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

hitops · January 29, 2016

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.

Nobody in eastern Canada had volunteered to stop using oil. The loudest opponent use tons of it just like everyone.

I used to be baffled by the sheer stupidity of knowingly increasing the share of rail-oil and tanker-oil as a result of opposing pipe. But now I actually think this is a fake ignorance, and perhaps opponents don't really want safer, more sustainable oil. They want more problems, more disasters, more people killed because that gives them the types of headlines that are gratifying to their ideology. It is the exact same phenomenon when Palestinian groups put women in children knowingly into harm's way, or hid behind them, because they value the headlines more than the humans.

PIK · January 29, 2016

So after all these talks and the natives say no. What then? Does trudeau say we will not do it because the natives will be pissed or will show leadership and say we are going ahead with it no matter what? And for people that say harper put all our eggs in the oil basket tells me they don't understand what has been paying the bills . With the low dollar our manufacturing should be taking off, except we don't have the manufacturing base like we did anymore, especially in ONT where the liberals ran 300,000 jobs out of the province.

Edited January 29, 2016 by PIK

Smallc · January 29, 2016

If aboriginal people don't have their wishes accounted for, good luck getting anything done.

waldo · January 29, 2016

You got a cite/link that under Harper it was unfettered, full-blown, all speed ahead, get out of the way development, hey! Or is this just more leftwing/Liberal blather/puffery from the king/master of puffery, hey!

you should read what I wrote again... I wrote "in favour of". Geezaz, you guys are so sensitive and protective of 'the former one'. By the by, any updates on just where MP Harper (from Calgary Heritage) is? We're well into the first full session and, as I read, he's still a 'no show'.

waldo · January 29, 2016

Here's a list of all countries who have pipelines - and the number of kilometers for each:

so... only Canada has a regulatory approach to pipeline development? So... only Canada faces opposition activism towards oil/gas related infrastructure projects? Are we to simply dismiss the recent U.S. farmer/rancher/native KXL protests in the U.S. States of South Dakota & Nebraska... that, as I understand, are still before state level Supreme Court? Just dismiss those because they get in the way of your OP, Simple? Are you conveniently ignoring all the opposition to fracking within the U.S.; some resulting in bannings or moratoriums?

much of that pipeline development you presume to present in that link, pre-dates enforced regulation... much of it exists in countries with little-to-no designs on regulatory oversight and environmental consciousness. Your OP is quite disingenuous in the purposeful slant that you've presented.

.

overthere · January 29, 2016

Why is it that we are the only nation on earth that faces almost insurmountable obstacles to build new pipelines. We've had 100,000 kilometers of pipeline running virtually free of problems for decades. The US has over two million kilometers of pipelines criss-crossing their nation - again, virtually free of problems - and Obama brags that his administration has built enough new pipelines to circle the world. Where is the clamour to shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico - or the North Sea? Where is the outrage in Denmark or Norway? Why is Canada singled out?

What is it about Canada that allows foreign-funded activist groups to continually disparage our oil? Why is the mainstream media - and now this new Liberal government - so ignorant of the difference between "pipeline safety" and the forces that want to keep all oil in the ground?

We're suckers. We need to stand up for our country and our economy - the right to responsibly extract and deliver our product to market - like every other nation in the world. Until we do, we'll be the only "sucker" nation in the world.

Here's a list of all countries who have pipelines - and the number of kilometers for each:

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_length_of_pipelines

Agreed. We are not suckers, though, but fools, because I do not blame anybody but ourselves for the lack of national will to accomplish...... anything. Including what would appear to be somehtthng as simple as repeating an engineering exercise we have already done, to the tune of 100000 installed kms of pipelines.

