Alberta politics started October 31, 2018

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Albertans have to be the dumbest folks on the planet. Contrast Norway's future with Alberta and its non-existent Heritage Fund. These Albertan protestors with their current temper tantrums don't yet realize that the fossil fuel party is over and that Albertans a long time ago blew their future by not forcing the fossil fuel companies to contribute their fair share into the Heritage Fund. How stupid and short-sighted can these protestors be!!!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Canada won’t perform an environmental review of most new oilsands projects. Here’s why.

When it comes to the oilsands, there’s a particular gloss that accompanies industry’s presentation of in-situ extraction.

Unlike the pronounced nature of open-pit mines, with the accompanying heavy haulers and seemingly endless horizons of tailings ponds, in-situ — meaning in ground or in place — operations have a much less visible footprint.

Cenovus has gone so far as to dub these operations — which require the injection of steam underground to heat viscous oil, allowing it to be pumped to surface — “a different oil sands.”

While they certainly do represent the future of the oilsands — in-situ projects have already outpaced mining production and are set to increase by one million barrels per day by 2030 — they also come with their own set of problems.

In-situ oilsands operations are incredibly greenhouse gas-intensive — requiring copious quantities of natural gas, often obtained from fracking, to produce the steam that’s injected underground.

Operations require extensive roads and seismic lines that expose threatened caribou to an increased risk from wolves and create habitat disturbances that are connected to low reproduction and calf survival rates. These compounding impacts to caribou are part of the underlying justification of the province’s controversial wolf cull.

And the proposed use of solvents as a substitute for steam has given new rise to long-held concerns about groundwater contamination from steam-injection processes.

quote:

Back in 2012, the Harper government radically overhauled the country’s environmental assessment processes and introduced the use of a “project list” to determine whether a project — like a dam, power plant or oilsands mine — would be subject to a federal review.

Unlike the previous regime, which relied on automatic “triggers,” the project list dramatically narrowed the activities eligible for federal assessment and accorded a great deal of discretionary power to the federal environment minister.

Thousands of projects per year were no longer reviewed by Ottawa.

Outcry ensued.

The current federal government’s solution, Bill C-69, a new and controversial impact assessment bill currently under debate in the Senate, will overhaul the 2012 legislation — but keep the project list intact.

The contents of that list remain undisclosed to the public. But from the get-go Environment Minister Catherine McKenna indicated in-situ oilsands projects would be exempt from the list.

In a statement e-mailed to The Narwhal, a spokesperson for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency confirmed this is still the case: “At this time, the approach to draft regulations to support the Impact Assessment Act remains unchanged.”

Last week, the federal environment ministry confirmed to The Globe and Mail that in-situ projects “fall within the exemption eligibility.”

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Albertans have to be the dumbest folks on the planet. Contrast Norway's future with Alberta and its non-existent Heritage Fund. These Albertan protestors with their current temper tantrums don't yet realize that the fossil fuel party is over and that Albertans a long time ago blew their future by not forcing the fossil fuel companies to contribute their fair share into the Heritage Fund. How stupid and short-sighted can these protestors be!!!

Yeah, how stupid and short sighted can these dumb Albertans be? The simple solution is to quit giving $20 billion to Ottawa each year and use the funds instead to build Alberta.

Your comparison of Norway and Alberta is delusional because it eaves out the salient point that Norway is a sovereign nation that keeps its oil revenues while Alberta is a province, whose national government siphons off its prosperity to transfer east.

The obvious solution is for Alberta and Saskatchewan to keep their revenues by forming a sovereign nation.

bekayne

Martin N. wrote:

The obvious solution is for Alberta and Saskatchewan to keep their revenues by forming a sovereign nation.

Oh dear, they're going to go John Galt on us.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The good news for AlSask is that with the expanded tar sands they will soon have a northern port to ship from without having to go to war with their Western neighbour. Bring on the revitalized Mackenzie Valley pipeline  with a super port in Tuk. They will have to claim the NWT when they secede but that should be no problem.

I love great ideas from people who are grounded in the real world.

Martin N.

Well, 66% of Quebecers want Alberta oil, 70% of BCers want the TransMountain, Ontarians are vocalising support for Alberta oil and gas so it isn't the 'east' against Alberta rather it is unrealistic elitists like Trudeau who believe they can conjur up a new age economy with endless talkfests and other peoples' money.

Renewables share of GDP is only 3% and oil demand will grow to at least 2050.

