Energy East Causing Uproar

[poochy]

As is the norm, Kwebek is standing in the way of something the ROC wants until it's extortion expectations are met. No surprise there. Shut off the valves and let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.....

And for all of those "why is Canada doing business with Saudi Arabia??" types....... http://boereport.com/2016/01/25/saudi-oil-filling-a-new-brunswick-refinery-what-kind-of-an-energy-policy-is-that/

Yes...why are we?

That's how the real resourceful Canadians do it.

[jacee]

As is the norm, Kwebek is standing in the way of something the ROC wants until it's extortion expectations are met. No surprise there. Shut off the valves and let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.

?

Somehow that just doesn't pack a punch anymore.

.

[Hydraboss]

..just doesn't pack a punch anymore.

.

If Enbridge decides to "alter usage" on their line going into Kwebek it sure would. They can decide to mothball that pipeline anytime they want.

[Hydraboss]

C'mon....I'm at least a two trick pony (I don't like economic refugees either).

I don't speak for Enbridge, but this is a high stakes game for a pile of cash so they may decide that "business purposes" dictate that they alter the usage of that line. It's all about leverage.

And since they seem to have the support of most of the affected jurisdictions outside LaGreedy Province, they won't even be painted as the bad guy this time.

Leverage. Look it up.

[ReeferMadness]

Quebec residents place a lot of value on the environment. They're the only non-municipal jurisdiction I know of in North America to ban fracking. They also have a lot of clean, renewable electricity.

WRT the characterization of of the dispute as Quebec vs the ROC, I should remind everyone that BC is not fond of dilbit either. Nor are First Nations communities in BC or elsewhere. Northern Gateway is the subject of a dozen and a half lawsuits. There are huge protests over Trans Mountain as BC municipalities don't want dilbit being pumped by their back doors either. And need I remind people that the Americans, who suffered the Kalamazoo River nightmare, just rejected Keystone. They know better than anyone that dilbit is essentially impossible to clean up when it's spilled in water.

"We have learned from the 2010 Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitumen (dilbit) may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of conventional oil. […] We recommend that the Final EIS more clearly acknowledge that in the event of a spill to water, it is possible that large portions of dilbit will sink and that submerged oil significantly changes spill response and impacts. We also recommend that the Final EIS include means to address the additional risks of releases that may be greater for spills of dilbit than other crudes. For example, in the Enbridge spill, the local health department issued voluntary evacuation notices based on the level of benzene measured in the air."

It's been over 5 years and the mess isn't cleaned up yet.

Residents of Montreal are rightly concerned about their drinking water. Mayors Nenshi and Iveson reportedly want science to drive the debate. I completely agree. Science doesn't know how to clean up dilbit after it has sunk in water. Unfortunately, I need to link to an American source for that - it seem like the agencies in Canada aren't interested in knowing how bad dilbit is.

[Hydraboss]

Residents of Montreal are rightly concerned about their drinking water.

No they're not. They are waiting for the right price to be offered. Kwebek only has one concern - extorting the ROC.

The line will go through once they are offered the right price. Mark my words on that one. This is strictly about money...always has been and always will be. If not, why did they "allow" Enbridge to reverse the line in the first place?

[bush_cheney2004]

Residents of Montreal are rightly concerned about their drinking water. Mayors Nenshi and Iveson reportedly want science to drive the debate. I completely agree. Science doesn't know how to clean up dilbit after it has sunk in water. Unfortunately, I need to link to an American source for that - it seem like the agencies in Canada aren't interested in knowing how bad dilbit is.

That's OK...we're use to that around here. U.S. government agencies like the NOAA are very popular in Canada for many subjects, even though many say they hate the American government. Dilbit cleanup is not impossible....just very expensive and destructive !

[ReeferMadness]

No they're not.

You may not like it but yes, they have reason to be concerned. Go and google "dilbit kalamazoo" and see what you get. When dilbit leaks, it starts to separate. Volatile compounds like benzene float and evaporate. Assuming there is no outright explosion, the result is toxic vapors.

The bitumen settles out and attracts any sediments in the water column. It can then sink beneath the water. They dredged the Kalamazoo River. Do you think they will dredge Lake Superior or the St Lawrence River? If there is a leak, are you going to supply bottled water to the residents of Montreal for the next 20 years?

They are waiting for the right price to be offered. Kwebek only has one concern - extorting the ROC.