We should not compare ourselves to Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but to Western democracies like Norway, USA and especially Australia. All three have been and continue to conprehensively eat out lunch on selling a global commodity. The US and Norway act coherently, between business and government they cooperate to ensure that the product is able to get to market. In the US, there are pipleines now buiult, refineries upgraded and ports ready to export oil for the first time in over 40 years. Their market: Europe and Asia. The US govt repealed the law that prevented US oil exports. In the meantime, Obama makes with the old blahblah about the environment, while quietly ensuring that his country is well positioned in all the ways that matter. Is it a coincidence that he denies what is essentially a competing supplier and product in Keystone XL? Is it a coincdence that the other part of the network puzzle, called Keystone, was built quickly and without fuss to deliver US oil to the Gulf refineries and ports? Not likely times 2!

But a better comparison is Australia.. They are a similar size economically to Canada. They are even more dependent on commodity export. They have no problems building infrastructure. The are IMO quite a bit further left than Canada politically, with if anything a larger stronger social contract.. They have developed a large export LNG industry- and they have gobbled up markets and market share that we cannot touch for a generation because we are arguing about it all endlessly.

We are paralyzed.

The pipelines won't be built. Trudeau has done the politically astute thing, delaying. He has no interest in them, they are no part of his future.

overthere · January 29, 2016

Oh, and one of the most interesting things Trudeau has said, is that he plans to be a 'responsible referee', not a cheerleader for the pipelines.

Referees are impartial, they have no interest in the outcome of the game, the result is not their gain or loss.

That would work if this was a competition of some sort.

But it is not. The revenue from commodity exports like oil, gas, potash, minerals, lumber, food and other things are what fund our lifestyle. They pay for the existing social contract, all the lovely things we hold dear in this country.

How the f**k does he step away from that? Because the net result of pushing back(and effectively killing) pipelines and ports is not that they don't get built, that is not the worst result. . The worse result is that those producers who fil the pipleine decide that Canada had only risk and no reward. When that happens, we start to most closely resemble Venezuela.

It is being increasingly clear to me that we have elected a politician, that so far is not a leader in any sense. What frightens me most is that I don't think he understands the situation, the implications of doing nothing. Even worse is if he understands the situation and makes statementsd like this.

msj · January 29, 2016

Oh, and one of the most interesting things Trudeau has said, is that he plans to be a 'responsible referee', not a cheerleader for the pipelines.

Referees are impartial, they have no interest in the outcome of the game, the result is not their gain or loss.

But it is not. The revenue from commodity exports like oil, gas, potash, minerals, lumber, food and other things are what fund our lifestyle. They pay for the existing social contract, all the lovely things we hold dear in this country.

How the f**k does he step away from that?

Hmmm, let's look at it this way:

He could be an environmental cheerleader and keep the tar sands oil in the ground.

Or he could be an economy cheerleader and drill, baby drill.

Or he could be a referee and try to balance the interests of the economy and the environment.

That's what real leaders do: they balance interests.

So we will see pipelines get built. Not all of the ones the O&G rent seekers would like.

But also not the zero pipelines the environmental zealots would like either.

So, please, stop this hyperbolic nonsense about how we're turning into Venezuela and Trudeau is not a leader etc etc...

The guy is only just in power so lets see what actually happens so we can compare his record to reality rather than the machinations of your partisan imagination.

overthere · January 29, 2016

Hmmm, let's look at it this way:

He could be an environmental cheerleader and keep the tar sands oil in the ground.

Or he could be an economy cheerleader and drill, baby drill.

Or he could be a referee and try to balance the interests of the economy and the environment.

That's what real leaders do: they balance interests.

So we will see pipelines get built. Not all of the ones the O&G rent seekers would like.

But also not the zero pipelines the environmental zealots would like either.

So, please, stop this hyperbolic nonsense about how we're turning into Venezuela and Trudeau is not a leader etc etc...

The guy is only just in power so lets see what actually happens so we can compare his record to reality rather than the machinations of your partisan imagination.

I regret that you've missed the point again.

His decision to delay , is a decision in this circumstance. There is nothing to gain by delaying the building of infrastructure(with private money), sicne that money will sooner rather than later just say 'f**k it, let's go somewhere else and see if they want the jobs'.