Trudeau is a clueless twit who thinks his 'charm' can repeal the law of gravity while the country around him falls apart. The Canadian enviroluddites and the elitists who cater to them have no idea of the Alberta spirit and what it can do if raised.

Alberta independence is a last resort to a tone-deaf PM who believes he can govern without ever making any hard choices when reality dictates governing is all about choosing between hard and even harder choices.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The good news for AlSask is that with the expanded tar sands they will soon have a northern port to ship from without having to go to war with their Western neighbour. Bring on the revitalized Mackenzie Valley pipeline  with a super port in Tuk. They will have to claim the NWT when they secede but that should be no problem.

I love great ideas from people who are grounded in the real world.

Is that sarcasm? I believe so because if you had any concept of reality, you would understand the leverage that Alberta will have with the US. Without the deadweight of Trudopeian policy and redtape, Alberta will soar and attract US investment and export capacity.

I love economic stupidity from failed communists who only bleat about the inequities of capitalism that creates the well fed and the poorly fed while ignoring the reality of egalitarianism that forces all people to starve equally.

wage zombie

Martin N. wrote:
Well, 66% of Quebecers want Alberta oil

Quebecers already get Alberta oil.

Martin N.

wage zombie wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Well, 66% of Quebecers want Alberta oil

Quebecers already get Alberta oil.

Right you are, but a picayune complaint, none the less. Let me rephrase that lazy posting to whit:

"The Quebec premier’s recent statements about Alberta oil, which he referred to as “dirty energy,” have understandably raised the ire of Western Canadians. Many Albertans might think Quebecers want nothing to do with Western oil, or any oil for that matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s start with the obvious: A little more than half of the oil that is consumed in Quebec comes from Canada, largely Western Canada, and this proportion has been steadily increasing since 2014.

Are Quebecers OK with that? In fact, a large majority of Quebecers, 66 per cent, prefer to get oil from Western Canada, versus seven per cent who want it from the United States, three per cent from Algeria, and one per cent each for the countries of the Middle East and Nigeria, according to a recent Leger poll conducted on behalf of the MEI."

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/surprise-most-quebecers-want-...

You can also refer to Quebecers embrace of pipelines as well, if the trauma is surmountable.

quizzical

Martin N. wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

The good news for AlSask is that with the expanded tar sands they will soon have a northern port to ship from without having to go to war with their Western neighbour. Bring on the revitalized Mackenzie Valley pipeline  with a super port in Tuk. They will have to claim the NWT when they secede but that should be no problem.

I love great ideas from people who are grounded in the real world.

Is that sarcasm? I believe so because if you had any concept of reality, you would understand the leverage that Alberta will have with the US. Without the deadweight of Trudopeian policy and redtape, Alberta will soar and attract US investment and export capacity. I love economic stupidity from failed communists who only bleat about the inequities of capitalism that creates the well fed and the poorly fed while ignoring the reality of egalitarianism that forces all people to starve

you're so far away from 7 generations planning and First Nations  philosophy as to be unrecognizable as a human even.

 

 

NorthReport

Weren’t we supposed to get a pipeline decision within 22 weeks?  How much time is there left because if Alberta NDP Premier Notley gets her pipeline she could conceivably win a second term in Alberta and if Trudeau was re-elected my hunch is that he would much rather have Premief Notley rather than Premier Kenney to deal with

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Alberta taxpayers footing bill for delinquent oil and gas companies, investigation reveals

Perry Nelson has been farming near Provost, Alta., for more than 50 years — since he took over from his dad in 1965. He runs mostly cattle, some grain.

In 2012, he bought some more land, for extra pasture for his cattle. As with so much land in Alberta, it came with oil and gas wells already drilled deep down below the surface.

“The wells were on it when I bought it,” Nelson told The Narwhal. “Abandoned wells.”

“I don’t think [the company] had any intention of paying,” he said of the company that owned the wells and owed him money in the form of annual rent for drilling a well on his land.

“That guy’s gone broke I don’t know how many times,” he told The Narwhal. “[The regulator] still lets him start over again.”

Sure enough, according to Nelson, the company was soon a year behind on the annual rent payments it owed.

Nelson, a director with the Alberta Surface Rights Federation — a group of landowners concerned about oil and gas activity on their land — wasn’t having it.

“They have a contract that says what they’re supposed to pay,” he told The Narwhal. “That’s the way they should be paying.”

So Nelson did what many farmers do in this situation — he filed an application to Alberta’s Surface Rights Board. The Surface Rights Board is a tribunal that uses taxpayer money to reimburse landowners what they are owed by oil and gas companies.