The line will go through once they are offered the right price. Mark my words on that one. This is strictly about money...always has been and always will be. If not, why did they "allow" Enbridge to reverse the line in the first place?

Because "they" didn't know how dilbit would behave when it leaks in water. Go back and read the NOAA report - it said they're "earning about how to clean up dilbit. Would you like your drinking water to be the place where they learn?

And here's another question. Why hasn't the industry or our government cheerleaders regulators done the studies on how to deal with dilbit properly?

[waldo]

As is the norm, Kwebek is standing in the way of something the ROC wants until it's extortion expectations are met. No surprise there. Shut off the valves and let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.....

And for all of those "why is Canada doing business with Saudi Arabia??" types....... http://boereport.com/2016/01/25/saudi-oil-filling-a-new-brunswick-refinery-what-kind-of-an-energy-policy-is-that/

Yes...why are we?

surprise! The "Kwebek" guy is back... I trust no one reports you for your purposeful repeat slag that you've thrown down in a smattering of recent posts here, hey!

your question should be why is "Irving Oil" doing business with Saudi Arabia... shouldn't it? Per norm, it's nothing more than oil companies following market pricing. For a few years U.S. (shale) derived oil pushed imports away from OPEC... and now the prices have narrowed again so Irving is dipping back into the OPEC well. The same can be said of Newfoundland offshore oil... for the longest period it wasn't being refined locally, instead being shipped to the U.S. or Europe... but now market pricing has Atlantic refineries taking it in. My understanding is that much of the oil is tied to long-term contracts and that there really isn't much capacity left to presume on refining Alta/Sask sourced "oil"... even if market pricing was favourable. But then again, given that market price dictates and that no oil company is simply going to opt to process Alta/Sask oil... just cause it's Canadian/domestic... at current prices for tarsands sourced "oil", just what are your expectations?

but don't stop there; don't stop with just your "extortion" BS, since you're so adamantly sure of yourself, put some definition around that and quit being so vague! Make your call on your claimed "extortion" leverage: what/how much? While you're doing that explain why they approved the Enbridge Line 9 without any apparent, as you say, "extortion"... or do have some other "insight" in that regard?

[waldo]

U.S. government agencies like the NOAA are very popular in Canada for many subjects, even though many say they hate the American government.

hate is such a reach... and it's not the "American government" proper... it's failed American foreign policy that continues to 'screw the pooch'. Carry on.

[waldo]

Leverage. Look it up.

conspiracy, wishful thinking, fomenting separation (more your history than this particular series of posts). Look them up.

[waldo]

Quebec residents place a lot of value on the environment. They're the only non-municipal jurisdiction I know of in North America to ban fracking. They also have a lot of clean, renewable electricity.

Residents of Montreal are rightly concerned about their drinking water.

yes, most certainly. On many levels, Quebec has a long demonstrated concern for the environment. And clearly, 4 million people within the Montreal/MMC area draw their water from major rivers that the current planned route for Energy East crosses. But how dare Denis Coderre/MMC mayors raise their concerns in that regard. Why aren't they simply accepting to, no questions asked/allowed, the fabled "nation building" premise being fronted by many proponents of the proposal?

[ReeferMadness]

yes, most certainly. On many levels, Quebec has a long demonstrated concern for the environment. And clearly, 4 million people within the Montreal/MMC area draw their water from major rivers that the current planned route for Energy East crosses. But how dare Denis Coderre/MMC mayors raise their concerns in that regard. Why aren't they simply accepting to, no questions asked/allowed, the fabled "nation building" premise being fronted by many proponents of the proposal?

When you're addicted to something everyone who gets in your way is the enemy.

[Accountability Now]

the above quote is not the unconditional support you're posturing with. As I said, nothing I've read (or you've presented) has Trudeau stating anything that differs from the official Liberal Party position statement; again:

As always, your complete lack of comprehension and/or blatant dishonesty shows when you say stuff like this. I have never said or implied that he has given unconditional support. Your infantile sensitivities to this matter have clearly taken over to the point where you are now making this stuff up only for the shot at a feeble argument. Here is what I have said....and please take as much time/babbling/drivel that you need to explain how leaning their support equals unconditional

And its not just Trudeau that provides the 'gotcha', its the coalition of left leaning Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are all leaning their support towards the line.

- given TransCanada has positioned the pipeline as a "win for Eastern Canada" in regards replacing imported oil with domestic oil, care to comment on just how much existing refinery capacity there is towards meeting that premise, particularly given the proposal is so heavily aligned towards exports ala the development of new export terminals within the proposal?

