No pipelines, no tankers, no problem 3

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

'Shameful': Trans Mountain opponents say NEB making same mistakes that cost them court case

Opponents of the Trans Mountain expansion project say the federal energy regulator is repeating mistakes that led the Federal Court of Appeal to quash the Trudeau government's approval of the major west coast oil pipeline. They said at a press conference in Vancouver Tuesday morning that the NEB is making the same mistakes as their last process and that if they continue to adhere to rushed deadlines and limit their scope of review, they will wind up back in court.

Representatives of former and current litigants, environmental groups, and affected First Nations held the press conference to raise red flags around a limited assessment of increased tanker traffic and what they see as a hasty rushed process that prevents meaningful consultation with affected First Nations.

quote:

"We're astounded at the new NEB process that is more flawed than the process we fought so hard against when it was Kinder Morgan's pipeline project," said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. "It's disgusting, disgraceful and shameful."

quote:

Meaningful consultations

Khelsilem's concerns are shared by Vancouver's new incoming mayor, former NDP MP Vancouver Kennedy Stewart, who was arrested in March for protesting the Trans Mountain expansion project.

Though mayor elect Kennedy Stewart was invited to the press conference, Tzeporah Berman, Program Director Stand.Earth, spoke on his behalf, saying there was a scheduling conflict that didn't allow for him to participate. Stewart directed Berman to let the press know he stands by his statements and actions in opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion that he committed to prior to becoming mayor.

Other opposition politicians also voiced their opposition to the current process, including Green Leader Elizabeth May who was arrested along side Kennedy Stewart for defying a court injunction and protesting the expansion in a restricted zone near the Trans Mountain terminal site in Burnaby, B.C.

"As an intervenor before the first round of Kinder Morgan hearings before the NEB, and now as an intervenor in the second round, I am deeply disturbed by the narrow focus and tight time line,” stated Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who called in to the press conference from Ottawa.

NDPP

Red Alert To All Land and Water Protectors!

http://www.mediacoop.ca/newsrelease/36784

Stop Embridge's Line 3 Expansion!

NDPP

Why is Canadian Crude Selling For $20?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canadas-Crude-Selling-For...

"The oil industry in Alberta is losing around $100 million per day..."

So leave it in the ground.

NDPP

omit

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NDPP wrote:

Why is Canadian Crude Selling For $20?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canadas-Crude-Selling-For...

"The oil industry in Alberta is losing around $100 million per day..."

So leave it in the ground.

I love how economists view the world. In most instances if you have have a restriction on the quantity of a good it raises the price. However in the case of Alberta oil it is the exact opposite. If they could only ship as much oil as they wanted to the price would increase substantially. Who the fuck can believe this propaganda?

LB Cultured Thought

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love how economists view the world. In most instances if you have have a restriction on the quantity of a good it raises the price. However in the case of Alberta oil it is the exact opposite. If they could only ship as much oil as they wanted to the price would increase substantially. Who the fuck can believe this propaganda?

Its almost as if fully understanding resource economics might require more than the first lecture of one introductory economics class... 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes, there requires an understanding of power and greed.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..cons are acting as if alberta and the feds haven't been on the offensive.

Trans Mountain like Monty Python's dead parrot under Trudeau government: Scheer

The federal Opposition leader is likening the stalled Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to a famous Monty Python sketch in which two men argue over whether a parrot is actually dead.

"(Prime Minister) Justin Trudeau has bought a pipeline with no plan to actually build it. Conservatives will build pipelines without having to buy them," Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer told the Energy Relaunch conference in Calgary on Thursday.

"I believe it is Justin Trudeau's strategy to not have this pipeline even started to be built by the next election. He just can't admit that it will be dead by the next election.

"It's a little bit like the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. He just wants everyone to believe that it's not quite gone yet."

quote:

Scheer said if he were to become prime minister, he would repeal the carbon tax and Bill C-69 to overhaul energy project reviews. He called the proposed legislation the worst thing to happen to the industry since Pierre Trudeau's national energy program of the 1980s.

Both Scheer and his provincial counterpart — United Conservative Leader Jason Kenney — highlighted what they see as the need to go on the offensive against foes of Alberta energy development.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love how economists view the world. In most instances if you have have a restriction on the quantity of a good it raises the price. However in the case of Alberta oil it is the exact opposite. If they could only ship as much oil as they wanted to the price would increase substantially. Who the fuck can believe this propaganda?

Its almost as if fully understanding resource economics might require more than the first lecture of one introductory economics class... 

Indeed which is why I like to read articles by people with credentials that are not in the pay of the oiligarchy. With the capacity to pump every barrel of tar sands gunk out of Alberta will not change what the filthy toxic crap is and how hard it is to refine. But feel free to buy their propaganda lines hook line and sinker.

When it comes to the differential between WCS—a diluted bitumen blend—and WTI there is a historical gap of about $20 per barrel because of quality. Bitumen is dirty oil and needs to be upgraded before it can be refined.  WTI is a light, high quality crude which costs less to process. In 2012 the differentials were well within their historical, and expected range.