Nelson’s was just one of thousands of cases that have been brought forward in recent years.

The government is supposed to recoup the money it pays out to landowners  from companies so taxpayers aren’t footing the bill — but new data obtained by The Narwhal shows that’s simply not happening.

Less than two per cent of funds recovered

There are 450,000 oil and gas wells registered in Alberta. They’re dotted across the province — one for every 1.4 square kilometres — and are on both public and private land.

For many landowners, they have become an enormous burden: there’s the added difficulty of farming around a wellhead, the noxious weeds, the dust, the added traffic.

But it’s goes beyond that. For many farmers and landowners — who are not receiving the basic compensation owed to them by oil and gas companies — there’s a financial headache as well.

In Alberta, landowners are supposed to receive compensation in the form of annual rent, to reimburse them for lost productivity, nuisance and adverse effects.

Far too often, advocates say, the company simply doesn’t pay.

If a company fails to pay a landowner the annual rent they have agreed on, a landowner can apply for a “recovery of rentals” from the Surface Rights Board, as per the Surface Rights Act, and receive their compensation from Alberta’s general revenue fund — in other words, taxpayer money.

This is supposed to be a temporary fix, as the government is then meant to recoup taxpayers’ money by tracking down the company and collecting the funds.

The trouble is, the Crown basically never gets that money back.

Information obtained by The Narwhal shows that, in 2017, less than two per cent of all money paid by the Alberta government on behalf of delinquent oil and gas companies was recovered.

That means that taxpayers are on the hook for the annual rent owed by these absentee oil and gas companies — millions of dollars annually. And the number of cases is only increasing.

“It’s getting worse all the time,” Nelson said of the situation with delinquent oil and gas companies.

“It’s just spiralling down.”

NorthReport

'CP Rail, CP Fail': Calgary residents protest following another oil train derailment in the city

Roger Annis

September 19, 2013

RABBLE NEWS

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

POLITICS IN CANADA

 

Residents of the central Calgary neighbourhood of Inglewood staged a protest action on Friday, September 13 against CP Rail over its transport of dangerous chemicals through the city.

The action was prompted by the derailment of eight cars on a CP Rail train two days earlier. The cars were carrying close to one million liters of a highly flammable gasoline product (diluent) used in the pipeline transport of tar sands bitumen. They derailed at CP's large, Alyth rail yard, adjacent to Inglewood in the heart of downtown Calgary. It’s the second oil train derailment in the city in three months.

Some 75 people took part. They chanted "CP Rail, CP Fail," expressing their anger and frustration with the failure of the company to address concerns stemming from its growing transport of oil-by-train and expansion of noisy and polluting diesel locomotive repair work at the Alyth yard.

Lara Murphy, one of the organizers of the action, told CBC News, "We don't want another Lac Mégantic to happen." She echoed the views of Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi who has criticized the rail transport setup which presently has the city responsible for emergency response and cleanup but which makes it very difficult for it to know what, exactly, is rolling through its jurisdiction on rail.

Nenshi told reporters, "This is not just massively inconvenient -- it's massively dangerous."

Calgary fire Chief Bruce Burrell, who is overseeing the cleanup, said the city will "in all likelihood" bill CP for the cost.

Murphy told the online Calgary Beacon, "Our biggest concern is with the ramped up transportation of oil and gas by the rail industry as a whole."

"If we're gonna transport this oil, I feel and the group feels we need more transparency from the rail companies."

She is part of the Inglewood Community Association that has been fighting CP Rail ever since it began to expand the traffic and locomotive repair work at Alyth in 2009. That brought formal noise complaints from the community. Last month, a victory was scored when the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ordered the railway to shift  its locomotive work to a different location within the yard and to curb some of its overnight work. (For more detail on the noise problems, see page 6 of this Inglewood community bulletin from March 2011).

Aftermath of Lac Mégantic disaster

 In the ongoing Lac Mégantic investigation, a report by Transport Canada issued on Sept 12 says Quebec portions of the rail track of the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway are in "defective" and "substandard" condition and do not meet safety standards. One section of the line was closed by inspectors following their observations.

The MM&A line connects Farnham, Quebec, just south of Montreal, to northern Maine. The line is severed by the disaster at Lac Megantic and it is not know when and if the destroyed track will be replaced by a replacement stretch that would go around the town.