Wait a second....are you saying that after months of protest and outrage over the safety of beluga whales that an export terminal SHOULD be built in Quebec? The hypocrisy is astounding. Quebec spoke and TransCanada listened and now you're saying that's a problem. Thats rich.

As for the benefits to Eastern Canada which of course is not isolated to Quebec one can look at the Energy East website which has the numbers.

http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Energy-East-Pipeline-Economic-Backgrounder.pdf

Of course, if it didn't make sense to the East then why is Wynne now behind the project. Why is Gallant behind this project? If you're telling that there is no benefit to Quebec then that is up for discussion however you saying that there is nothing in it for Ontario and NB holds zero water otherwise these Liberal premiers would surely not present the support they have shown.

- when Denis Coderre/MMC suggests that, "all the risks are being placed on the greater Montreal area with no direct gains to the area"... is he right? Well, is he?

I have not criticized Coderre for taking an environmental stance on this pipeline even though you insist/assume that I have. He has every right to evaluate the risk/benefit analysis. However, to say he takes ALL the risks is simply incorrect. This pipeline crosses the country and crosses other water bodies, not just his. All the risk is a pompous statement and needs to be adjusted. The same could be said about no direct gains. The Energy East numbers state that Quebec will get over 3000 FTE jobs (direct and indirect) per year during the project phase and 324 over the operational phase. It also states that Quebec is expected to make 2.1B in taxation over the course of the project. Even if you disagree with the the levels Energy East is suggesting, the numbers will not be 'no direct gains'

Of course, having said all this I feel the best response so far has come from Quebec City mayor who DOES support the project and recently had these comments:

“I think that in a normal country, all organizations that want to build infrastructure for transporting energy should be able to do it. I am talking about pipelines, but also about electricity transmission,” Labeaume said in an interview.

“I wonder how I would feel if a province or a region in another province prevented Hydro-Québec from building its transmission line. I would feel exactly like the people in the West do now. I understand them.”

He said communities should not expect a windfall just because energy infrastructure crosses their territory. “During its operation, there are no economic benefits,” he said. “It’s the same with Hydro-Québec lines.”

SAAAAAAY WHAAAATTTT? Perhaps someone who gets it? Someone who understands that not everyone needs to have their hand greased in order to get stuff done? Wait did I just say hand greased in regards to Montreal with a reference to the corruption that City has seen. Ooops...my bad.

and, as I implied, it's the wrong impression... and the initiative you're so avoiding is the actual external audit that most pointedly and succinctly shows your claim that the NEB, "holds oil companies to the highest standards"... is nonsense... complete bunk! Again, quit making shyte up!
.

You really have no clue how this works, do you? The highest standards does not mean perfection...never has, never will. The entire point of getting audited is to find areas of weakness and correct them. The fact that you are relying on this audit as though it was some sort of criminal discovery when it fact the resolutions that were found in this audit were already being worked on at the time. As per the article below:

The audit spilled into Parliament's daily question period, where Carr told the Commons he'd spoken with the NEB chair and was assured "there will be instant action. In fact, it started actually quite some time ago."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/audit-of-national-energy-board-cites-poor-tracking-of-pipeline-safety-compliance-366554901.html

Our company had a safety audit last week and the very words out of the auditors mouth was that audits aren't meant to assign blame, they are meant for discovery. Striving for perfection is why companies take audits and that allows them to have the highest standards.

[Accountability Now]

while you also comment on the 2 prior occasions the Harper Conservative government authorized waste dumping by the City of Montreal into the St. Lawrence.

waldo please provide a citation or citations outlining the dates and proof that the Harper Conservative government authorized this dumping. I have posted the requests for this citation below for your convenience:

As for the other two Harper incidents....please provide a citation showing the dates of said dumps as well as confirmation these dumps were planned/approved by the Harper government. Would gladly have a read on this.

As I said I will gladly read up on this as I am interested in the historical back drop to this story. Of course if you can't provide this citation then I fully expect you to retract your claim.

This request makes three times that I have asked which now makes it several.