CIBC’s analysis also relies on what they call a double discount—the difference between WTI and Brent. But WTI and Brent are benchmarks in different markets and hence transportation costs of getting western Canadian oil to new markets must be taken into account. CIBC’s numbers exclude those costs. When included, the differentials all but disappear.

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/commentary/economic-benefits-...

Pondering

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

Martin N.

The Mad Hatter can understand the logic in these last posts, but no one else can. Making an argument while totally ignoring one side of it is nonsensical and the greater population is well aware of your biased entreaties.

The problem with one-sided hyperbole is that you lose the respect of everyone except your fellow travellers. For the extremists, the only answer to everything is 'NO' and the majority are tired of the lack of progress.

The pendulum is swinging back.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Making an argument while totally ignoring one side of it is nonsensical and the greater population is well aware of your biased entreaties.


Thank you for this self analysis. I think it could be cathartic for you.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Making an argument while totally ignoring one side of it is nonsensical and the greater population is well aware of your biased entreaties.


Thank you for this self analysis. I think it could be cathartic for you.

It has been, very much so. You should try it - the dislocation will be painful but after the nausea passes, you will be forever free.

Martin N.

The biggest concern with the project, from a climate change perspective, is upstream emissions from natural gas production. The agency cites tighter controls on upstream emissions in Northeast B.C. for producing gas that has a lower emissions profile than gas produced in the U.S.

A life-cycle analysis suggests that natural gas sourced from the U.S. could have emissions that are five to eight times higher than natural gas from B.C.

“The life-cycle analysis report indicates that GHG emission factors for natural gas production in the United States may be as much as five times higher than those for Canada,” the agency states. It adds that recent research has suggested it may even be as much as eight times higher.

One of the reasons cited for the lower emissions profile is the tighter regulations for drilling and natural gas processing in B.C.

“British Columbia has adopted comprehensive drilling and production regulations that are intended to reduce methane emissions,” the agency states. It adds that new federal regulations are forthcoming as well.

A new lng plant in WA to fuel marine and land transport.

https://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/new-lng-plant-in-washington-must-use-b-...

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

Because?

NDPP

Spy Service Says Federal Pipeline Purchase Seen as 'Betrayal' By Many Opponents

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/canada-spy-pipeline-trans-mounta...

"Pipeline opposition seen as 'growing intelligence issue'..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Energy board to hear traditional Indigenous evidence in Trans Mountain review

The National Energy Board will hear oral traditional evidence from Indigenous groups in the coming weeks as part of its new review of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The Federal Court of Appeal struck down the federal government's approval of the project in August, citing inadequate Indigenous consultation and the energy board's failure to review the project's impacts on the marine environment.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government ordered the energy board to review the marine impacts and submit a report no later than Feb. 22, and on Wednesday the board unveiled its schedule for oral traditional evidence.

Thirty-one Indigenous groups or individuals from Canada and the U.S. are scheduled to participate and the hearings will be held in Calgary the week of Nov. 19, in Victoria the week of Nov. 26 and in Nanaimo, B.C., the week of Dec. 3.

Some First Nations that won the court battle in August, including British Columbia's Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations, say the new process is too rushed and they're considering filing fresh court challenges after the board issues its report....

NDPP

Board of Directors of Trans Mountain Corporation Announced

https://www.worldpipelines.com/business-news/09112018/board-of-directors...

"The Board of Directors of Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV) is pleased to announce the appointment of several prominent Canadians to the Board of Directors overseeing the governance and management of Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC)..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..interesting find ndpp. txs.

Keystone XL joins Trans Mountain stuck in pipeline quagmire after new setback

quote:

On Thursday night, a U.S. judge put the brakes on TransCanada’s $10-billion Keystone XL project, mirroring a Canadian court ruling in August that shoved the Trans Mountain expansion into legal limbo.

Calgary-based TransCanada said Friday it remains committed to building the project, but it appears the decision will add many months to the project’s timelines, at best.

I’m sure it’s just coincidence, but it sure seems the Keystone XL and Trans Mountain expansion projects are handcuffed together, both trying to scramble out of thick legal and regulatory quicksand.

“This is like another blow on a bruise and it hurts, and it has already been hurting,” said retired TransCanada executive Dennis McConaghy, who wrote a book about the trials and tribulations of the Keystone XL project.

“It has many of the characteristics of the Trans Mountain ruling, in terms of a judge second-guessing other rulings, and (the project) having a massive timeout.”

Earlier this spring, I compared the race to build Trans Mountain and Keystone XL to a slow-motion contest between two turtles.

Today, it seems like both turtles have been flipped on to their backs, legs flailing, waiting for an act of providence to roll them over.

Like the reaction toward Trans Mountain’s troubles, a collective groan emerged from downtown Calgary after U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris in Montana granted an injunction stopping construction of Keystone XL.

Work was expected to begin in 2019, although TransCanada had yet to announce a final investment decision.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

In Blow to Pipeline Project, Court Invalidates Trump Administration’s Keystone XL Environmental Review, Blocks Construction

quote:

U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris found that the Trump administration’s reliance on a stale environmental review from 2014 violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. This ruling follows the court’s previous decision, on August 15, 2018, to require additional analysis of the new route through Nebraska.

