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

[Derek 2.0]

8 hours ago, mowich said:

stay tuned the reasons will be on full display in the coming days.

Its already started........this will be a stew of Clayoquot Sound, Oka and Standing Rock..........

 

Many of the so called "experts" figure Trudeau approved it as a quid pro quo with Notely supporting his carbon tax........but what is Trudeau going to do when a Premier Jason Kenny replaces her? Likewise, if the NDP win the Spring BC election? For the most part, those that support pipelines are squarely already in the Tory camp.........I really don't see what Trudeau expected to gain by this but slit the throats of his Greater Vancouver MPs.....

[msj]

And there you go again thinking it's all about BC with a little bit of Alberta. 

It's about Quebec and their 75 seats. 

There will be "new" pipelines in the west and none in the east. 

C'mon man, you gotta skate to where the puck is gonna be not ....

Edited December 1, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, msj said:

There will be "new" pipelines in the west and none in the east. 

 

Oh I doubt there will be a pipeline in the West.....Trudeau's "social license" will be bogged down and thrown back in his face.

[cybercoma]

On 2016-11-29 at 10:04 PM, Smallc said:

Who was it that said something about no pipelines?

Every Trudeau-hating partisan hack on the forum, while you and I repeatedly said he would be putting through those pipelines because that's the great Liberal Trojan Horse. Campaign like a New Democrat, govern like a Conservative.

[Derek 2.0]

And it looks like the Trudeau Regime is looking to deploy the Army to protect the pipeline from protests.......that escalated quickly. 

[cybercoma]

"Regime"

Dramatic much? That regime was democratically elected, winning every last seat 4/10 provinces.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And it looks like the Trudeau Regime is looking to deploy the Army to protect the pipeline from protests.......that escalated quickly. 

That is a very bad choice of words from Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr: “If people choose for their own reasons not to be peaceful, then the government of Canada – through its defence forces, through its police forces – will ensure that people are kept safe,”

The threat of using the Canadian Forces on Canadian citizens is not to be taken lightly. Mr. Carr needs to take responsibility for his words.

[eyeball]

Sounds like they're inviting Canadians to bring it on.

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is a very bad choice of words from Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr: “If people choose for their own reasons not to be peaceful, then the government of Canada – through its defence forces, through its police forces – will ensure that people are kept safe,”

The threat of using the Canadian Forces on Canadian citizens is not to be taken lightly. Mr. Carr needs to take responsibility for his words.

 I don't think it is a bad thing to make it clear that violent protests will not be accommodated and the rule of law will be upheld. Using Canadian Forces to ensure that the peoples law is upheld is not using them against the people.

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 Using Canadian Forces to ensure that the peoples law is upheld is not using them against the people.

We have police forces to do that job, lets not misuse our military forces or even threaten to use them for domestic law enforcement. While I am not one of those overreacting and clamouring for Carr to resign, he needs to take responsibility and retract his threat and apologize for his words.

[cannuck]

On 11/30/2016 at 11:21 AM, mowich said:

 

I can sympathize with your feelings, but Aid to Civil Power has been a longstanding part of Canadian Armed Forces policy (actually law).   We don't hesitate to call our reserves or regular forces for floods and fires, but I don't think we should have politicians rattling that sword vis-a-vis citizens who are not terrorists (yet?).

[TimG]

59 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

We have police forces to do that job, lets not misuse our military forces or even threaten to use them for domestic law enforcement. While I am not one of those overreacting and clamouring for Carr to resign, he needs to take responsibility and retract his threat and apologize for his words.

I suggest you read up on the Oka Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

Quote

On August 8, Quebec premier Robert Bourassa announced at a press conference that he had, as per Section 275 of the National Defence Act, requested military support in "aid of the civil power". 
...
The Chief of the Defence Staff, General John de Chastelain, placed Quebec-based troops in support of the provincial authorities; some 2,500 regular and reserve troops from the 34 and 35 Canadian Brigade Groups and 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group were put on notice. On August 20, a company of the Royal 22^e Régiment, led by Major Alain Tremblay, took over three barricades and arrived at the final blockade leading to the disputed area. 

