Husky spills 200k litres of crude into river

[Accountability Now]

Do you have a provincial breakdown of those polls?.

Here is the link to the actual poll conducted by Forum on this matter

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/30204f87-26b5-4dbe-9e26-1c89d3fd589fFederal%20Pipelines%20News%20Release%20(2016%2003%2016)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

I think the most interesting thing is the trending data shown on Page 3. Again...it shows that people weren't against pipelines, they were against Harper.

[msj]

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

Nice hindsight bias!

At the time of the election no one knew who was going to win. Trudeau was not expected to win.

For the next election the NGP hopefully will not be an issue since it is dead at so many levels now.

But it is always a good idea to keep in mind a regions votes because you never know when that region could push you over the top into a majority or they may even secure a minority government if it comes down to it.

I have nothing against the CPC selling out BC's environment to their oil buddies in Alberta.

I just won't vote for them is all.

Edited July 25, 2016 by msj

[poochy]

CPC selling out BC's environment

Where exactly?

Why is normal industrial activity in most places "selling out" BC's environment?

Other than people like you somehow thinking you're better than everyone else, everywhere else. Not a single one of you has given a reason that couldn't apply to other places that already have pipelines or refineries or oil terminals, etc. Not one.

You think you're special, better, you aren't, neither is your province, it has rocks and trees and water, just like everywhere else.

[Accountability Now]

Nice hindsight bias!

It's not a bias....its numbers (and here I thought you were an accountant). Everything east of Manitoba has 68% of the seats. This election is pretty much decided by the time that those votes are cast. Its not a bias or a complaint...its just reality. The big population areas are the deciding factors.

I have nothing against the CPC selling out BC's environment to their oil buddies in Alberta.

I just won't vote for them is all.

And that is your right....to vote for the party that best represents you. It is also everyone else's right to vote for a party that represents them. So when the majority vote for a government that brings in pipelines...guess what's going to happen?

And is that because they have oil buddies in Alberta? No...its because they are doing what they think is in Canada's best interests and doing what the majority of Canadians want. As a side note....I always get a chuckle when guys like you comment on 'oil buddies' in Alberta. 44% of the Conservatives were in Ontario versus 16% in Alberta in the 2011 election. I know its hard for you to get your head around it but the CPC is actually a national party.

[jacee]

There is a lot more attention/awareness of spills now:

https://www.thestar.com/bcplayer.html?adPath=%2F58580620%2Fthestar.com%2Fbusiness%2F2016%2F07%2F22%2Fhusky-energy-oil-spill-forces-saskatchewan-city-to-shut-down-its-water-intake.html&refUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F&pageUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fbusiness%2F2016%2F07%2F22%2Fhusky-energy-oil-spill-forces-saskatchewan-city-to-shut-down-its-water-intake.html&playerName=2016%20Single%20Video%20Player&playerId=a3866f6e-7889-410f-8552-d230d9dbffc1&videoId=5047573015001&autoStart=true&instanceId=bc-ann9j1tkl1qestt9'

Edited July 25, 2016 by jacee

[msj]

There is a lot more attention/awareness of spills now:

https://www.thestar.com/bcplayer.html?adPath=%2F58580620%2Fthestar.com%2Fbusiness%2F2016%2F07%2F22%2Fhusky-energy-oil-spill-forces-saskatchewan-city-to-shut-down-its-water-intake.html&refUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F&pageUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fbusiness%2F2016%2F07%2F22%2Fhusky-energy-oil-spill-forces-saskatchewan-city-to-shut-down-its-water-intake.html&playerName=2016%20Single%20Video%20Player&playerId=a3866f6e-7889-410f-8552-d230d9dbffc1&videoId=5047573015001&autoStart=true&instanceId=bc-ann9j1tkl1qestt9'

Yes but we are the spoiled ones for not wanting to put up with this crap.

[msj]

It's not a bias....its numbers (and here I thought you were an accountant). Everything east of Manitoba has 68% of the seats. This election is pretty much decided by the time that those votes are cast. Its not a bias or a complaint...its just reality. The big population areas are the deciding factors.

it is called hindsight bias because you are using information known after the fact to justify your position.

The point is that at the moment of the election many conservatives assumed Harper would somehow win.

Mulcair thought he was going to win.

Few thought Trudeau would get a majority at all.

So as we were voting certain issues affected our votes.

Yes, after the fact the NGP likely has made no difference - at best the Liberals have 3 or 4 seats from it and maybe the NDP have 1 or 2.

The point is that BC does have political clout on this issue - there is an intensity coming from people, including pro-business tax accountants like me, who should be on "your side" but are not.

Ever think how you could get us on your side?

You are going to need us if you ever do want to get something like the NGP through and spending time insulting us is not exactly going to win friends and influence people over to your side.

[eyeball]

Where exactly?

Here.