The court required the U.S. Department of State to revise the proposed project’s environmental impact statement to evaluate the extraordinary changes in oil markets that have occurred since the previous review was completed in 2014; to consider the combined climate impacts of approving both the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines; to study the many cultural resources along the pipeline’s route; and to examine the harmful risks of oil spills on nearby water and wildlife.

The State Department must also provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to reverse course and approve the permit, after the Obama administration denied it just three years ago on the same set of facts.

Based on these violations, the court ordered the State Department to revise its environmental analysis, and prohibited any work along the proposed route — which would cross Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana — until that analysis is complete. Keystone XL would have carried up to 35 million gallons a day of Canadian tar sands — one of the world’s dirtiest energy sources — across critical water sources and wildlife habitat to Gulf Coast refineries.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Court rejects secrecy bid in court case over alleged spying on anti-pipeline activists

The federal government has lost in a bid to go behind closed doors in a prominent court case about allegations of spying on anti-pipeline activists.

In a ruling Wednesday, Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes sided with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in embracing the open-court principle and turning down the government’s confidentiality request.

If the decision stands, it means the public will have a fuller view of events when the court looks at the central issue in the case: whether Canada’s spy agency overstepped the law in monitoring environmental activists.

The decision could also set a precedent that determines whether future court challenges of Canadian Security Intelligence Service activities are held openly or in secret.

The case began four years ago when the civil liberties association complained to the CSIS watchdog after media reports suggested the spy service and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security....

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

Because?

Because you still have to get the product to market. Pipelines.

Pondering

MegB wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

Because?

Because you still have to get the product to market. Pipelines.

Ideally it would be best to simply shut down the oil sands but that isn't going to happen. It will continue at least at current production levels and overflow will go by rail indefinitely.

While true it is a product that is less threatening than bitumen and lower volume (no need to add dilutants) means no need for new pipelines. It would bring more of the profits from oil into Alberta so that as the industry winds down the maximum amount of profit would accrue to Alberta rather than US refineries.

My main point is that Canadians against pipelines are not adverse to helping Alberta transition. The problem is that Alberta doesn't want to transition and has no intention of doing so.

NDPP

Justin Trudeau's Grand Bargain With Big Oil Exposed in Donald Gutstein's The Big Stall

https://www.straight.com/news/1164161/justin-trudeaus-grand-bargain-big-...

"...Gutstein told the Straight that he believes [John] Manley was groomed for his position as president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada because he would be well positioned to endorse a carbon tax as part of a grand bargain that would also ensure a Liberal government would include pipeline projects in any national climate plans.

And Gutstein maintained that this market-based solution of a tax on pollution isn't going to result in the types of emission reductions that could be obtained by tough government regulations, even though it would appear to be a reasonable compromise to the public.

That's what the book's title, The Big Stall, refers to."

Another completely successful Canucklhead scam...

Pondering

They seem to think we are stupid.

“The ad says the pipeline will not increase oil production,” she wrote in her complaint. “But news articles show that pipeline availability is a factor in increasing oil production.”

She wasn’t wrong to be concerned about the accuracy of the statement, but it turns out the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards — including the important rules that ensure advertisements are accurate and not deceptive or misleading — don’t apply to advertising paid for by the government that is deemed to be about a “political issue.”

https://thenarwhal.ca/how-alberta-is-getting-away-with-running-deceptive...

I was puzzled by the same ad. I am appalled that the government is exempted.

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/little-hope-seen-f...

CALGARY — The Canadian oil and gas sector is in a holding pattern in which spending and production growth can’t occur until new ways to get products to export markets are found, according to CIBC analyst Jon Morrison.

So they are also lying when they say they will ship just as much by rail instead. If they could, they would be doing it now. The truth is they will ship excess by rail but they will not double or triple  production without a new pipeline. 

LB Cultured Thought

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

Because?

Because you still have to get the product to market. Pipelines.

Ideally it would be best to simply shut down the oil sands but that isn't going to happen. It will continue at least at current production levels and overflow will go by rail indefinitely.

While true it is a product that is less threatening than bitumen and lower volume (no need to add dilutants) means no need for new pipelines. It would bring more of the profits from oil into Alberta so that as the industry winds down the maximum amount of profit would accrue to Alberta rather than US refineries.

My main point is that Canadians against pipelines are not adverse to helping Alberta transition. The problem is that Alberta doesn't want to transition and has no intention of doing so.

lol 4 sure. Ideally it would be best to just shut down the entire GTA area, but maybe we could just ensure that new developments aren't added without decades of environmental studies and GHG inventories and a fund should be created to ensure funds are available to restore that land to natural conditions once cities are abandoned. I'm sure they can just add those hundreds of trillions to a fund tomorrow...since that's what everyone seems to expects from those evil neanderthal Albertans. Or maybe we could just build some pipelines and stop losing this country $80-100 million every day because Ontario doesn't understand how oil works.

Pages