigh. What I said what that your characterization of the term toxic sludge was inaccurate. As it was. Get past it.

Facepalm....people want/need oil....simple as that. Its not a right...its a decision made by people every time the drive their cars, heat their homes or use other oil related products.

Funny, I heat my home without fossil fuels and know people who drive cars without them.

I have no inherent love for oil. I make no money from it nor do I feel its the best thing in the world, however until something replaced the on demand power provided by oil, the majority of the planet will continue to want it. The conversation can only be pointed to how it gets shipped.

There is an enormous battle being waged between people who are making enormous fortunes from mining and selling this toxic material and people who want to move towards safer and more sustainable alternatives. For someone who claims to have no interest in the fight, you sure seem to be helping one side.

Finally you have stated something that is thread-worthy. There will certainly be opposition by people who take a moral stand. First Nations have always and will always oppose such projects until they are included in the payout...then its a non-concern. Environmentalists are really a non issue too. Its Coderre and his group of mayors that I find intriguing. As per the last article I posted, these mayors represent half of the Liberal votes in Quebec and may cause Trudeau some grief if he stays the course.

I find your analysis trite and superficial. Before Northern Gateway was effectively killed by Trudeau's tanker ban, it was subject to 18 First Nation lawsuits. It would have been in court forever.

You have to admit, Trudeau platformed on higher environmental standards and just came back from COP21 shouting the climate change mantra. I also have to hold judgement on Rachel Notley who has gone to bat for this even though she has given off a strong anti-oil message.

Trudeau made few specific environmental commitments - a lot of it was quite general. He certainly campaigned on higher environmental standards than Harper but unless you deliberately poured oil on all the lakes and set fire to the forests, I'm not sure how he could possibly have had lower standards.

Trudeau did promise to work with provinces to implement a price on carbon (in progress) and fix the environmental review process (to be determined).

Now approving this must twerk some peoples heads as its a different side for him....including the western Canadians who say he only cares about the east.

First, he hasn't approved anything - he's just weighed in on the debate. Second, this will only "twerk the heads" of people who made up their minds about him without paying attention to what he actually said.

Like I said, this is really intriguing and could really change how some of these politicians are viewed.

It seems to for you and others who are working off of flawed perceptions instead of actual promises or actions.

[waldo]

Coming from the Grand Deflector himself who likes to claim that this is about the oil companies.....riiiiiight!!

again, never made the claim you keep repeating. Again, put up the statement where I made the claim. Is there a problem for you here in doing that?

Now....finally someone is tying it back to the OP. Well done. It only took 35 posts. I have never said whether Montreal and surrounding areas were right or wrong for expressing their concerns. They are allowed to express whatever position they want however it appears that those in Quebec are at odds with the other provinces and now Trudeau over their opinions. As stated in my OP, what is intriguing is the dynamic between the ROC and Quebec and how it will evolve especially since Trudeau has strong support in Montreal.

no - this is you finally unable to worm your way out from the fact I've been addressing the OP from the onset. What you refuse to address is the local authorities challenge to your premise on pipeline safety. Again, it's easy to say, as you did, that pipelines are the safest mode of transport. You/oil companies don't get a free-ride on that premise... if local authorities have concerns around safety, the onus is on you/oil companies to attempt to avail those raised concerns... not to simply dismiss/ignore them.

.

[Topaz]

Could they run a pipeline to the Quebec border than switch to a train to the port? Just trying to make everyone happy, any other ideas?

[TimG]

Could they run a pipeline to the Quebec border than switch to a train to the port? Just trying to make everyone happy, any other ideas?

Or the could build a tanker port in Kingston and ship the crude by the St. Lawrence. Edited January 24, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Do some research on dilbit. Toxic sludge is actually kind of a charitable term.

And while you're at it, go and see what happened when a relatively minor spill occurred in the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge has spent over a billion dollars dredging the river and surrounding ponds.

How about you do some research on what happens to Quebec if Enbridge and Transcanada turn off all the pipelines currently bringing them oil.

[Argus]

But the building of this economic infrastructure means much more to the economic health of this country than everybody holding hands in fellowship and harmony. It is one of the things, and a crucial element, of paying for the social contract of which you are so very fervently fond. I get that you don't understand that. But does Trudeau? Is his deep need to be loved by all greater than his ability to objectively assess the situation and base decisions on facts rather than sunny ways?

But none of that is necessary! You can just borrow the money!