Why is normal industrial activity in most places "selling out" BC's environment?

Actually it's just normal government policy that's selling us out. Ottawa has been selling out BC's fisheries and coastal communities for decades.

DFO hands over fisheries protection along pipelines to the NEB

As of December 16, 2013, Enbridge no longer has to apply to DFO for permits to alter fish habitat along the Northern Gateway route. It was also on December 16 that Kinder Morgan filed its application with the NEB for the expansion of its pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby.

Fish and fish habitat along those pipeline is now the responsibility of the Alberta-based, energy friendly National Energy Board.

Of all the reasons I'm wary of any big new energy mega-projects its the role that governments play, especially governments from Ottawa (and Alberta).

Other than people like you somehow thinking you're better than everyone else, everywhere else. Not a single one of you has given a reason that couldn't apply to other places that already have pipelines or refineries or oil terminals, etc. Not one.

Several reasons have been given, for years now. Note the dates listed in the pages of stories and articles I cited.

You think you're special, better, you aren't, neither is your province, it has rocks and trees and water, just like everywhere else.

You seem a little special sometimes.

Edited July 25, 2016 by eyeball

[Accountability Now]

it is called hindsight bias because you are using information known after the fact to justify your position.

No...I am stating that however Ontario and Quebec feel is how the election will go. It doesn't really matter what BC or Alberta think. This is not hindsight...its reality of elections past and future.

Yes, after the fact the NGP likely has made no difference - at best the Liberals have 3 or 4 seats from it and maybe the NDP have 1 or 2.

Every seat in BC could have gone to the CPC or the Liberals or any other party and it wouldn't have mattered...even if it all was because of the NGP. However, you are correct. People don't all vote on the same issue so its next to impossible to relate the number of votes to certain issues. Having said that, the trending data I have shown indicates that the issue with the NGP was not the pipeline but Harper himself. As such you might be seeing this pipeline push through after all.

The point is that BC does have political clout on this issue

Objectively speaking, you have 42 voices out of a total of 338. Yes...you have a voice but clout....no. You have slightly more clout than Alberta and about half as much as Quebec. Sure...perhaps your voices may convince those outside of BC but it doesn't look like that is happening.

Ever think how you could get us on your side?

I've never once talked about 'our side'. I can understand how you would like to take sides but in the end, all sides are thrown on the board and the decision is either a net positive or net negative for Canada. You get your 42 voices to make your pitch and we get our 34. Unfortunately not all of our voices are going to be unified no matter what province they originate from.

BC can't play the ransom game on this. The decision is decided at the Federal level for a reason. Much like we can't stop BC trucks coming into Alberta other provinces can't block other federal mandates.

You may think you have the power but you don't. The Feds have the power to either push this through or not and with the increasing support seen nationally I think it will be more difficult for Trudeau to ignore it.

[msj]

That's why I hope the price of oil stays low for a while.

Makes the need for the NGP less immediate.

But thanks to Harper bungling the file it looks like back to the drawing board for it anyway.

Unless Trudeau's charm can win the day with the First Nations - then maybe it will go somewhere.

But I still think that that could bite him in the end - he is likely not to gain votes in Alberta from it while likely would lose votes in BC thereby ensuring his dependency on Ontario and Quebec which can be dangerous.

No doubt there are many political calculations that need to be considered and no doubt Trudeau can ram it through if needed.

But I think a better method would be to come up with some sort of compromise that would attract enough people like me to come on board.

[TimG]

But I think a better method would be to come up with some sort of compromise that would attract enough people like me to come on board.

What would that compromise look like? I don't see the need for NGP if the trans-mountain expansion goes ahead. Would that be a start?

[msj]

What would that compromise look like? I don't see the need for NGP if the trans-mountain expansion goes ahead. Would that be a start?

Perhaps.

I also wonder about different grades that are piped - what is the risk of a dilbit spill vs light gasoline, for example?

And I wonder about the route/terminus.

Enbridge and the way the government has tried to ram it down our throats also is not acceptable.

There is a certain amount of backlash about that too.

Sort of a different kind of Trump effect, if you will.

Edited July 25, 2016 by msj

[TimG]

Enbridge and the way the government has tried to ram it down our throats also is not acceptable.

I was annoyed at the court decision until I looked at the details. It appears that CPC made no attempt to discuss it with various native groups and tried to outsource the entire effort to Enbridge despite the fact that the courts had already ruled that consultations only count if the Feds are involved. A major screw up on the CPC part.

I would like to see an agreement to pump syncrude instead of dilbit. It makes no sense to upgrade to gasoline because it is hard to transport but syncrude should be safer to transport by pipe. That would have the added value of refinery jobs in Canada.