One of the roles of the military is to provide aid to civilian police forces if they are overwhelmed. Since the minister was talking about a purely hypothetical scenario of mass law breaking it we cannot discuss appropriateness. My hope it never comes to that but there is nothing legally incorrect with the minister's hypothetical musings. 

Here is a link to the appropriate law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-54.html#h-224

FWIW: I suspect Oka was in the back of the minister's mind when he made those comments. An event that may be lost in history for most of younger people on the west coast.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by TimG

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

We have police forces to do that job, lets not misuse our military forces or even threaten to use them for domestic law enforcement. While I am not one of those overreacting and clamouring for Carr to resign, he needs to take responsibility and retract his threat and apologize for his words.

I think the message here was that the law will be upheld and if it can't be done any other way, the military will be used. I think it would be foolish to involve the military unless the police are unable to keep the peace, but it should be made clear that the government is prepared to do so in that event. I would expect that of my government.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And it looks like the Trudeau Regime is looking to deploy the Army to protect the pipeline from protests.......that escalated quickly. 

 

Indeed...this Trudeau Regime looks a lot like PET's regime by "whipping out" the military for civil unrest.  

[Omni]

I think we all know that appropriate resources will be used to handle any situation if demonstrators stray from the lawful path. Carr's comments were simply equal to waving a red flag in front of an angry bull and were not required. He should formally retract his words.

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The threat of using the Canadian Forces on Canadian citizens is not to be taken lightly. Mr. Carr needs to take responsibility for his words.

 

Doubly so when the Minster is speaking to a crowd of oilmen......reeks of aristocratic oligarchy.

 

 

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sounds like they're inviting Canadians to bring it on.

 

After hearing an interview on local radio with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, I think its already "on".........

 

7 hours ago, Wilber said:

I don't think it is a bad thing to make it clear that violent protests will not be accommodated

 

Threatening the use of the army on protesters is only going to inflame things, well also putting members of the Armed Forces in a tough spot.........Trudeau wanted a Peacekeeping Mission.....I bet he didn't figure it being in British Columbia.

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

I suggest you read up on the Oka Crisis

 

The Oka crisis came about by a developer trying to build a golf course on First Nations land.........the golf course was never built.

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

One of the roles of the military is to provide aid to civilian police forces if they are overwhelmed.

 

Sure, and that would go over like a lead balloon........doesn't mean a Minister should be uttering such a threat on such a mater that amounts to providing security for Kinder Morgan.

 

6 hours ago, Wilber said:

but it should be made clear that the government is prepared to do so in that event.

 

Its nothing more then an escalation that will only inflame a situation that hasn't even gone before the courts.........

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Indeed...this Trudeau Regime looks a lot like PET's regime by "whipping out" the military for civil unrest.  

 

Just watch him.........

[TimG]

22 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Sure, and that would go over like a lead balloon........doesn't mean a Minister should be uttering such a threat on such a mater that amounts to providing security for Kinder Morgan.

That is nonsense narrative. If some yahoos are preventing a company from doing business that they have been granted permission to do then it is job of police - not private security - to remove the protesters. Frankly, the mentality of the the anti-pipeline people is pretty pathetic. There is no rational reason to oppose it and by opposing it they are intentionally trying to destroy Alberta's economy (which they try to rationalize away with excuses). Denying economic opportunity to neighbors led to wars in the past. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by TimG

[mowich]

On 2016-11-30 at 5:35 PM, Derek 2.0 said:

Its already started........this will be a stew of Clayoquot Sound, Oka and Standing Rock..........

 

Many of the so called "experts" figure Trudeau approved it as a quid pro quo with Notely supporting his carbon tax........but what is Trudeau going to do when a Premier Jason Kenny replaces her? Likewise, if the NDP win the Spring BC election? For the most part, those that support pipelines are squarely already in the Tory camp.........I really don't see what Trudeau expected to gain by this but slit the throats of his Greater Vancouver MPs.....

