Rachel Notley tours Canada to advocate for pipelines

333 posts / 0 new
Last post
Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

Minimal isn't none. There is no red herring being used. Oil companies only take the safety measures they are forced to take. We don't trust them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_train

Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost.[30] Since 2011, the Canadian government has required tank cars with a thicker shell, though older models are still allowed to operate.[31]

Older models are still allowed to operate therefore oil companies will continue using them to save money. 

The oil industry may use safer tankers but they will still cut corners where they can therefore safer technically doesn't mean safer in practice. 

To rehabilitate its reputation the oil companies would have to begin behaving responsibly. I am certain that won't happen. Even as they desperately push for pipelines they won't clean up old wells. No one talks about the lifespan of pipelines or who will pay to remove them from the ground once the companies stop using them. 

So where in any undertaking is there no risk? The proper term should be acceptable risk - risk acceptable to competent authority.

What  does rail car regulations have to do with ships?  Your criticism of oil companies is misdirected - it should be directed at the regulators and government agencies that enforce said regulations. Blaming oil companies for derailments makes as much sense as blaming your dry cleaner because your toilet leaks.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

You said zero. It isn't zero. Even in the juan de fuca strait it is not zero. Oil tankers spill. Put more of them in that sealane and there is a greater chance that there will be more there, as there have been in other places.

 

No, while 0 risk is possible mathematically, it is impossible actuarially. Acceptable risk. Acceptable to competent authority and Transport Canada considers the risk acceptable.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Well no, the pipes are not the same in the sense that new infrastructure has much better metallurgy and corrosion coatings plus the quality control is rigorous and very high tech. The concern with pipelines isn't the new ones but the 60 year old pipes that are corroding because of perforated coatings and electrolysis.

So what are oil companies doing about the old pipelines? That new pipelines are better is meaningless because the oil companies themselves are no better. They just put down mats to prevent salmon from spawning without permits to do so because they wanted to save money.  You expect me to trust their quality control!

It doesn't matter what the oil industry says because they can't be trusted. They could say the pipes were triple walled it wouldn't matter. 

Of course not.  Obviously nothing will convince you, so be it. 

6079_Smith_W

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

You said zero. It isn't zero. Even in the juan de fuca strait it is not zero. Oil tankers spill. Put more of them in that sealane and there is a greater chance that there will be more there, as there have been in other places.

 

No, while 0 risk is possible mathematically, it is impossible actuarially. Acceptable risk. Acceptable to competent authority and Transport Canada considers the risk acceptable.

Well maybe you shouldn't say zero then, or try to reduce it to numbers when we know there have been disastrous spills from pipelines and oil tankers. Not zero. Or 0x100.

As for acceptable, competent authorities considered the risk acceptable when all of these spilled. Exxon Valdez was over 25 years ago, and there were still 23,000 gallons of oil still in the ground in 2010, and parts of the ecosystem still have not recovered.

The real important number isn't zero, but one. Because that is all it takes to ruin things for decades or longer.

 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
  So where in any undertaking is there no risk? The proper term should be acceptable risk - risk acceptable to competent authority.  

If the risk is as low as the "experts" claim why do insurance companies insist on capping coverage far lower than the actual clean-up costs? 

Martin N. wrote:
  What  does rail car regulations have to do with ships?  Your criticism of oil companies is misdirected - it should be directed at the regulators and government agencies that enforce said regulations. Blaming oil companies for derailments makes as much sense as blaming your dry cleaner because your toilet leaks.  

It's indicative of the irresponsibility of the oil industry as a whole as are orphan wells. 

For the sake of argument, let us say the oil companies are innocent and it is the government or regulators to blame. In that case government and regulators have proven that they aren't equal to the task of regulating the industry. Now you expect me to see them as competent authority? 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
  So where in any undertaking is there no risk? The proper term should be acceptable risk - risk acceptable to competent authority.  

If the risk is as low as the "experts" claim why do insurance companies insist on capping coverage far lower than the actual clean-up costs? 

Martin N. wrote:
  What  does rail car regulations have to do with ships?  Your criticism of oil companies is misdirected - it should be directed at the regulators and government agencies that enforce said regulations. Blaming oil companies for derailments makes as much sense as blaming your dry cleaner because your toilet leaks.  

It's indicative of the irresponsibility of the oil industry as a whole as are orphan wells. 