And it is one that may have very grave consequences.

Real leaders do not 'balance'. I acknowledge that Trudeau wants everybody to be happy, everybody to love him, and for the economy to leave the enerrgy/commodity sector for an undefined and sunny future filled with resourceful diverse Canadians.

But wishing and hoping don't get the business back here. Wishing and hoping that somehow the NEB can build a consensus on a controversy won't make it all go away. But waiting and delaying will make it go away. It is cheap and cowardly, though admittedly it has convinced some people that there is some form os assessment happening when it fact it is a rejection of an entire economic sector.

The pipleines will not be built. The blow to the economy won't be offset.

Smallc · January 29, 2016

His decision to delay , is a decision in this circumstance.

Yes, it is - it's a decision to potentially allow the project to proceed. Without social license and indigenous support, pipelines aren't going anywhere.

overthere · January 29, 2016

Yes, it is - it's a decision to potentially allow the project to proceed. Without social license and indigenous support, pipelines aren't going anywhere.

Oh please. There will never be consensus, which everybody except you seems to get.

Trudeau certainly does.

Delay....delay... and lets talk some more.... and the likelihood that it will ever be built gets more and more remote. The first step is to slow down the NEB, because if the NEB registers a decision to go ahead in some distant time and future, then Trudeau has to actually make the call.

The builders of the line, and more importantly the folks who put the oil in it, will just give up . They cannot dick around here forever. They saw what went down the Mackenzie Valley Pipleine. Nothing except their money. .. And Guess Who was PM for that particular clusterf**k? C;mon , guess.

Smallc · January 29, 2016

Though you'll never get complete consensus, you can get a lot closer than the Conservatives did.

bush_cheney2004 · January 29, 2016

Though you'll never get complete consensus, you can get a lot closer than the Conservatives did.

And that's what really counts, right ? Partisan politics matter far more than any actual pipelines or refineries.

msj · January 29, 2016

I regret that you've missed the point again.

Yes, I'm so stoopid I always miss the point! :rolleyes:

His decision to delay , is a decision in this circumstance. There is nothing to gain by delaying the building of infrastructure(with private money), sicne that money will sooner rather than later just say 'f**k it, let's go somewhere else and see if they want the jobs'.

The purpose of the delay is build political capital in the future to continue to allow pipelines to be built.

Otherwise we will end up with a Carmanah Valley type showdown like what happened in BC with its logging industry.

-1=e^ipi · January 30, 2016

Yes, it is - it's a decision to potentially allow the project to proceed. Without social license and indigenous support, pipelines aren't going anywhere.

Yet they go places in other countries.

-1=e^ipi · January 30, 2016

No, US production has not increased under Obama at all.

Obama can't veto American pipelines. Only pipelines with other countries such as Keystone XL.

bush_cheney2004 · January 30, 2016

Obama can't veto American pipelines. Only pipelines with other countries such as Keystone XL.

True....while y'all keep arguing and getting nothing done, the Americans will keep building more pipelines and fracking more rocks.

Smallc · January 30, 2016

Yet they go places in other countries.

Other countries don't have the same kinds of historical, constitutional indigenous rights. It's not even comparable.

-1=e^ipi · January 30, 2016

Other countries don't have the same kinds of historical, constitutional indigenous rights. It's not even comparable.

Of course it isn't. We are constraint by environmentalists and racists that believe in race-based 'rights'.

Smallc · January 30, 2016

We are constraint by environmentalists and racists that believe in race-based 'rights'.

What you and I see as an issue is, in this case, irrelevant. Their constitutionally enshrined rights exists. That isn't the case in any other country that I know of.

cybercoma · January 30, 2016

is this from 'Rebel Media'... perhaps from the Rebel Commander himself?

you keep dropping Butts' name - do you have a money-shot quote to support your related statements? I've read Butts' using the word "sustainable" in regards tarsands development. Oh wait - does that apparently contentious word, sustainable, mean "shut down" to anyone in favour of unfettered, full-blown, all-speed ahead, get out of the way development?