Remember, forum rules state that : If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

[waldo]

As always, your complete lack of comprehension and/or blatant dishonesty shows when you say stuff like this. I have never said or implied that he has given unconditional support. Your infantile sensitivities to this matter have clearly taken over to the point where you are now making this stuff up only for the shot at a feeble argument. Here is what I have said....and please take as much time/babbling/drivel that you need to explain how leaning their support equals unconditional

no - the blatant dishonesty is yours! All through this exchange the following has been the reference quote; the one you initially provided and the one I in turn have re-quoted, at least twice, and to which my "unconditional support" reference was made:

“I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

now all of a sudden you ignore that reference quote and pull out a completely different quote! That is you being dishonest.

now, yes... that quote from Trudeau is not the unconditional support that you presume to imply exists, by claiming Trudeau has given his support for the project through that quote. Read that, your own supplied quote, again... you know, the reference quote... the one you're now running away from. As I said, you are taking extreme liberty with that quote. I put forward the official Liberal Party position statement and challenged you to state how your supplied quote differed from it. Still waiting... still waiting...

.

[waldo]

Wait a second....are you saying that after months of protest and outrage over the safety of beluga whales that an export terminal SHOULD be built in Quebec? The hypocrisy is astounding. Quebec spoke and TransCanada listened and now you're saying that's a problem. Thats rich.

As for the benefits to Eastern Canada which of course is not isolated to Quebec one can look at the Energy East website which has the numbers.

http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Energy-East-Pipeline-Economic-Backgrounder.pdf

Of course, if it didn't make sense to the East then why is Wynne now behind the project. Why is Gallant behind this project? If you're telling that there is no benefit to Quebec then that is up for discussion however you saying that there is nothing in it for Ontario and NB holds zero water otherwise these Liberal premiers would surely not present the support they have shown.

again you're making shyte up! The only reference I have made to export terminals is in regard to those within the TransCanada proposal. And I did so to emphasize the significant export intent behind the pipeline. What I've asked you, several times now, which you just ignored again, is in regards to current refinery capacity that might be positioned to take in domestic sourced Sask/Alta 'oil'... such that we could put perspective around those grand statements about offsetting the degree of U.S./OPEC oil imports. Again, once again, you choose to ignore this.

as for your linked job number figures, one might interpret that Quebec isn't too impressed with ~2000 jobs/year over a decade as being an adequate risk return. Don't know though... you'd have to ask Denis Coderre/MMC mayors in that regard.

your closing paragraph is a hodge-podge of positions/statements you presume to attribute to me, while at the same time trying to position me as a spokesperson for Coderre/MMC - nice try, though! You quoted me and then proceeded to write/make up shyte that had no bearing or relation to what you quoted from me. Again, is this you being honest?

.

Edited January 27, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

I have not criticized Coderre for taking an environmental stance on this pipeline even though you insist/assume that I have.

your last post promised that would be the last time you played out this strawman of yours! And here you are right back at it again.

.

The Energy East numbers state... Even if you disagree with the the levels Energy East is suggesting...

those are TransCanada's numbers... that's a TransCanada based website you're drawing from. Methinks you should have looked towards the actual NEB submission as TransCanada includes much "juicier" numbers that it solicited via a sponsored consultation from an energy based 'financial & economic consultant'.

the real point is that the process will include inputs from those who will challenge the level of industry fronted job/economic gains. Given TransCanada's record through the KXL proceedings and the significant challenges it received to it's supplied KXL numbers, one should only expect a like scenario to unfold here. I appreciate in your rush not to take any positions here (that you're all about relations), you didn't intend to lobby on behalf of TransCanada, right?

[waldo]

You really have no clue how this works, do you? The highest standards does not mean perfection...never has, never will.

I'm shocked you never provided this caveat before! Shocked. But of course you didn't offer anything other than to lift the NEB to your lofty description of holding oil companies "to the highest standards"! Which was completely busted by the days old audit release from the Environment Commissioner.

you already rushed to drop a quote stating the NEB "has accepted recommendations". BFD... accepting means nothing - putting that acceptance into practical measures to improve and correct deficiencies and inadequacies is what counts. That will take time and review of those actions will only suggest just how serious the NEB took the recommendations and just how well they acted in response to the external audit.

.

[waldo]

This request makes three times that I have asked which now makes it several.

it's off topic - nothing to do with this thread - why are you continuing an attempt to derail your own thread? Keep asking and I'll keep ignoring you in the interests of keeping the thread on topic.

[Accountability Now]

it's off topic - nothing to do with this thread - why are you continuing an attempt to derail your own thread?

It wasn't off topic when you posted this blurb not ONCE but TWICE in order to establish some sort of argument or was it basically a cheap shot that reinforces your HDS. Or were you just continuing your blatant dishonesty?