For the sake of argument, let us say the oil companies are innocent and it is the government or regulators to blame. In that case government and regulators have proven that they aren't equal to the task of regulating the industry. Now you expect me to see them as competent authority? 

No, I don't expect you to see anything.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

You said zero. It isn't zero. Even in the juan de fuca strait it is not zero. Oil tankers spill. Put more of them in that sealane and there is a greater chance that there will be more there, as there have been in other places.

 

No, while 0 risk is possible mathematically, it is impossible actuarially. Acceptable risk. Acceptable to competent authority and Transport Canada considers the risk acceptable.

Well maybe you shouldn't say zero then, or try to reduce it to numbers when we know there have been disastrous spills from pipelines and oil tankers. Not zero. Or 0x100.

As for acceptable, competent authorities considered the risk acceptable when all of these spilled. Exxon Valdez was over 25 years ago, and there were still 23,000 gallons of oil still in the ground in 2010, and parts of the ecosystem still have not recovered.

The real important number isn't zero, but one. Because that is all it takes to ruin things for decades or longer.

 

Ah, the "sky is falling" gambit.  The only competent authority is the one that agrees with your biases. Got it and thanks for sharing. Cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't good economic policy but good policy that protects Canada's first world lifestyle is not necessary to the warriors of change is it?

I'm starting to believe that the Marxists have simple morphed into other forms of protesters of  Canadian society. After the failure of the Communist ideal, another method must be found to undermine the western first world and Canada is the perfect victim. It is inconceivable that activists are blind to the harm such radical change to Canada's economy.

6079_Smith_W

Well if we want to talk absolutes, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't made a completely false claim about no spills.

And the whole point of risk models is that there is a point at which that risk is not worth it. Part of the reason why the proposal for a tanker terminal and pipeline in Prince Rupert has been canned. And why the federal government has called a moratorium on drilling in the arctic.

Also why this whole plan to build more pipelines is a terrible idea for everyone. Unfortunately those who have a stake in the heavily-subsidized business don't get it.

 

 

NorthReport

Many share your concerns about the Canadian economy but you lose major credibility by accusing those, who have a different point of view from you, as being commies, which according to you, appears to be some derogatory term.

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

You said zero. It isn't zero. Even in the juan de fuca strait it is not zero. Oil tankers spill. Put more of them in that sealane and there is a greater chance that there will be more there, as there have been in other places.

 

No, while 0 risk is possible mathematically, it is impossible actuarially. Acceptable risk. Acceptable to competent authority and Transport Canada considers the risk acceptable.

Well maybe you shouldn't say zero then, or try to reduce it to numbers when we know there have been disastrous spills from pipelines and oil tankers. Not zero. Or 0x100.

As for acceptable, competent authorities considered the risk acceptable when all of these spilled. Exxon Valdez was over 25 years ago, and there were still 23,000 gallons of oil still in the ground in 2010, and parts of the ecosystem still have not recovered.

The real important number isn't zero, but one. Because that is all it takes to ruin things for decades or longer.

 

Ah, the "sky is falling" gambit.  The only competent authority is the one that agrees with your biases. Got it and thanks for sharing. Cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't good economic policy but good policy that protects Canada's first world lifestyle is not necessary to the warriors of change is it?

I'm starting to believe that the Marxists have simple morphed into other forms of protesters of  Canadian society. After the failure of the Communist ideal, another method must be found to undermine the western first world and Canada is the perfect victim. It is inconceivable that activists are blind to the harm such radical change to Canada's economy.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

No, I don't expect you to see anything.

Couldn't counter my arguments so you give up. When I blame the oil industry you say blame the authorities while simultaneously saying I should trust them. 

Canada is doing just fine economically. We have lots of natural resources not just oil and some countries manage to do well without selling raw resources. 

Why doesn't Alberta solve its own problem instead of blaming others for Alberta's inability to get the job done. 

Alberta failed over and over again to hold oil companies to account so now no one trusts them. Alberta pushed to minimize regulations all the time so guess what, now no one trusts them. 

Environmentalists are successful as a direct result of the failures of the oil industry. The oil industry and Alberta figured they could bully their way through or buy their way through. 

Had the oil companies been more responsible it would have made the job of environmentalists much more difficult. Don't blame us for succeeding blame yourself for failing. 

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well if we want to talk absolutes, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't made a completely false claim about no spills.

And the whole point of risk models is that there is a point at which that risk is not worth it. Part of the reason why the proposal for a tanker terminal and pipeline in Prince Rupert has been canned. And why the federal government has called a moratorium on drilling in the arctic.