[WestCoastRunner]

I live in BC and I think the pipelines should be built. The main difference I understand that society needs oil to run and that is not going to change simply because we stop Canadian companies from getting the best price they can for Canadian resources. I think it is shamelessly hypocritical for any BC resident that drives a car powered by oil but thinks that Canadian companies should be prohibited from selling oil while they live a life of convenience fueled by oil.

So are you arguing that oil companies should be allowed to earn huge profits at the risk of catastrophic oil spills in bc because they should get the best price for their oil?

[TimG]

So are you arguing that oil companies should be allowed to earn huge profits at the risk of catastrophic oil spills in bc because they should get the best price for their oil?

Yawn. Your anti-corporate propaganda is tiresome. The fact is companies pay royalties for privilege of extracting resources - royalties which go into government coffers - royalties that go up if companies make more profit. They employ 100 thousands of people in high paying jobs. More importantly, many of those profits are paid directly to Canadians saving for retirement in RRSPs, TFSA or company pension plans. Yet you want to ignore all these positive benefits and try to paint it simple as a question of 'profits for corporations'. Pure propaganda with no substance.

What exactly do you think will replace those 100 thousands of jobs in the oil sands if you get your wish and they are shut down? Why do you think you are entitled to sacrifice those jobs because, despite the fact that you accept risks every day, you have decided that the risk that comes with oil transport not something that can be accepted.

When you look at the big picture your position seems extremely selfish.

Edited July 26, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Yawn. Your anti-corporate propaganda is tiresome. The fact is companies pay royalties for privilege of extracting resources - royalties which go into government coffers - royalties that go up if companies make more profit. They employ 100 thousands of people in high paying jobs. More importantly, many of those profits are paid directly to Canadians saving for retirement in RRSPs, TFSA or company pension plans. Yet you want to ignore all these positive benefits and try to paint it simple as a question of 'profits for corporations'. Pure propaganda with no substance.

What exactly do you think will replace those 100 thousands of jobs in the oil sands if you get your wish and they are shut down? Why do you think you are entitled to sacrifice those jobs because, despite the fact that you accept risks every day, you have decided that the risk that comes with oil transport not something that can be accepted.

When you look at the big picture your position seems extremely selfish.

This topic has been debated endlessly on this forum. The big picture shows why we are fighting to protect our province.

[TimG]

The big picture shows why we are fighting to protect our province.

Except you aren't 'protecting anything' you are simply jumping on a bandwagon created by people who grossly exaggerate the risks of large spills (small spills are cleaned up easily) while people in BC continue to destroy the air and water with an ever increasing population of humans with an insatiable demand for energy (much of it from oil).

There is no high ground for you on this topic. It is self centered NIMBYism to the core.

Edited July 26, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

So are you arguing that oil companies should be allowed to earn huge profits at the risk of catastrophic oil spills in bc because they should get the best price for their oil?

So are you arguing that airline companies should be allowed to earn huge profits at the risk of catastrophic deaths whenever their aircraft crash? Why not simply have everyone travel by horse and buggy and cruise ships?

[Argus]

This topic has been debated endlessly on this forum. The big picture shows why we are fighting to protect our province.

NYMBY. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Hardly original.

[Argus]

The same big US groups which fought against Keystone clearly don't care about Canada or Alberta's efforts at carbon reduction, and show just how fanatical they are in opposing ANY means of distributing oil and gas from western Canada.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anti-keystone-xl-group-takes-its-first-shot-against-a-new-target-energy-east?__lsa=7122-0e9f

[eyeball]

Except you aren't 'protecting anything'

Who speaks for the fish plus everyone/thing who depend on them for their livelihood Tim? What do you figure we should tell them?

[TimG]

Who speaks for the fish plus everyone/thing who depend on them for their livelihood Tim? What do you figure we should tell them?

What do you tell them about the ever increasing load of sewage and farm waste that is sloshing down the Fraser? Those harms are real. Oil spills are hypothetical and can be made next to impossible with the right monitoring regime. Edited July 26, 2016 by TimG

[overthere]

A hell of a lot of people in BC.

are they the same people who applaud massive exports of nasty coal from BC to pollute the planet?. Or are those different people? I am confused.

[overthere]

What would that compromise look like? I don't see the need for NGP if the trans-mountain expansion goes ahead. Would that be a start?

I think you'd better get used to the notion that no export pipelines will be built in Canada for a very long time.

Everybody has a veto now.

[eyeball]

What do you tell them about the ever increasing load of sewage and farm waste that is sloshing down the Fraser? Those harms are real.

Do something about these first then we'll talk about oil.

Oil spills are hypothetical and can be made next to impossible with the right monitoring regime.

That will be even more impossible without a mean to monitor the monitors.

Tell you what, you get the NEB to prove its better at protecting fish habitat by getting them to do something about the sewage and farm waste. Don't forget mining waste, logging and urban development. Lord knows we've tried to get Ottawa to do its job better maybe Alberta can do better