Husky spills 200k litres of crude into river

[Peter F]

Obviously the earth is a round ball so you can reach the Pacific ocean via any number of indirect routes but that does not mean the residents of BC do not have a civil obligation to allow the transport of goods from other provinces.

Civil obligation? The civil obligation that exists nowhere else but in your own mind? That one?

Bottom line: the civil obligation to allow transport of goods is real and only people who are self-centered jerks ignore it.

If a self-centred jerk such as myself - amongst many others - can ignore such a 'real' civil obligation with impunity and no legal sanction whatsoever then your supposed real obligation is a meaningless mirage.

if BC thinks it can abrogate the moral obligation it has to allow transport of goods then why should other provinces act differently?

BC can abrogate your supposed-fantasy obligation. BC isn't threatening to do such, They actually have done so. Already. No Deals. Forget it. Decision made - no pipeline.

Other provinces can do the very same thing and even expand such denials even beyond pipelines whenever they feel the need and within the bounds of the law. The present pipeline proposal most certainly fits the criteria of felt need and legality. The morality of it is in dispute. Many believe it would be immoral to allow the pipeline You and many others believe its immoral to block it. Whose morality outweighs whose? We don't effing know and theres no way to tell.

But! There are certain legal instruments that deal with such conflicts. Contracts for one. Is there a contract between the oil barons of Alberta and the government of BC to allow their product to BC ports via pipelines? No there is not. Was one proposed? Yes. Was it rejected ? Yes. Were the rejectors immoral? Who elfin cares? They didn't want the damn thing and the Oil barons failed to convince them to make a deal.

Would you opinion change if everyone acted like BC or does you opinion assume that only BC is entitled to be unreasonable?

BC is not being unreasonable. Your are, by demanding they acquiesce to the Oil corp just because the oil corp could conceivably increase profits.

you attitude will kill the industry and destroy all of those jobs because no company will invest the billions required to develop new supply in Alberta if they cannot get it to market.

Cannot get it to market? What the hell have they been doing for the last 20 years? Making money hand over fist by getting their product to market

[eyeball]

BC's social responsibility to protect its environment trumps it's civil obligation to ensure higher profits for Alberta. Full stop.

[Peter F]

Broker in Shanghai: "We want to buy hundreds of thousands of litres of oil from you"

Broker in Calgary: "Can do. Where do you want it delivered"

Broker in Shanghai: " Shantou, China."

Broker in Calgary: " hmmm, that could be a problem since we have no means of piping it to Shantou"

Broker in Shanghai: " ah. well. Maybe you can have it stored for pickup somewhere? Vancouver?"

Broker in Calgary: " Well, no, sorry. Getting that amount of oil to storage in Vancouver may take longer than you would like."

Broker in Shanghai: " Oh. Maybe you can tell me where you can have it stored for pickup in a timely manner?"

Broker in Calgary: "ummmmm...lets see here.....Montreal? Oh, Quebec city! Quebec city, we could have it there for you."

Broker in Shanghai: " just a moment.....Ok we'll arrange to have it picked up there."

Broker in Calgary: "Right. I'll get that going right away."

Broker in Shanghai: " Excellent. I'll get the contract drawn up . Thanks very much"

Unable to get their oil to market. Bullshit.

[Argus]

Not ludicrous at all. M/V Cap Theodora loaded oil in Quebec city and serenely sailed to China where it recently finished offloading. Millions of $$ profit collected from the sale of the oil - Albertan oil to boot. Happens all the time. Not ludicrous in any way whatsoever. Certainly not as profitable! but profitable nonetheless.

Less profit means less taxes and money for the welfare, health care, and other programs.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

Civil obligation? The civil obligation that exists nowhere else but in your own mind?

It exists. But no one questioned it before now. Allowing free transport of goods is fundamental to any nation. Without that there is not much justification for a nation. This principal has been enshrined in international "Law of Sea" where countries like Turkey with control over key straights are prohibited with interfering with the transport of goods despite the fact that the Dardanelles are internal waters. It guess you want to argue that the UN was wrong to enshrine 'a right to transport goods' in its laws. If the north west passage becomes navigable other countries will claim the right to ship oil through it no matter what Canadians say and Canada would be powerless to stop them. The 'right to transport goods' is very real.