Also why this whole plan to build more pipelines is a terrible idea for everyone. Unfortunately those who have a stake in the heavily-subsidized business don't get it.

 

 

 In the context of the Trans Mountain debate, there have been no tanker spills in BC waters in the past 60 years. That equall 0 spills - nada, zero.  The opposition to TM tankers is the danger in BC waters. BC activists cite the danger to their BC waters, not to the east coast or the rest of the planet. Your post-truth revisionism does not counter that fact.  I'm not necessarily in favour of TM. I live on an oceanfront acreage in the islands and will be greatly affected by a spill but my personal interests cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the greater good as expressed by the legal government within the framework of the Constitution Act. 

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Many share your concerns about the Canadian economy but you lose major credibility by accusing those, who have a different point of view from you, as being commies. 

Credibility? Did I ever have any? Espousing any sentiment other than rabid anti-hydrocarbon extremism here is reason enough to deny credibility. Branding fellow Canadians as "the enemy" is certainly unhinged, if not subversive? Are they Marxists or just useful idiots for subversive causes?

What is your premise for the destruction of resource industries by interests that will suffer a reduced lifestyle from their own actions rather than agitating for best practices and meaningful regulation?

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

No, I don't expect you to see anything.

Couldn't counter my arguments so you give up. When I blame the oil industry you say blame the authorities while simultaneously saying I should trust them. 

Canada is doing just fine economically. We have lots of natural resources not just oil and some countries manage to do well without selling raw resources. 

Why doesn't Alberta solve its own problem instead of blaming others for Alberta's inability to get the job done. 

Alberta failed over and over again to hold oil companies to account so now no one trusts them. Alberta pushed to minimize regulations all the time so guess what, now no one trusts them. 

Environmentalists are successful as a direct result of the failures of the oil industry. The oil industry and Alberta figured they could bully their way through or buy their way through. 

Had the oil companies been more responsible it would have made the job of environmentalists much more difficult. Don't blame us for succeeding blame yourself for failing. 

I think you value your 'success' prematurely. I see you as a zealot who will never debate in a rational manner, therefore you just waste my time with recriminations and 'blame' for merely discussing the issue.

6079_Smith_W

Hm. Well if "zero tanker spills in B.C waters" is the only argument then why is the government in the process of banning tanker traffic on the north coast?

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Many share your concerns about the Canadian economy but you lose major credibility by accusing those, who have a different point of view from you, as being commies. 

Credibility? Did I ever have any? Espousing any sentiment other than rabid anti-hydrocarbon extremism here is reason enough to deny credibility. Branding fellow Canadians as "the enemy" is certainly unhinged, if not subversive? Are they Marxists or just useful idiots for subversive causes?

What is your premise for the destruction of resource industries by interests that will suffer a reduced lifestyle from their own actions rather than agitating for best practices and meaningful regulation?

Marxists aren't the only ones opposed to pipelines as many people from all political stripes outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland are opposed to building more pipelines. The petroleum industry has weak support in most parts of Canada partially because turning Canada's dollar into a petro-currency has had negative impacts on many parts of Canada outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.

6079_Smith_W

It hasn't had a great effect here either, as our governments found out when the price dropped. And it has had a worse effect on the people because companies aren't paying enough royalties for it, or cleaning up after themselves.  Basing your economy on one non-renewable thing is never a good idea.

R.E.Wood

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

Nice anti-Semitic rant.

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I can't let Unionist's post stand as is. To be clear, there was absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about my post, and I have never expressed an anti-Semitic word in my life. However, there was something clearly sexist in Unionist's earlier post, which I called him out on (his expression "shutting her up" in reference to Notley).

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..expansion of the tarsands via pipelines will mean greater disaster for alberta and create new disasters elsewhere. stopping pipelines is important and necessary work. 

Orphan Well Association spending tops $2 million on care of Lexin assets

The cost of looking after hundreds of wells, pipelines and other oilfield gear left behind by bankrupt Lexin Resources Ltd. has exceeded $2 million and the bills continue to roll in, says Alberta's Orphan Well Association.

The association was handed responsibility for nearly 1,100 wells plus associated equipment after the Alberta Energy Regulator took the unusual step last February of shutting down all Lexin operations.

The AER accused the Calgary-based oil and gas producer of ignoring orders and regulations and forced it into receivership, claiming it owed more than $1 million in levies to the OWA and another $70 million in security for its reclamation obligations.

