Pipeline Politics - Is Canada the only "sucker" Nation?

[jacee]

Unless the pipelines across cross their reservations the only rights they have are meaningful consultation. So we consult them then build.

I see you don't know the law.

Aboriginal rights apply on all traditional Indigenous lands, not just reserves (and we don't have 'reservations' in Canada).

Consultation must be a "meaningful" two way process.

Accommodation must be "reasonable".

The "Honour of the Crown" must be upheld.

If the law is not respected, the courts will rule against development.

B.C. government failed to properly consult First Nations on Northern Gateway pipeline, court rules:

Gitga'at celebrating 'huge victory' after court rules province failed in duty to consult

Just 'informing' them what you're doing is not "meaningful consultation" and is not legal.

You ... and Caledonia ... are wrong again.

.

Edited February 1, 2016 by jacee

[hitops]

Exactly - and if you choose to completely decimate Canada's Oil industry (the "keep the oil in the ground crowd") by making it financially unfeasible to extract more oil - then you're just giving carte-blanche to the Arab World, Iran, Russia and of course our good friend the US - to pump more oil and deliver it by sea and rail. We're a pimple on the elephant. A sucker nation - that's us. Unbelievable.

Yep. The left does not ask the question 'what is the alternative?', which is critical to evaluating any difficult question. They just ask 'is it perfect?', and if the answer is no, something MUST be done. Even if that something makes it even worse.

Edited February 1, 2016 by hitops

[cybercoma]

Yep. The left does not ask the question 'what is the alternative?', which is critical to evaluating any difficult question. They just ask 'is it perfect?', and if the answer is no, something MUST be done. Even if that something makes it even worse.

The "left" (however you define that I guess) are the only ones talking about alternatives to fossil fuels.

[hitops]

The "left" (however you define that I guess) are the only ones talking about alternatives to fossil fuels.

Except they're not. The alternative is the status quo - oil on tankers and rail. They are not talking about that at all.

The real alternative is not what you think could happen, it is what actually does happen.

Edited February 1, 2016 by hitops

[jacee]

Our Prime Minister has required and you have agreed that there must be 'social licence' , 'meaningful consultation' and 'consensus' on any pipeline projects.

The Supreme Court decided that, in relation to Indigenous peoples (First Nations).

It's the law in Canada.

And internationally.

.

Edited February 1, 2016 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

I haven't yet heard anyone suggest another country that has strangled itself in "process" and brought the development of an entire industry to a virtual standstill......Canada - the only sucker nation.

Anyone?

[hitops]

I haven't yet heard anyone suggest another country that has strangled itself in "process" and brought the development of an entire industry to a virtual standstill......Canada - the only sucker nation.

Anyone?

The US coal industry is the perfect example. The difference is that fracking came along at the same time and more than compensated, with very cheap and very clean NG energy. The irony is that the pain caused by the anti-coal forces was relieved by fracking, which those same forces also hate and would stop if they could.

But no, we are pretty much the only nation that is in the ridiculous position of having tons of oil, but choosing to buy oil from Saudi while blocking transport of our own, to our own country. You couldn't make up a dumber plan if you tried. This is our reality.

Edited February 1, 2016 by hitops

[overthere]

The Supreme Court decided that.

It's the law in Canada.

And internationally.

.

Great. Now explain your metrics for calculating "'social licence' , 'meaningful consultation' and 'consensus' ". What is a pass/fail grade for each of those?

You can make stuff up if you like, somebody has to and soon.

And no, it is certainly not international law!! Nobody slowed down , for example, the US or Australia when they chose to eat us alive on getting ready oilo/gas infrastructure.

[ReeferMadness]

The US coal industry is the perfect example. The difference is that fracking came along at the same time and more than compensated, with very cheap and very clean NG energy. The irony is that the pain caused by the anti-coal forces was relieved by fracking, which those same forces also hate and would stop if they could.

Nonsense. NG is only very cheap because there is an oversupply and we don't charge for air pollution. It's not very clean, particularly when you account for methane that escapes into the air. By some estimates, fracked gas is as bad as coal in terms of GHG's when you account for all sources.