CP Rail and Irving Oil contracted with the MM&A in 2012 to join in transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Irving’s refinery, Canada's largest, in Saint John, New Brunswick. CP brought the oil trains as far as Farnham; the MM&A then moved them as far as northern Maine, where its line connects to the Irving-owned NB Southern Railway.

Prompted by shifts in the prices of crude oil, Irving Oil, part of the secretive Irving family conglomerate, has switched app. 25 per cent of its refinery supply away from overseas sources to North Dakota. Since the July 6 disaster at Lac Mégantic, the conglomerate has found other routes to continue moving the North Dakota crude, including along the CN main line that connects Montreal to Halifax, Nova Scotia.

A report in the Sept 14 Portland Press Herald says that crude shipments from North Dakota to Saint John through New England via the shortline Pan-AM Railway have rolled to a stop. That decision is being welcomed by opponents of oil by rail in Maine, including the groups 350 Maine and Maine Earth First! that have been protesting and attempting to block the shipments.

Following this latest accident, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has reiterated its call for more consultation and information by railways on the dangerous products that they move. But the Federation as well as opposition politicians in Ottawa have raised little or no concerns about the climate consequences of oil-by-train.

Corporate greed is driving a massive expansion of fossil fuel extraction in North America -- oil, coal and fracked natural gas. The difficulty the oil industry is facing in getting quick approval of new tar sands and conventional oil pipelines is prompting the expansion of oil-by-train shipments. In Canada alone, these have risen from 500 carloads in 2009 to an anticipated 140,000 in 2013.

 

 

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/09/cp-rail-cp-fail-calgary-residents-protest-...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This might be the break that the Alberta NDP needs to have any chance in the next election. Imagine, a Conservative involved in dirty tricks.

There is strong evidence that laws were broken and Jason Kenney is alleged to have been directly involved in planning the Callaway campaign,” Gill writes.

“This will not be an easy election, especially if Jason Kenney is under investigation for breaking election laws.”

Gill also sheds light on the election commissioner’s investigation into the “kamikaze” campaign for the first time – before the holidays, StarMetro Calgary reported the elections commissioner hired a “retired Edmonton police detective with extensive expertise in fraud and money laundering” to dig into the allegations while Alberta Politics’ David Climenhaga reported a second investigator specializing in “white-collar crimes” had been brought on board.

https://pressprogress.ca/leaked-e-mail-former-ucp-mla-warns-jason-kenney...

quizzical

oh there's more happening than Kenney just breaking AB election laws. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jason-kenney-alberta-residence-1.4985648

#voteformikeduffy

NorthReport

We all know the deck is stacked and that Rachel is going to get her pipeline approval probably on February 22 but if life is to survive on planet earth it would indeed be helpful if Canada helped to lead our fragile planet out of this fossil fuel era 

And unfortunately maybe this works in some parts of Alberta but........

https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/01/15/Alberta-Spent-23-Million-BC-Enemy-Canada/?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=210119

NorthReport

I agree and somehow Notley needs to change the channel here

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/24/Alberta-Game-Pipeline-Ad-Campaign/

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

I agree and somehow Notley needs to change the channel here

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/24/Alberta-Game-Pipeline-Ad-Campaign/

That's some highbrow poetry in the comments section...

She's not really NDP IN el turda in the last election the right split the vote and notley went up the middle, to win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It won't happen again, probably. I don't think el turda ever had many NDPers.

I know, I know. You can't hold the writer responsible for the comments. But since the Tyee is blaming Notley for the yellow vests...

 

Debater

Jason Kenney calls an NDP candidate “a gay 19 year old”, which draws laughter from his party, followed by “now don’t take it for granted, they elected a lot of them last time”.

(Video Clip:)

https://twitter.com/Vocal_Friend/status/1091437907842224129

bekayne

Debater wrote:

Jason Kenney calls an NDP candidate “a gay 19 year old”, which draws laughter from his party, followed by “now don’t take it for granted, they elected a lot of them last time”.

(Video Clip:)

https://twitter.com/Vocal_Friend/status/1091437907842224129

I don't hear a hard "g" in there, I think he was stammering a bit. 

voice of the damned

bekayne wrote:

Debater wrote:

Jason Kenney calls an NDP candidate “a gay 19 year old”, which draws laughter from his party, followed by “now don’t take it for granted, they elected a lot of them last time”.

(Video Clip:)

https://twitter.com/Vocal_Friend/status/1091437907842224129

I don't hear a hard "g" in there, I think he was stammering a bit. 