At the time, OWA chairman Brad Herald estimated it would cost about $1 million to administer the assets for six months until the ones with value are sold to new owners — but he said the actual costs have more than doubled as the process enters its ninth month....

Pondering

Keystone leaked. No need to be a zealot to oppose more faulty pipelines.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hm. Well if "zero tanker spills in B.C waters" is the only argument then why is the government in the process of banning tanker traffic on the north coast?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nat...

Martin N.

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Many share your concerns about the Canadian economy but you lose major credibility by accusing those, who have a different point of view from you, as being commies. 

Credibility? Did I ever have any? Espousing any sentiment other than rabid anti-hydrocarbon extremism here is reason enough to deny credibility. Branding fellow Canadians as "the enemy" is certainly unhinged, if not subversive? Are they Marxists or just useful idiots for subversive causes?

What is your premise for the destruction of resource industries by interests that will suffer a reduced lifestyle from their own actions rather than agitating for best practices and meaningful regulation?

Marxists aren't the only ones opposed to pipelines as many people from all political stripes outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland are opposed to building more pipelines. The petroleum industry has weak support in most parts of Canada partially because turning Canada's dollar into a petro-currency has had negative impacts on many parts of Canada outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.

I see. Building pipelines to export oil and gas from the west is bad for Canada, huh? The rest of the planet is busily using oil and gas to create better lifestyles. The rest of the planet is returning to a coal-based future while Canada is ( rightly) devolving its coal industry. Having a high loonie because of a roaring petro-economy is bad because it affects eastern Canada negatively. Got it. 

 

NorthReport

It's called the 'BIG LIE'.

This article is quoting a Liberal MLA whose party is responsible for deceiving BC voters by putting Canada's best-run insurance company ICBC almost into bankruptcy, commencing Site C without any proper oversight which has probably put the project billions of dollars over budget, year(s) behind schedule, the main contractor on the project from Alberta is bankrupt , few actual BCers have secured employment on the project, and electricity rates in BC are skyrocketing. Based on his political connections alone, I think I would take his bullshit with more than a few grains of salt.

 

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hm. Well if "zero tanker spills in B.C waters" is the only argument then why is the government in the process of banning tanker traffic on the north coast?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nat...

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hm. Well if "zero tanker spills in B.C waters" is the only argument then why is the government in the process of banning tanker traffic on the north coast?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nat...

A sop for enviros. If tanker traffic is sooooo dangerous, why did Trudeau only ban them on the northern west coast - where there aren't any- and not on the southern west coast or on the east coast. Do the multitudinous worthies in eastern Canada not deserve the same protections from dangerous tankers as the admittedly few and far between frontier worthies of Canada's north west coast? To say nothing of BC's fervent south coast anti-tanker types?

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

It's called the 'BIG LIE'.

This article is quoting a Liberal MLA whose party is responsible for deceiving BC voters by putting Canada's best-run insurance company ICBC almost into bankruptcy, commencing Site C without any proper oversight which has probably put the project billions of dollars over budget, year(s) behind schedule, the main contractor on the project from Alberta is bankrupt , few actual BCers have secured employment on the project, and electricity rates in BC are skyrocketing. Based on his political connections alone, I think I would take his bullshit with more than a few grains of salt.

 

Martin N. wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hm. Well if "zero tanker spills in B.C waters" is the only argument then why is the government in the process of banning tanker traffic on the north coast?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nat...

Hmm, North, you may want to refine your rebuttal to the article a tad. Ellis Ross isn't the only one quoted in the article and in any case has a very long history fighting for his nation. Slagging him as a mere Liberal bullshitter is contemptible. Read the whole article rather than parsing it for ideological 'wins'.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Keystone leaked. No need to be a zealot to oppose more faulty pipelines.

No need for moral hazard in sustaining moral righteousness either. Hey! Another "win" ;)

NorthReport

There is no way the Kinder Morgan pipeline is going to built through the Lower Mainland, as there is too much opposition to it. And so far contrary to what was told to voters in 2013 by the right-wing Liberals, there has not been one LNG project of significance built in BC, and it is unlikely any will be built in the future.  And anyone who has invested their community's future in this deadend industy in BC, is a fool. All part of the 'BIG LIBERAL LIE'

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Keystone leaked. No need to be a zealot to oppose more faulty pipelines.