BC is not being unreasonable. Your are, by demanding they acquiesce to the Oil corp just because the oil corp could conceivably increase profits.

A company wishes to transport goods through BC. BC is trying to block it. BC is being unreasonable. It makes no difference why you think the company is doing it. All that matters is they want to transport goods and they have that right. Trying to spin it as a question of 'corporate profits' is propaganda on your part. This is about Canadians getting the best price they can for their resources which leads to jobs and higher royalty revenues. Basically, this is about you thinking that BC has right to screw fellow Canadians because BC happens to have a monopoly on direct access to the Pacific in this country. I could use your exact argument to claim that government has no business taxing rich people for more than they use in services because rich people no obligation to share what they have with the rest of society. That is why I said that if you advocate the principle that no region or person can be expected to live up to their civil obligations then the entire civil obligation argument for the social welfare state comes crumbling down.

Cannot get it to market? What the hell have they been doing for the last 20 years?

Selling conventional oil. Those supplies are running out. The infrastructure needs to be upgraded to handle the oil of the future. If it is not upgraded the industry will shut down. Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

If you want to be self determining then separate. Until then you are part of Canada and if it is determined that pipelines are in Canada's best interests then so be it.

Unh ... No.

But we'll keep in mind that your backyard is available.

.

[Accountability Now]

Unh ... No.

But we'll keep in mind that your backyard is available.

.

Fantastic argument jacee. Right on par with all your previous ones. But perhaps you'd like to take a stab at addressing how BC would want to tackle this issue if Canada views it's in the nations best interest to proceed. All your NIMBY BS means nothing then.

[Peter F]

It exists. But no one questioned it before now. Allowing free transport of goods is fundamental to any nation. Without that there is not much justification for a nation. This principal has been enshrined in international "Law of Sea" where countries like Turkey with control over key straights are prohibited with interfering with the transport of goods despite the fact that the Dardanelles are internal waters. It guess you want to argue that the UN was wrong to enshrine 'a right to transport goods' in its laws. If the north west passage becomes navigable other countries will claim the right to ship oil through it no matter what Canadians say and Canada would be powerless to stop them. The 'right to transport goods' is very real.

You are in a fantasy. Every nation on this planet, large or small, no matter the form of government, has undisputed right to inhibit, tax, seize, even forbid anything and everything being transported through its territory. I have no idea where you get the idea that governments cannot do such things. You've made such rights up. Probably a few minutes ago.

Your example of Turkey being prohibited from interfering with goods transported through the dardanelles is completely false. Turkey can seize, tax, prohibit, regulate or forbid any goods whatsoever being transported through their country. The law of the sea prohibits Turkey from forbidding innocent passage through the Dardanelles - but that law applies to vessels and in no way applies to a vessels cargo. Plus the UN law of the sea requires Turkey to agree to that law - I have no idea if they have done so or not. Last I heard the USofA had yet to agree to the UN law of the sea. So why Turkey absolutely must adhere where the USofA doesn't is beyond my understanding and most certainly far removed from what you think nations must do.

It guess you want to argue that the UN was wrong to enshrine 'a right to transport goods' in its laws.

Hell no! I would never argue the UN was wrong on anything. I would love to see the enshrined Right to Transport Goods in its laws. Can you provide a link? or perhaps a reference in a library somewhere?

If the north west passage becomes navigable other countries will claim the right to ship oil through it no matter what Canadians say and Canada would be powerless to stop them.

Sure other countries can ship whatever Canada allows them to ship. See http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-arctic-acts-regulations-asppr-421.htm or the Oceans Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-2.4/ . Canada has every legal power to stop them. Actual shooting power to compel them to stop may be another story entirely.

[TimG]

Your example of Turkey being prohibited from interfering with goods transported through the dardanelles is completely false.

You are quite uniformed. I suggest you read the UNLOS:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded;

Turkey has no right to prohibit any ships seeking transit though the straight. That said, it can enforce "generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ship", however, saying no to ships simply because they carry oil is clearly against UNLOS.