It's black and white to these petrophiles. Either full blown unfettered production or complete shut down. They have no nuance in their arguments and they can't actually argue the points people make without creating ridiculous straw men.

overthere · January 30, 2016

Though you'll never get complete consensus, you can get a lot closer than the Conservatives did.

how much 'closer' to consensus is required, in your opinion, to move forward on any of thse projects?

Since what should be a technical and economic decision for the nation, is now going to include ill defined notions of 'increased consultation' and 'social license' elements- what specific metrics would you suggest is 'close enough' for approval?

Keep in mind that Northern Gateway was approved with 209 NEB conditions, BC had 5 conditions and an unknown number of First Nations objections and some First Nations support. The Mackenzie Valley federal govt/NEB process took about 37 years overall and ended up with "264 environmental, financial and cultural" conditions. Of coursde, by then the proponets of the project were not the same people who could finance the project(and by then, the affected Firsdt Nations supported it)

Are these the kind of metrics that you would approve? Or?

overthere · January 30, 2016

Yes, I'm so stoopid I always miss the point!

The purpose of the delay is build political capital in the future to continue to allow pipelines to be built.

Otherwise we will end up with a Carmanah Valley type showdown like what happened in BC with its logging industry.

Nope the purpose of the delay is to eliminate all tidewater pipeline projects, and all prospects of future tidewater pipleine projects.

Both the pipleine builders(trans Canada, Enbridge and KInder Morgan) and the multinationals who buy space on the pipleines will soon come to realize that they have seen this movie before.

And that will be that for apllications for a very long time to come.

The approval process in Canada for pipelines via the NEB was one of the most arduous, long, complex and expensive processes in the developed world. I have no problem with that, due diligence is fine by me. It has just been made much harder by the actions of our government, for projects already in the review process.

I fully expect one or both applications to be withdrawn in the next few months.

poochy · January 30, 2016

It's black and white to these petrophiles. Either full blown unfettered production or complete shut down. They have no nuance in their arguments and they can't actually argue the points people make without creating ridiculous straw men.

Thanks for dropping by to spread your ridiculous hyperbole, while pretending to be 'reasonable', next you will be telling us how pro science you are, while you prefer we pretend we dont need oil or that pipelines aren't the best way to move it, for everyone. Petrophiles eh, yea, that's right, im sure you are completely oil free, im sure that all of the other people who are against this pipeline are as well. Anyway, lets get this straight, the work has been done, the assessments are done, there is no real reason to delay building this except to placate the kind of person who would use a made up word like "petrophile". They have something you might call a credibility gap, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

Since we know that we will keep using and producing oil, and that pipelines are the safest method of transport, it simply makes sense to build it. No lovey dovey social license nonsense that seemingly impresses you is going to change the nature of the pipeline, if it ever gets built, there is no middle ground, you can build it or not, but no one is talking about a shut down if this doesn't get done, oil sands production has increased while the price has dropped, and the price of oil is going to rise, so it'l just be on trains instead, less safe, but hey, that seems to be the preferred choice of smart people like you, why should we argue?

Maybe you are for the pipeline, if that's the case maybe you should say so and perhaps add the additional things that should be done to make sure it meets your complete approval, then again attacking people who simply want the logical thing, and calling them made up names doesn't come across as someone who has a reasonable opinion on the subject. Do you think we don't care if it's safe? Really? No doubt it could always be safer, but then, what couldn't? Ultimately this is more about an anti oil philosophy for most of you than an anti pipeline philosophy, of course it's difficult to bring that philosophy through the front door to a society that needs and wants oil, not even to mention the economic importance to a nation with lots of it, so the anti pipeline movement is simply the more dishonest back door. But you know what's good for us, the ends, the means, and all that.