No need for moral hazard in sustaining moral righteousness either. Hey! Another "win" ;)

There is no moral hazard or moral righteousness involved. Alberta has existing modes of exports. What the oil industry wants is to expand the industry to pump out oil as fast as possible because they know the window is closing then they will stick taxpayers with the clean-up costs for spills and for removal of pipelines and refineries when they are no longer needed.

The voters of Alberta chose to close their eyes to the faults of oil companies and failed to reap the benefits because of right wing ideology. I have no problem with helping Alberta with federal funds to transition away from oil over the next 50 years.

Quebec will not be bullied and I don't think BC will either.

6079_Smith_W

Hm. So when it is your theoretical island dweller putting up with risk of oil spills for the good of the big picture it is a just sacrifice.

But when a business can't go forward because the government decides it is too risky to run a steady stream of tankers through that ecosystem it's a sop for environmentalists.

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Many share your concerns about the Canadian economy but you lose major credibility by accusing those, who have a different point of view from you, as being commies. 

Credibility? Did I ever have any? Espousing any sentiment other than rabid anti-hydrocarbon extremism here is reason enough to deny credibility. Branding fellow Canadians as "the enemy" is certainly unhinged, if not subversive? Are they Marxists or just useful idiots for subversive causes?

What is your premise for the destruction of resource industries by interests that will suffer a reduced lifestyle from their own actions rather than agitating for best practices and meaningful regulation?

Marxists aren't the only ones opposed to pipelines as many people from all political stripes outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland are opposed to building more pipelines. The petroleum industry has weak support in most parts of Canada partially because turning Canada's dollar into a petro-currency has had negative impacts on many parts of Canada outside of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.

I see. Building pipelines to export oil and gas from the west is bad for Canada, huh? The rest of the planet is busily using oil and gas to create better lifestyles. The rest of the planet is returning to a coal-based future while Canada is ( rightly) devolving its coal industry. Having a high loonie because of a roaring petro-economy is bad because it affects eastern Canada negatively. Got it. 

Why should eastern Canada support something that affects them negatively?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Oilsands tailings weigh heavily on all Canadians

Back in the early 1970s, the Alberta government effectively made a Faustian bargain. It allowed the oilsands industry to keep on mining, despite the sector not knowing how to clean up its fluid tailings waste — the assumption being that future technologies would solve the problem. Unfortunately, no silver bullets have been discovered, and the industry has kicked the can down the road on this mess for the last 50 years. In the meantime, the oilsands’ tailings ponds have grown so massive they impound a globally unprecedented 1.3 trillion litres of toxic waste. These tailings are unlike any other industrial by-product in the world; they contain residual hydrocarbons, a cocktail of toxic chemicals, and fine particles of clay and silt that remain suspended for centuries in a sort of artificial quicksand.

Now this concerning trend is set to continue on for decades, with the Alberta government’s approval in late October of a dubious new plan to manage tailings at Suncor’s Base Plant Mine. The oldest of all the oilsands mines, the Base Plant started operations in 1967 and is now set to close in 2033. So far, the mine has accumulated enough molasses-like sludge to fill 100,000 Olympic swimming pools. This volume constitutes a quarter of the entire industry’s total fluid tailings inventory.

quote:

This grim situation should deeply concern all Canadians. By allowing oilsands tailings ponds to continue to grow, the Alberta government is signing up all of Canada for decades of further uncertainty and risk. If any of these ponds were to breach, an unimaginable environmental disaster would result, affecting the Mackenzie River Basin as far as the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, according to recent estimates by Environmental Defence Canada, these ponds represent as much as $50 billion in total clean-up costs — of which only $1.3 billion is held in securities. All of the major political parties in Alberta seem strangely quiet on one of the largest fiscal issues facing the province. Should the oilsands mining sector face bankruptcies in the coming decades, the environmental and fiscal liability of these ponds would inevitably become a burden borne by Albertan and Canadian taxpayers.

MegB

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

Nice anti-Semitic rant.

I'm not seeing anything anti-Semitic. Care to elaborate?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

TransCanada shuts down Keystone oil pipeline after another leak

TransCanada shut down part of its Keystone pipeline after an oil leak of about 5,000 barrels (about 795,000 litres) Thursday in Marshall County, South Dakota.

The pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma and to Wood River/Patoka, Illinois “is expected to remain shut down as we respond to this incident,” the Calgary-based company said in a statement.