I'd be surprised if he said that. Not because I think he's progressive on issues of sexuality, but because the conventional wisdom is that Wildrose lost the 2012 election because of anti-gay comments by one of its candidates, and Kenney is a smooth enough operator to always be mindful of avoiding such remarks.

Mind you, I have known people more progressive than Kenney to occassionally let a slur slip out(usually when they're not really thinking about it, eg. "This big, mean-looking, black guy was giving me dirty looks at the bar", as if the guy's race is relevant to how threatening he seemed), but I still think Kenney would know enough to always be on guard against that sort of thing.

The video doesn't work on my computer, so no way of examining the audio for myself. I see Tom Lukaszuk was in in the comments section, blasting Kenney. I wonder what he's up to, politically, these days.  

quizzical

voice of the damned wrote:

The video doesn't work on my computer, so no way of examining the audio for myself. I see Tom Lukaszuk was in in the comments section, blasting Kenney. I wonder what he's up to, politically, these days.  

trying to bring Kenney down. he was the one who revealed the housing allowance first 

 

voice of the damned

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that. I'm guessing he's got some future plans to run.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..like the courts have somewhat protected bc from the tar sands project via trans mountain it somewhat protects albertans. where the alberta & and canadian governments don't and won't.

Alberta lauds court ruling but has no oil well cleanup plan

Alberta's energy minister says taxpayers are "better protected" thanks to a Supreme Court of Canada decision Thursday that prioritized clean up costs for abandoned oil and gas wells before debts to creditors when companies go bankrupt.

But two years after she began consultations with the energy industry, Margaret McCuaig-Boyd told reporters the New Democratic Party government has no firm timeline to introduce new rules that might limit a multi-billion-dollar public liability for reclaiming about 80,000 inactive wells around Alberta.

quote:

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned two lower court decisions that said federal bankruptcy law has paramountcy over provincial environmental responsibilities in the case of Redwater Energy which became insolvent in 2015.

Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. - After going bankrupt, an oil and gas company has to fulfill provincial environmental obligations before paying anyone it owes money to, the SCC has ruled: https://t.co/XVkeyD1NVo #cdnlaw #constitutionallaw pic.twitter.com/6AXNrHcUhC

— Supreme Court of Canada (@SCC_eng) January 31, 2019

The case pitted the provincial regulator against ATB Financial — a financial services firm that is also a provincial Crown corporation in Alberta. ATB Financial had provided financing to Redwater and wanted to recover its investments through the bankrupt oil company's remaining assets.

Debater

Bob Rae has called out Kenney (retweeted by Chantal Hebert & others):

There is something sick anout this. We wouldn’t accept this kind of sneering comment about race or gender from a senior political figure. Why would we accept it about sexual orientation ?

https://twitter.com/BobRae48/status/1091473200603529221

NorthReport

My hunch is Notley is correct about this in that she will get a favourable ruling from her side of the fence from the NEB

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/trans-mountain-should-be-back-on-track-pending-neb-update-notley-says-1.5007468

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Canadian banks signal that Redwater decision now weighs on oilpatch loans

A recent landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding environmental rights is a new wrinkle influencing how wide Canada's banks open their wallets when lending to the oilpatch.

The Canadian Bankers Association (CBA), which represents Canada’s “big five” banks and dozens of others, said the industry “respects” a Jan. 31 Supreme Court of Canada decision that prioritized cleaning up environmental liabilities over repaying loans.

While the organization told National Observer that banks “remain committed” to working with fossil fuel firms, they also said banks must take "anything" into account in decisions about how much money to loan, and at what price.

“Member banks of the CBA each follow their own lending practices; however, all banks in Canada must adhere to strict regulations that require them to manage risk in their lending,” said Mathieu Labrèche, director of media strategy at the bankers association, in response to questions.

“Anything that impacts the ability of a borrower to fully repay a loan must be factored into the decision about the amount and pricing of a loan.”

Spreading to other parts of the oilpatch?

The ruling is a win for the environment, as the receiver involved in the case had sought to “disclaim” abandoned wells and sell off only productive assets. Now, lenders can no longer expect this method to be used when they consider the likelihood of being made whole down the line.

In a pair of reports Monday, credit rating agency Moody's Investors Service said the ruling could mean banks will be less willing to lend to oil and gas producers, because they may now expect to recover less of their loans if firms go belly up.

The court decision was “credit negative for these companies and for banks,” Moody’s said. “For Canadian banks and other creditors, whose claims would be superseded by the need to fulfil environmental regulations, recovery rates would be reduced in the event that an oil and gas producer goes into default.”.....

Pages