And nobody understands the long term consequences of blasting rock and injecting toxic chemicals into geologic structures. We know that fracking causes earthquakes and no doubt we will find other consequences of this reckless behavior long after it's too late.

But no, we are pretty much the only nation that is in the ridiculous position of having tons of oil, but choosing to buy oil from Saudi while blocking transport of our own, to our own country. You couldn't make up a dumber plan if you tried. This is our reality.

We're a net exporter of oil now and we'd still be a net exporter of oil And here's the kicker. We're a net importer of refined petroleum products and that wouldn't change either.

[waldo]

I haven't yet heard anyone suggest another country that has strangled itself in "process" and brought the development of an entire industry to a virtual standstill......Canada - the only sucker nation.

Anyone?

in that you, in another thread, repeatedly posted to have me respond to one of your posts, I will do the same, in kind, here... you ignored it!

as for your "anyone", your hyperbolic "virtual standstill" would actually mean something, if you could substantiate it. Would actually have some degree of merit if not for the fact that, for the year 2015 (and only to Sept of that year) Canada exported a record 3.248 million bpd of crude oil to the U.S.. And most certainly, significant amounts of that are NOT being transported by rail... as oil companies work to extend on existing pipeline capacity via reversals, refitting and re-purposing existing pipelines. Per the investment bank Peters & Co, close to 1.45 million barrels per day of new Canadian pipeline capacity was expected to come on line by the first quarter of 2015.

of the pipelines profiled (even before recent days announcements): the KXL decision was not Canada's to make; Trans Mountain is currently before the NEB and Energy East was barely into the real substantive part of regulatory proceedings. As for Northern Gateway, I would suggest to you the lack of progress reflects upon, as much as anything, Harper Conservative positioning around such "fruitful undertakings" as reflected by "Ethical Oil", "enemies of the state", etc..

your post, MLW member Simple, is just more of the typical MLW posts where unsubstantiated statements prevail!

.

[jacee]

The US coal industry is the perfect example. The difference is that fracking came along at the same time and more than compensated, with very cheap and very clean NG energy. The irony is that the pain caused by the anti-coal forces was relieved by fracking, which those same forces also hate and would stop if they could.

But no, we are pretty much the only nation that is in the ridiculous position of having tons of oil, but choosing to buy oil from Saudi while blocking transport of our own, to our own country. You couldn't make up a dumber plan if you tried. This is our reality.

We're ahead of the curve! :-)

.

[jacee]

We're a net exporter of oil now and we'd still be a net exporter of oil And here's the kicker. We're a net importer of refined petroleum products and that wouldn't change either.

Alberta needs more industry/jobs/markets.

Refine & manufacture there.

.

[jacee]

Great. Now explain your metrics for calculating "'social licence'

That's between governments and communities (Not Indigenous communities. That's a matter of law.).

If governments/MP's think they'll lose support, they may hesitate.

, 'meaningful consultation'

That's for a judge to decide, a matter of law in the case of Indigenous/First Nations.

'Accommodation' (revenue, jobs, training, services, etc) of Aboriginal rights is also a matter of law.

and 'consensus' ". What is a pass/fail grade for each of those?

You can make stuff up if you like, somebody has to and soon.

Again, it's likely a political decision and may vary from place to place.

And no, it is certainly not international law!! Nobody slowed down , for example, the US or Australia when they chose to eat us alive on getting ready oilo/gas infrastructure.

Yes the protection of Indigenous rights and territories is an international matter. Some Indigenous communities may have difficulty accessing the legal system though, and the

UN Declaration on rights of Indigenous Peoples hasn't been applied by the international courts yet, but that's coming soon.

.

[overthere]

That's between governments and communities (Not Indigenous communities. That's a matter of law.).

If governments/MP's think they'll lose support, they may hesitate.

So you trust a government to decide the metrics....If the government of the Village of Bumlick, Nova Scotia decides no, then that is it- no development? Sounds fair and reasonable.