The leak occurred just a few days before the Nebraska Public Service Commission is scheduled to make a Nov. 20th announcement of its decision on whether to approve a permit to allow construction of the controversial long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline.

quote:

This is the second significant leak on Keystone over the past two years. In April 2016, TransCanada shut down the pipeline after a local resident reported seeing oil seeping to the surface in South Dakota.

The line is less than 10 years old and began commercial operations in June 2010.

voice of the damned

MegB wrote:

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

Nice anti-Semitic rant.

I'm not seeing anything anti-Semitic. Care to elaborate?

I think it was intended as a turnabout, and not to be taken literally. 

Wood said that Unionist was directing misogynistic remarks at Rachel Notley. Unionist, assuming that Wood was basing his criticism on Notley's being a woman rather than the content of what Unionist wrote, retorted that Wood was being anti-semitic(Unionist being Jewish). Basically, saying "Well, if criticizing Rachel Notley makes me misogynistic, by that absurd logic, criticizing me must make you anti-semitic".  

Mobo2000

My interpretation was the same as VOTD.   I did not see Unionist's original comment as sexist either and hope this excellent thread won't be derailed by this.

voice of the damned

For the record, I'm pretty cool with Rachel Notley's government overall, and I don't think she warrants the label fake-progressive over her pipeline policies, since everyone agrees that there has to be some level of human encroachment on the environment, the only debate being to what extent. It's not quite an either/or like saying "We should get rid of equal marriage", for example, about which there can be no debate as to its regressiveness.

But I also don't think it's a priori sexist to say you want someone who happens to be a woman to shut up. I'm sure we can all think of any number of female politicians and commentators whose contribution to the public discourse we all think we could live without.

NorthReport

What about a woman's point of view on what is, or what is not, sexist, eh!

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

What about a woman's point of view on what is, or what is not, sexist, eh!

Well, if I say "Diane Francis needs to shut the fuck up yesterday!", and either Francis or a woman who likes her replies that that is sexist, am I supposed to tone down my statement?

I agree, there are times when something you'd say to a man wouldn't be appropriate to say to a woman, if in the case of the woman it plays into regressive stereotypes. But, I dunno, I've always figured "shut up" was a pretty gender-neutral way of saying that someone just needs to quit adding their unwanted contribution to the debate.

Others may disagree. But, then, I'd ask them to recommend another useful phrase for telling, say, Diane Francis, in no uncertain terms that her involvement in the discussion is well past its best-before date. 

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..although kinder morgan doesn't seem to be on this list at the last share holder meeting in texas they bragged about how little tax they paid in canada. eta: under the notley ndp alberta royalties were cut with the oil companies pleading poverty (loss of income)

Enbridge, TransCanada Among 11 Canadian Oil and Gas Firms Using Tax Havens

Eleven of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies have dozens of subsidiaries and related companies in known tax haven jurisdictions, according to a new report from the Ottawa-based non-profit Canadians for Tax Fairness.

Those companies include Suncor, Enbridge, CNRL, TransCanada, Imperial Oil, Cenovus and Husky.

The report, titled “Bay Street and Tax Havens: Curbing Corporate Canada’s Addiction,” examined the largest 60 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and found that just four didn’t have a publicly listed subsidiary in a known low-tax or no-tax haven.

quote:

Canadian Oil and Gas Companies Own a Combined 46 Entities in Tax Haven Countries

The report arrives on the heels of the explosive Paradise Papers, which contained 13.4 million confidential documents implicating many renowned figures — including the Queen, Bono and three former Canadian prime ministers — in the legal but ethically dubious practice of storing money in offshore tax havens.

The revelations also come as many oil and gas companies claim government policies such as methane regulations, carbon pricing or higher royalty rates create undue financial burdens and could cripple their business case.

quote:

Canadian Direct Investment in Tax Havens Grew A Hundredfold in 20 Years

The report’s definition of a “tax haven” provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has four simple components: an extremely low or non-existent tax rate, a separation of tax rates from the country’s regular economy, a lack of regulatory supervision and an absence of information exchange.

In other words, a region where money is kept solely to house excess profits that people or corporations wish to remain untaxed.

quote:

Canada Losing Estimated $10 Billion to $15 Billion Per Year

The report found Canada was missing out on an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion in taxes per year from the 60 companies listed.

Four of the oil and gas companies identified in the report were also listed in Canadian Business magazine’s 2014 investigation into corporations that were paying “unbelievably low tax rates.”