Here are the facts:

In the past, the City of Montreal has dumped wastewater into the river from the same interceptor sewer.

• Spring 2003 : 10 billion litres
• Fall 2003 : 7.6 billion litres
• Fall 2005 : 770 million litres

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-s-sewage-dump-saga-explained-in-5-key-points-1.3263739

And who was Prime Minister in the Spring and Fall of 2003....well none other than the Honourable Jean Cretien. Wait a second.....who was the Prime Minister in 2005? That would have been none other than the Honourable Paul Martin. BOTH of whom were the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada.

What is it with these Prime Ministers from Quebec wanting to pollute the St. Lawerence. First these guys and now Trudeau? I guess it must be a Liberal tradition!!!

Now in case you don't believe my CBC source, because I know you'll be grasping here, I thought I would back this up with confirmation from none other than the Liberal Party of Canada.

But here’s the rub: Thomas Mulcair authorised similar discharges on two separate occasions when he was Environment Minister in Quebec in 2003 and 2005. The first time, 7.6 billion litres of raw sewage was dumped directly into the St. Lawrence River, and 770 million litres the second time.

https://www.liberal.ca/mulcair-contradicts-himself-once-again-this-time-on-wastewater-in-montreal/

Talk about your all time fails. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! No wonder you were scurrying away in complete avoidance. Man that was priceless.

Keep asking and I'll keep ignoring you in the interests of keeping the thread on topic.

I guess I'm going on ignore now....hey???

[ReeferMadness]

Elizabeth May is currently being interviewed on CBC regarding the provisional measures that the Liberal government is making to the pipeline approval process. She is pointing out that it was Harper's Conservatives that wrecked the previous process by putting the NEB in charge of environmental assessment (bill C-38). The results of the Trans Mountain assessment showed the NEB to be terminally biased when it came to environmental questioning. They ruled, for example that upstream and downstream environmental impacts would not be considered but that upstream and downstream economic impacts would be.

So, if the people who are getting all torn up over the fact that pipelines aren't being built want to blame someone, they can go (try to) find Harper.

[overthere]

No they're not. They are waiting for the right price to be offered. Kwebek only has one concern - extorting the ROC.

The line will go through once they are offered the right price. Mark my words on that one. This is strictly about money...always has been and always will be. If not, why did they "allow" Enbridge to reverse the line in the first place?

No. not this time. This deal is dead dead dead. We just have to go through a few years of handwringing and national theater before all the pipelines to tidewater are formally kaput.

They allowed Enbridge to reverse the line 9 because it terminates in Montreal. Jobs. Montreal overnight lost sending oil west, but gained oil coming from the west. Its better than nothing.

But Energy East is a far bigger deal. And all the supposed support is pretence. What has hap[pened in the last couple days has opened the kimono in Ottawa. The turd is truly on the table now.

Mr Trudeau is writhing in a orgasmic paroxysm of self induced bliss with the excitement of dramatic social experiment, because he is of the strong opinion that he can transform our economy simply by saying so. Don't forget for a second who his strongest influence was, and what he did. If that means a few hundred thousand resource workers get economically cornholed en route to his Brave New World, so be it. None of them vote for him anyway.

[overthere]

Elizabeth May is currently being interviewed on CBC regarding the provisional measures that the Liberal government is making to the pipeline approval process. She is pointing out that it was Harper's Conservatives that wrecked the previous process by putting the NEB in charge of environmental assessment (bill C-38). The results of the Trans Mountain assessment showed the NEB to be terminally biased when it came to environmental questioning. They ruled, for example that upstream and downstream environmental impacts would not be considered but that upstream and downstream economic impacts would be.

So, if the people who are getting all torn up over the fact that pipelines aren't being built want to blame someone, they can go (try to) find Harper.

Yes, Ms May would like to see all projects assessed in the same way that the Macknezie Valley piepline project was done. What was it , 15 years? 18 years?

Luckily for her, so does Trudeau.

The only honest one of the three is Mulcair. He starts out from the premise that all pipelines are bad and do not need to have hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on evaluating projects that aren't going to happen no matter what. And he is right. What ultimately is the purpose of this gong show? The result is predetermined.

The reality is that the bar for 'consensus' is now so high it cannot possibly be reached.

[ReeferMadness]

The reality is that the bar for 'consensus' is now so high it cannot possibly be reached.

OK.

So, let's stop trying to build a country on scraping tar out of Northeastern Alberta and move on. We're better than that.