(aside: no one is arguing that BC does not have the right to demand precautions to prevent and manage spills. What is being argued is BC has no right to refuse pipelines under any conditions).

Sure other countries can ship whatever Canada allows them to ship.

Under UNLOS, Canada cannot prohibit any goods through international straits. The only question is whether the northwest passage will be designated as an 'international strait' (something that the US and China will demand). The final resolution will be by the UNLOS arbitration court 20-30 years from now but I don't think Canada will have much of a case. If Canada loses, as I expect it will, it will have no right to bar transport of any goods and can only enforce "generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices". Those regulations will not include 'bans on oil tankers'.

[jacee]

Fantastic argument jacee. Right on par with all your previous ones. But perhaps you'd like to take a stab at addressing how BC would want to tackle this issue if Canada views it's in the nations best interest to proceed. All your NIMBY BS means nothing then.

BC can take care of itself.

.

[Peter F]

(aside: no one is arguing that BC does not have the right to demand precautions to prevent and manage spills. What is being argued is BC has no right to refuse pipelines under any conditions).

Exactly. Conditions not met then no pipeline gets built. That is precisely what happened. BC refused permission because their conditions were not met. Yet you argue that they have no right to refuse when clearly (now by your very own reasoning that somehow rides along with BC having no right to refuse and the Oil companies 'right of transport') BC does have a right to refuse as you agreed to in the quoted aside.

[TimG]

Exactly. Conditions not met then no pipeline gets built. That is precisely what happened. BC refused permission because their conditions were not met.

BC has a civil obligation to set reasonable conditions. Setting unreasonable conditions is violation of BC's civil obligations. But the issue is not that the current BC government has set some conditions which may or may not be reasonable (conditions that could change when the government changes). The issue is a lot of people think that BC has a right to block pipelines. It doesn't legally or morally. BC has an obligation to work with Alberta, the Feds and the companies to come up with a regime that that can be implemented and allows oil to flow.

IOW: the default position of the BC government should be to support the pipeline unless it is clear that the safety regulations are not adequate. The current BC position of demanding that the company prove that its safety regulations are adequate is unreasonable.

The wording from the UNLOS also notes the need for "reasonable" regulations when it says countries can only enforce "generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices". That is why BC can't throw out a bunch of impossible demands and claim that it met its obligation because impossible demands weren't met.

Edited July 25, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

BC has an obligation to work with Alberta, the Feds and the companies to come up with a regime that that can be implemented and allows oil to flow.

Wrong. BC has no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the oil flows. If Alberta and the Oil companies want the oil to flow through new pipelines in BC then it is the obligation of Alberta and BC to come up with a regime that is satisfactory to BC. Definitely NOT the other way around.

[TimG]

Wrong. BC has no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the oil flows

Well, that is the basis of the disagreement. You seem to want to deny the lessons of history and take a myopic and self-centered position on the question of transport of goods. I tend to look at the bigger picture and understand that our economic well being would be severely undermined if every local group living on a transportation route decided they are entitled to block the transport of goods unless they receive enough in bribes.

IOW: I feel that BC, as a partner in confederation, has an obligation to allow the transport of goods and may only enforce "generally accepted regulations, procedures and practices". I pointed to the UNLOS to demonstrate that my position is consistent with how international laws handles situations where one state has a geographic monopoly that could hurt other states. I argue the same rules should apply within Canada. Your response has been to reject the notion that norms for international trade should be the minimum requirement for trade within Canada.

Edited July 25, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

Only a place where people are generally spoiled would produce so many detached from reality.

[Accountability Now]

BC can take care of itself.

.

Sure....when it comes to provincial responsibilities.

However, pipelines are a federal responsibility. So as I said, if they want to control that part then they need to separate and become their own country.

Please take some time to learn the division of power among the various levels of government.

[jacee]

Sure....when it comes to provincial responsibilities.

However, pipelines are a federal responsibility. So as I said, if they want to control that part then they need to separate and become their own country.

Please take some time to learn the division of power among the various levels of government.

It's highly unlikely that the Feds would autocratically impose unwanted pipelines on any province. This is a democracy. If we suffer from their decisions, we can make them suffer.