That investigation reported that over the course of a decade, CNRL, Enbridge, TransCanada and Suncor only paid between 13.6 per cent and 15.6 per cent of their income in taxes.

R.E.Wood

voice of the damned wrote:

MegB wrote:

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

Nice anti-Semitic rant.

I'm not seeing anything anti-Semitic. Care to elaborate?

I think it was intended as a turnabout, and not to be taken literally. 

Wood said that Unionist was directing misogynistic remarks at Rachel Notley. Unionist, assuming that Wood was basing his criticism on Notley's being a woman rather than the content of what Unionist wrote, retorted that Wood was being anti-semitic(Unionist being Jewish). Basically, saying "Well, if criticizing Rachel Notley makes me misogynistic, by that absurd logic, criticizing me must make you anti-semitic".  

To clarify, I was calling out Unionist's reference to "shutting her up", which I took to be sexist when, in this case, it's addressed against a woman in power, who is doing her job. He responded bizarrely by calling me anti-Semitic. As I've already pointed out, I've never expressed any anti-Semitic words in my life, and have no way of knowing whether or not Unionist is Jewish. Not that that would have anything to do with his desire for Rachel Notley to "shut up". It isn't about criticizing Notley, which is perfectly valid for anyone to do, it's about Unionist's tone, and that specific reference to "shutting her up".

Martin N.

Saint Unionist clumsily dropped his halo and rather than standing tall, he deflected with a 'Jewish defence' and hid under his bed. Without doubt "shutting her up" is demeaning and patronizing to women. Hiding behind Jewishness is insulting to all Jews. 

Martin N.

epaulo13 wrote:

..although kinder morgan doesn't seem to be on this list at the last share holder meeting in texas they bragged about how little tax they paid in canada. eta: under the notley ndp alberta royalties were cut with the oil companies pleading poverty (loss of income)

Enbridge, TransCanada Among 11 Canadian Oil and Gas Firms Using Tax Havens

Eleven of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies have dozens of subsidiaries and related companies in known tax haven jurisdictions, according to a new report from the Ottawa-based non-profit Canadians for Tax Fairness.

Those companies include Suncor, Enbridge, CNRL, TransCanada, Imperial Oil, Cenovus and Husky.

The report, titled “Bay Street and Tax Havens: Curbing Corporate Canada’s Addiction,” examined the largest 60 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and found that just four didn’t have a publicly listed subsidiary in a known low-tax or no-tax haven.

quote:

Canadian Oil and Gas Companies Own a Combined 46 Entities in Tax Haven Countries

The report arrives on the heels of the explosive Paradise Papers, which contained 13.4 million confidential documents implicating many renowned figures — including the Queen, Bono and three former Canadian prime ministers — in the legal but ethically dubious practice of storing money in offshore tax havens.

The revelations also come as many oil and gas companies claim government policies such as methane regulations, carbon pricing or higher royalty rates create undue financial burdens and could cripple their business case.

quote:

Canadian Direct Investment in Tax Havens Grew A Hundredfold in 20 Years

The report’s definition of a “tax haven” provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has four simple components: an extremely low or non-existent tax rate, a separation of tax rates from the country’s regular economy, a lack of regulatory supervision and an absence of information exchange.

In other words, a region where money is kept solely to house excess profits that people or corporations wish to remain untaxed.

quote:

Canada Losing Estimated $10 Billion to $15 Billion Per Year

The report found Canada was missing out on an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion in taxes per year from the 60 companies listed.

Four of the oil and gas companies identified in the report were also listed in Canadian Business magazine’s 2014 investigation into corporations that were paying “unbelievably low tax rates.”

That investigation reported that over the course of a decade, CNRL, Enbridge, TransCanada and Suncor only paid between 13.6 per cent and 15.6 per cent of their income in taxes.

It is easy to cherry pick facts without context. Taxation is a complicated issue that does not easily lend itself to simplistic analysis. What percentage of their TAXABLE income did they pay? If these entities paid their legal taxes, why scapegoat them? Do you, epaulo, pay more taxes than the government demands.

NorthReport

Martin

You just don't get it.  

Why should any government on the planet be subsidizing fossel fuels when their use is dangerously pushing up the heat of our planet? 

I'll answer for you: It should have been stopped years ago, and needs to be stopped now. We need those funds to subsidize research and support renewable resources instead.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hm. So when it is your theoretical island dweller putting up with risk of oil spills for the good of the big picture it is a just sacrifice.