The PM had little choice and save for Kinder Morgan, he got off pretty easy.  Gateway was never going to fly.  The Line 3 approval was basically a rubber stamp on a done deal that involves only replacing old pipe.  Lost in all the sunny ways reporting is the fact that Justin has several times both during the election and once in government, spoken of the need to get the oil out of the ground.  70 cents of every energy dollar goes to the benefit of Canada and Canadians. 

Now he has to get behind the Kinder Morgan line, take appropriate steps against protestors, get the company onside with the 157 restrictions - oh and there are those pesky court cases that have yet to be decided.  The process to get the line built will be a long one. 

[mowich]

3 hours ago, TimG said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Quote

Sure, and that would go over like a lead balloon........doesn't mean a Minister should be uttering such a threat on such a mater that amounts to providing security for Kinder Morgan.

I doubt the Minister of Natural Resources had peaceful protestors in mind when he spoke of using the military and police forces to quell the unruly.  More likely he is well aware of the situation south of the border that has seen an initially peaceful protest erupt into battles - battles some say are sparked by paid provocateurs there only to cause as much mayhem and disturbance as possible. 
 

Quote

Its nothing more then an escalation that will only inflame a situation that hasn't even gone before the courts.........

It is nothing more than laying down the ground rules before things get out of hand - something authorities in North Dakota are probably wishing they had done.

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by mowich
trying to get rid of unnecessary quote

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

If some yahoos are preventing a company from doing business that they have been granted permission to do then it is job of police - not private security - to remove the protesters.

To remove them sure, use the police.......not the army.

1 hour ago, TimG said:

There is no rational reason to oppose it and by opposing it they are intentionally trying to destroy Alberta's economy

 

There are plenty of reasons, namely the 10% chance over a 25 year period (as noted by Kinder Morgan in their application) of a spill of a product that can't be cleaned up or the extinction of the local Orca pod caused by the increase in supertanker traffic.......if our "world class spill response" requires over a month to partially clean-up a sunk tugboat off Bella Bella, destroying the local fishery in the interim, what is going to happen if a Super Tanker runs aground in the Georgia or Juan de Fuca straits? What of the Burrard inlet?

For British Columbia, we take nearly all the risk and receive little benefit........as such, there are plenty of reasons to oppose it as is, like those protesting have every right to be angry at the Trudeau government's political grift.

 

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Denying economic opportunity to neighbors led to wars in the past. 

 

 

 

But if you're serious, I'll tell you right now, as currently proposed, the pipeline won't be built........The First Nations were able to halt Northern Gateway through the courts and public pressure, I have no doubt they will succeed yet again........if not through the courts and politics, as I said:

Quote

 

this will be a stew of Clayoquot Sound, Oka and Standing Rock

 

 

At the end of the day Kinder Morgan will require investors, and with mounting legal challenges, next to no local political support and large public outcry, the pipeline is already a risky investment in a sluggish oil market.

[mowich]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

At the end of the day Kinder Morgan will require investors, and with mounting legal challenges, next to no local political support and large public outcry, the pipeline is already a risky investment in a sluggish oil market.

It will all come down to market demand and timing.

[Derek 2.0]

46 minutes ago, mowich said:

It will all come down to market demand and timing

 

Those are but factors, but would be mooted by legal challenges, (further) loss of political and public support and of course civil disobedience.......at the end of the day Oka and Clayoquot resulted in a win for protesters.........even when the State wins, like in Gustafsen Lake, it will cost an immense amount of money.......several dozen (armed) protesters, over a month period, forced the Government to deploy hundreds of RCMP and spend millions of dollars......imagine the response when Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and the various other Treaty Nations start blockading the pipeline.......Trudeau will need the Army......and in the day of social media and smartphones, once Trudeau has the Canadian Army start bashing skulls he has already lost....  