That's for a judge to decide, a matter of law in the case of Indigenous/First Nations.

'Accommodation' (revenue, jobs, training, services, etc) of Aboriginal rights is also a matter of law.

Quote

Oh good, if it is a matter of law then you will have a source for that since laws arer always written down, a cite that can specify the parameters at which point everybody agrees that there has been 'meaningful consultation'. Post it now.

Yes the protection of Indigenous rights and territories is an international matter. Some Indigenous communities may have difficulty accessing the legal system though, and the

UN Declaration on rights of Indigenous Peoples hasn't been applied by the international courts yet, but that's coming soo

Oh. I see. You started early on making stuff up.

Still waiting for one fact from you, one metric that Canadians can apply to those new assessment factors that corporations now have to satisfy.

Lets skip the BS. There aren't any. There is no way for anybody to even establish a target on such vague concepts. Can we at least stop pretending that much? Hmmmmmm?

[Keepitsimple]

in that you, in another thread, repeatedly posted to have me respond to one of your posts, I will do the same, in kind, here... you ignored it!

as for your "anyone", your hyperbolic "virtual standstill" would actually mean something, if you could substantiate it. Would actually have some degree of merit if not for the fact that, for the year 2015 (and only to Sept of that year) Canada exported a record 3.248 million bpd of crude oil to the U.S.. And most certainly, significant amounts of that are NOT being transported by rail... as oil companies work to extend on existing pipeline capacity via reversals, refitting and re-purposing existing pipelines. Per the investment bank Peters & Co, close to 1.45 million barrels per day of new Canadian pipeline capacity was expected to come on line by the first quarter of 2015.

of the pipelines profiled (even before recent days announcements): the KXL decision was not Canada's to make; Trans Mountain is currently before the NEB and Energy East was barely into the real substantive part of regulatory proceedings. As for Northern Gateway, I would suggest to you the lack of progress reflects upon, as much as anything, Harper Conservative positioning around such "fruitful undertakings" as reflected by "Ethical Oil", "enemies of the state", etc..

.

Thank you Waldo - but that says nothing to the current state of new pipeline projects that are at a stand-still. It's good to see we're optimizing our current delivery channels but even considering your misguided deflection, the "re-purposing" Energy East project is still in limbo.

[waldo]

Oh. I see. You started early on making stuff up.

when you purposely remove the name of the member from the Quote construct, it's not possible to realize who you are replying to. This has happened to me in the past in regards some of your replies to me... I only know of them as I "stumbled" across them in that purposely removing the name also doesn't enable automatic notification to alert a member that a post of theirs has been quoted (and by who). I note this is one way to try to, "get the last word in"!

[waldo]

Thank you Waldo - but that says nothing to the current state of new pipeline projects that are at a stand-still. It's good to see we're optimizing our current delivery channels but even considering your misguided deflection, the "re-purposing" Energy East project is still in limbo.

so, is this you accepting that your statement the "industry at a virtual standstill" is wholly inaccurate? Working through regulatory oversight is not "at a standstill". And I didn't deflect a thing; I corrected your hyperbole!

.

[jacee]

So you trust a government to decide the metrics....If the government of the Village of Bumlick, Nova Scotia decides no, then that is it- no development? Sounds fair and reasonable.

We pay them to make those decisions.

Oh good, if it is a matter of law then you will have a source for that since laws arer always written down, a cite that can specify the parameters at which point everybody agrees that there has been 'meaningful consultation'. Post it now.

Canadian Constitution:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

The rest is Case Law derived from that.

Summary here, but Aboriginal Title case happened after this summary.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.oktlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/njkCdnInst.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiq5oPf4NfKAhVKtYMKHWhHCvAQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGAOBJG8Fr4E3Sy_UvQXe8pqasmjA&sig2=wJoUda7Blr_v4dv9PY34OA

Oh. I see. You started early on making stuff up.

There are Indigenous groups in Central America preparing cases for the International Courts.