But when a business can't go forward because the government decides it is too risky to run a steady stream of tankers through that ecosystem it's a sop for environmentalists.

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

 

You disappoint me, Smith. Perhaps you should apply yourself to the conundrum with more vigour. The sop for environs is a political construct that places a moratorium on tanker traffic in an area that has no tanker traffic and ignores areas that actually does have tanker traffic. It is a construct that costs nothing - especially political capital. 

I am at somewhat of a loss to comprehend the substance of your double standard claim regarding my circumstances and the north coast moratorium when you skate over and ignore the double standard of le Dauphin's cynical moratorium vs the dangers of tankers elsewhere in the nation. 

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Martin

You just don't get it.  

Why should any government on the planet be subsidizing fossel fuels when their use is dangerously pushing up the heat of our planet? 

I'll answer for you: It should have been stopped years ago, and needs to be stopped now. We need those funds to subsidize research and support renewable resources instead.

OK. I get the need to move on to the new technologies of the 21 st century but what I don't get is that these new technologies will not be mainstream for another 20 years or more and hydrocarbon use will still be 100 million  barrels per day in 2040. How does destroying our economy help when the rest of the world is carrying on with a carbon economy?

 

Pondering

Notley's latest in response to the Keystone XL leak is that they are safer than railcars. Not falling for that Notley. Pipelines carry far more bitumen than  railcars and the oil sands will not be expanded based on rail cars as the mode of transportation.

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh appeared on all three Edmonton supper-time newscasts to praise Rachel Notley, saying she has the right balance of environmental policy in combo with implementing pipelines.

He says that is where Justin Trudeau is weak, as he has done nothing (and broken his promise) to put a new regalatory process to approve pipelnes based on environmental concerns. That is where Jagmeet feels he can one-up Trudeau, with his vision of using Rachel Notley process as a blue-print on the federal level.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

quote: Martin N.

It is easy to cherry pick facts without context. Taxation is a complicated issue that does not easily lend itself to simplistic analysis. What percentage of their TAXABLE income did they pay? If these entities paid their legal taxes, why scapegoat them? Do you, epaulo, pay more taxes than the government demands.

..are you trying to put me (a pensioner) on equal footing with multibillion dollar corporations?

..you miss the point about taxes avoidance i believe, the question is why is this legal if indeed it is. i'm happy for the opportunity to use this quote again. everybody knows!

"Governments are not representative. They have their own power, serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich." Noam Chomsky

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh appeared on all three Edmonton supper-time newscasts to praise Rachel Notley, saying she has the right balance of environmental policy in combo with implementing pipelines.

He says that is where Justin Trudeau is weak, as he has done nothing (and broken his promise) to put a new regalatory process to approve pipelnes based on environmental concerns. That is where Jagmeet feels he can one-up Trudeau, with his vision of using Rachel Notley process as a blue-print on the federal level.

That's a disappointment. It won't help him and it could hurt him in BC as now he is no better than Trudeau or Scheer for that matter. They are all pipeline advocates.

6079_Smith_W

Martin N. wrote:

You should apply yourself to the conundrum with more vigour. The sop for environs is a political construct that places a moratorium on tanker traffic in an area that has no tanker traffic and ignores areas that actually does have tanker traffic. It is a construct that costs nothing - especially political capital. 

I am at somewhat of a loss to comprehend the substance of your double standard claim regarding my circumstances and the north coast moratorium when you skate over and ignore the double standard of le Dauphin's cynical moratorium vs the dangers of tankers elsewhere in the nation. 

I'm not talking about Trudeau, Martin. I agree he is being a hypocrite on this issue. That is why I and many others oppose him on pipelines.

I am talking about your claim that people have to put their concerns aside for the good of the government. I don't agree, but you seem to be applying your standard differently south and north of Port Hardy.

 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

That's a disappointment. It won't help him and it could hurt him in BC as now he is no better than Trudeau or Scheer for that matter. They are all pipeline advocates.

Actually he never said he supports pipelines. The interviewers tried to press him to answer if he supports pipelines or not. He refused to answer (which led to one interviewer to finally say "So you are anti-pipeline"). Instead Jagmeet kept going back to what he does support -  a better regulatory process that puts the enviromental concerns first over pipeline implementation. That being said, he added Rachel Notley is the only one who is getting this balance right. Wheras Justin Trudeau has completely dropped the ball on this and has broken yet another promise, this time on reglatory process to greenlight pipelines.

Pages