[TimG]

10 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

But if you're serious, I'll tell you right now, as currently proposed, the pipeline won't be built........The First Nations were able to halt Northern Gateway through the courts and public pressure, I have no doubt they will succeed yet again........if not through the courts and politics, as I said:

Northern Gateway was stopped by the courts. That said, the SCC has been clear: projects in the public interest can proceed irrespective of native claims. A pipeline that allows a 20% of national exports to fetch a higher price on the global market is in the Canadian interest. The issue comes down to how the broader public views the issues. Trudeau has packaged the deal well with the carbon tax + a pipeline. That makes the protesters in Vancouver seems like self centered little children throwing a tantrum because they can't get their way. As far as I am concerned - anyone blocking the pipeline should not be allowed to buy gas. The biggest problem we have in this country is there are way to many people who are completely ignorant of economics and the nature of the Canadian economy. They live off the spoils of the resource economy yet seek to shut it down whenever they can.

Quote

 

There are plenty of reasons, namely the 10% chance over a 25 year period (as noted by Kinder Morgan in their application) of a spill of a product that can't be cleaned up or the extinction of the local Orca pod caused by the increase in supertanker traffic

 

There is no such thing as risk free development and there is more risk from US tankers which we can't control anyways. More importantly, diligent monitoring can reduce this risk to near zero. That I why I think there should be an audit panel fill with locals with a stake that regularly reviews the state of the oil spill response (similar to the auditor general). This should keep maintenance of the system and following procedures top of mind and prevent complacency from leading to an incident.

Orcas are just as endangered by other ships and I don't see protesters trying to shut down the port of Vancouver.

Edited December 3, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

15 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

For British Columbia, we take nearly all the risk and receive little benefit........as such, there are plenty of reasons to oppose it as is, like those protesting have every right to be angry at the Trudeau government's political grift.

 

 

 

Consider it environmental equalization payments to the places you have been getting your oil from who have been carrying the risk for you.  That's how a true environmentalist would think, either that or commit to stop using it altogether.

[Derek 2.0]

6 hours ago, TimG said:

The issue comes down to how the broader public views the issues.

 

That's subjective, the broader public in South Western BC don't favor the pipeline.

6 hours ago, TimG said:

That makes the protesters in Vancouver seems like self centered little children throwing a tantrum because they can't get their way.

 

I think they have every intention of getting their way......if/when they do, would you consider the pro pipeline camp as having a tantrum?

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

many people who are completely ignorant of economics and the nature of the Canadian economy. They live off the spoils of the resource economy yet seek to shut it down whenever they can.

 

Inversely, a major tanker spill off the shores of Greater Vancouver would have far greater economic impact to British Columbia then the upside of allowing the increase in tanker traffic.

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

There is no such thing as risk free development

 

Ahh but there are ways to mitigate risk........for example, shipping bitumen versus shipping refined products. Bitumen sinks and is impossible to clean up in the ocean, versus refined products that float and (for the most part) will evaporate after several days.

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

there is more risk from US tankers which we can't control anyways.

 

Cherry point receives Alaskan crude and ships out refined products.......both less risky then raw bitumen in the advent of a spill.

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

More importantly, diligent monitoring can reduce this risk to near zero. That I why I think there should be an audit panel fill with locals with a stake that regularly reviews the state of the oil spill response (similar to the auditor general). This should keep maintenance of the system and following procedures top of mind and prevent complacency from leading to an incident.

 

 

See spill response in Bella Bella 

 

 

6 hours ago, TimG said:

Orcas are just as endangered by other ships and I don't see protesters trying to shut down the port of Vancouver.

 

Sure, but even with the massive upgrades to Port of Vancouver and Deltaport, shipping has only increased ~3-4%........the increased capacity of Kinder Morgan's pipeline will see traffic increase from ~5 tankers a month to over 30......what's that? An increase of 500+%?