Some are about Canadian mining companies destroying their environment there.

Still waiting for one fact from you, one metric that Canadians can apply to those new assessment factors that corporations now have to satisfy.

Lets skip the BS. There aren't any. There is no way for anybody to even establish a target on such vague concepts. Can we at least stop pretending that much? Hmmmmmm?

For First Nations, those are legal decisions made by judges. You'd have to read the Case Law to see their criteria, or consult a lawyer.

In all communities, corporations have to consult with communities and get political support.

Ask your MP.

.

Edited February 2, 2016 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Except they're not. The alternative is the status quo - oil on tankers and rail. They are not talking about that at all.The real alternative is not what you think could happen, it is what actually does happen.

The alternative to fossil fuels is fossil fuels. I can see we have a language gap to overcome here.

[overthere]

We pay them to make those decisions.

I don't pay the government of Bumlick.

You didn't trust the federal govt for at least ten years to make any decisions, but you trust this one, with no metric whatsoever? Wow.

Canadian Constitution:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

The rest is Case Law derived from that.

There is no metric there either.

For First Nations, those are legal decisions made by judges. You'd have to read the Case Law to see their criteria, or consult a lawyer.

In all communities, corporations have to consult with communities and get political support.

Ask your MP.

.

So a company applying for a pipeline permit has to get first permission from a judge prior to gaining consent from every First Nation that may or may not be affected.

And every town,city, village, hamlet has the authority to block any proposal for any reason?

The terrifying thing is that I believe you believe that, all of it.

[eyeball]

I haven't yet heard anyone suggest another country that has strangled itself in "process" and brought the development of an entire industry to a virtual standstill......Canada - the only sucker nation.

Anyone?

Has Canada denied Alberta the means to refine its tar sands or something? And why couldn't Alberta do something like develop in-situ energy plants on the tar sands and entice industries to relocate there with the promise of energy so cheap its almost free?

[jacee]

I don't pay the government of Bumlick.

Your town has an odd name.

And how do you avoid paying any taxes?

You didn't trust the federal govt for at least ten years to make any decisions, but you trust this one, with no metric whatsoever? Wow.

There are consultation processes facilitated by governments, overseen by courts where necessary.

There is no metric there either.

The criteria are established by the courts, in Case Law.

So a company applying for a pipeline permit has to get first permission from a judge prior to gaining consent from every First Nation that may or may not be affected.

And every town,city, village, hamlet has the authority to block any proposal for any reason?

All have input to the process. "block"? Depends on the strength of their concern balanced with the need for the project.

The terrifying thing is that I believe you believe that, all of it.

We all have a right to have a say ... protest, try to influence decisions that affect us.

.

[jacee]

Del

Edited February 10, 2016 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

so, is this you accepting that your statement the "industry at a virtual standstill" is wholly inaccurate? Working through regulatory oversight is not "at a standstill". And I didn't deflect a thing; I corrected your hyperbole!

.

Not being able to get our product to Asia and Europe - while the US does.....while selling at a discount to our only customer is virtually a standstill, wouldn't you say? How long is your estimate for when we might be able to effectively move our product to other markets?

[hitops]

Nonsense. NG is only very cheap because there is an oversupply and we don't charge for air pollution. It's not very clean, particularly when you account for methane that escapes into the air. By some estimates, fracked gas is as bad as coal in terms of GHG's when you account for all sources.

And nobody understands the long term consequences of blasting rock and injecting toxic chemicals into geologic structures. We know that fracking causes earthquakes and no doubt we will find other consequences of this reckless behavior long after it's too late.

Could be true, but not my point. US coal is a perfect example of a self-inflicted problem, and we would see the results if not for fracking lessening the blow.

We're a net exporter of oil now and we'd still be a net exporter of oil And here's the kicker. We're a net importer of refined petroleum products and that wouldn't change either.

That's exactly the point - the absurdity of being a net exporter, yet needing to import for the east, simply because people don't like the ideas of pipelines. Oil by rail and tanker though? - totally fine.