/husky-oil-spill-threatens-wildlife-drinking-water-in-saskatchewan

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by jacee

[msj]

It's highly unlikely that the Feds would autocratically impose unwanted pipelines on any province. This is a democracy. We can make them suffer.

.

I still think the CPC have no idea the extent that they have fewer seats from BC due to the NGP.

[Big Guy]

How do oil spills compare as to rail traffic and pipeline.

How often are there oil spills because of derailment vs those because of a pipeline malfunction?

What the the average size (quantity spilled) for each?

[Accountability Now]

It's highly unlikely that the Feds would autocratically impose unwanted pipelines on any province. This is a democracy. If we suffer from their decisions, we can make them suffer.

Lol...I'm glad you understand the Feds are involved now. And yes...their would be political implications however local opposition can easily be outweighed by national support. Look a fairly recent poll of all three pipelines:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have the social licence to do what his predecessor couldn’t: lay new pipelines to carry crude from Alberta’s oil sands.

A majority of Canadians support the three major pipelines currently up for debate,according to a new Forum Research Poll. Over half, 55 per cent, favour Energy East, which would carry oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. Both the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipelines also enjoy support from 51 per cent of respondents. Both run through the Rockies from Alberta to the B.C. coast. (The former would run from north of Edmonton to Kitimat and the latter would run parallel to an existing pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver.)

About a third remain opposed to all three proposed pipelines: 32 per cent are against Energy East, 36 per cent dislike Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and 34 per cent don’t want to see Kinder Morgan duplicate the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Shifting opinion is a big boost to the fortunes of all three projects. In October 2013 just 36 per cent of Canadians favoured Northern Gateway, for example.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/majority-of-canadians-support-all-three-major-pipelines-up-for-debate-but-quebec-and-b-c-remain-opposed-poll

[Accountability Now]

I still think the CPC have no idea the extent that they have fewer seats from BC due to the NGP.

A couple points on this:

1. The election is already decided once the polls enter Manitoba so it hardly matters what BC or Alberta really want

2. People in BC wanted Harper gone much like the East wanted him gone. I don't think it came down to a pipeline.

As per the article I posted above:

That said, the recent poll shows a boost in pro-pipeline opinions since former prime minister Stephen Harper left office, according to Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff.

“Maybe the thinking is we’ll be better protected with Trudeau as prime minister,” he said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/majority-of-canadians-support-all-three-major-pipelines-up-for-debate-but-quebec-and-b-c-remain-opposed-poll

There are two issues at hand: pipelines and Harper. Its starting to show that people used to equate the two as one issue but are shifting from that.

[jacee]

I still think the CPC have no idea the extent that they have fewer seats from BC due to the NGP.

Fortunately, we have three branches of government, and the Judicial branch has now upended Harper's heavy-handed process:

northern-gateway-depends-on-better-aboriginal-consultation/

From the courts perspective, what was missing was someone from Canadas side who was empowered to do more than take notesand who could respond meaningfully to the points raised by the aboriginal participants.

.

[Accountability Now]

How do oil spills compare as to rail traffic and pipeline.

How often are there oil spills because of derailment vs those because of a pipeline malfunction?

What the the average size (quantity spilled) for each?

There are a number views on it with the Fraser Institute claiming pipeline is safer according to their study. However I am aware of bias on that end.

Global News did an analysis and came up with this report:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/

I think it has some of the numbers you're looking for.

[jacee]

Lol...I'm glad you understand the Feds are involved now. And yes...their would be political implications however local opposition can easily be outweighed by national support. Look a fairly recent poll of all three pipelines:

If properly polled, I think you would find that most Canadians would defer to the opinions of those in the path of the pipeline.

Do you have a provincial breakdown of those polls?

.

[Accountability Now]

If properly polled, I think you would find that most Canadians would defer to the opinions of those in the path of the pipeline.

Please provide proof of your opinions.

Do you have a provincial breakdown of those polls?

The article discusses the variance across different provinces including BC where it shows support dips to 41% for NGP. Two points on this:

1. 41% support may not be majority but its still strong support

2. National support largely outweighs the slim opposition you see in BC