Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:33 pm    Post subject: Pipeline Politics Reply with quote

We have no thread on the pipeline politics that seem destined to be the focus if and when the trade deal is struck ...

As I understand the pipeline issue ... it's a choice -- do we want to be a captive supplier of oil to the USA, or do we want to be able to participate in world markets?

If we can build pipelines to ocean ports, we can market an important resource and get higher prices. That wasn't so bad, but now the USA is the world's biggest supplier of oil. We are selling our oil into an oversupplied market at a discount.

I say "we", and of course the oil companies would profit most -- but remember how our dollar lost a dime when oil prices dropped? That's how 'we' profit. (If it pisses you off that the oil companies seem favoured, get some money and invest in them. That's how it works, figure it out!)

The other choice discourages investment and has other negative impacts.

Maybe I am wrong. It's just my frame of reference.

Second, we know Harper was working on pipelines in three directions, and that Trudeau cut one of them. They set guidelines, and the improved, privately owned pipeline had complied. Aboriginals were paid off, everything was at a late stage short of closing the deal. And this kicked up. The courts -- again!

Now, they're acting as if work can proceed, like it's all patched up. How does that happen? I thought the decision meant the government has to establish a few more facts and verify some results, and they get a green light. But it would take a year or two.

This is a bit of video on the subject ... it gives a sense of the importance of the project, and the frustration of a professional who works in the field ... 2 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YALHlHnK8sE
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been remiss ... there have been a couple of encouraging developments. There is a sophisticated video -- high-priced videography, professional voice-overs -- explaining the economics of the pipeline, and identifying it as a vital national interest ... doing the work that journalists and politicians should have been doing.

Harper promoted this and patiently waited through the most extensive reviews ever, and never got it done. Trudeau taunted him with the fact that he was the one that would cut the ribbon and reap the electoral rewards. He kissed off the Eastern pipeline in the process.

Now there are signs within the Liberal party, and voiced by the boy PM himself, that they don't know exactly what they're going to do, but they are determined that the pipeline will be built. Now that they bought it, they are committed. Otherwise, it'll turn into the whitest of white elephants. (Trudeau is always at his best when he does what he has to do to avoid looking really bad.)

I think that's a fair summary of where it stands now. This study is probably another way they are embarking on undercutting conservationist concerns.

Quote:
Feds launching review of oil tanker traffic in bid to renew pipeline approval
By The Canadian Press — Sep 21 2018
OTTAWA — The National Energy Board has less than six months to redo its environmental review of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, this time taking into account the impact of additional oil tanker traffic off the coast of British Columbia.

Three weeks after the Federal Court of Appeal overturned approval of the expansion project, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi says the federal cabinet is giving the NEB 22 weeks to complete a thorough review of the environmental impact of additional oil tankers that would result from the additional flow of diluted bitumen from an expanded pipeline.

"We are confident that this plan will allow us to meet the high standards that Canadians expect when it comes to protecting the environment," Sohi said today.

The review will examine the impact on killer whales of the additional tankers — it's estimated the number of ships will go to about 35 a month from the current five.

Last month the appeal court quashed the NEB and cabinet blessing of the project, citing improper consultation with Indigenous communities and a lack of review of the marine shipping issue. The decision laid out some specific things Canada and the NEB must do if they want the pipeline green-lighted again.

"Obviously this decision was disappointing but by no means insurmountable," Sohi said.

Canada's plans to restart consultations with Indigenous communities will be announced shortly, he added. A source told The Canadian Press recently the government is looking at hiring a retired federal judge to help oversee those consultations with a view to ensuring they follow court-ordered processes exactly this time.

Sohi is also appointing a scientific technical adviser to the NEB review panel to help conduct the oil tanker review.

The expansion project features a second pipeline, roughly parallel to the existing one that runs between Edmonton and Burnaby, B.C. It would triple the total capacity but the new pipeline would carry only diluted bitumen for export to foreign refineries, while the existing one carries a number of products including refined oil and diluted bitumen.

Sohi made the announcement in Halifax, where he is hosting G7 energy ministers today. Their meeting comes after G7 environment ministers discussed issues including climate change earlier in the week.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said today the issue of expanding the pipeline was not raised at those meetings. However Canada has been heavily criticized by environment groups for approving the expanded pipeline, which they argue is incompatible with Canada's promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions and help slow global warming.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the cabinet argue Canada needs to continue to develop its resources even as it makes the slow transition to a greener, cleaner energy economy.

Canada issued cabinet approval for the expanded pipeline in 2016 but political opposition — particularly from the new NDP government in British Columbia, which doesn't want the pipeline — spooked investors from Kinder Morgan Canada enough that the company wanted to walk away from the project.

In May, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced Canada would buy the existing pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, expand it and then sell it back to a private buyer when the timing was right.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/09/21/feds-launching-review-of-oil-tanker-traffic-in-bid-to-renew-pipeline-approval/#.W6UX32hKjIW


Imagine Doug Ford in this situation. I think it'd take him about five minutes to book some time with his legal brains to see if he could use the Notwithstanding clause on this.

And he'd be right!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8052
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pipelines is a principal issue;
Not an Economic one.

The amount of revenue that Oil has generated for the Federal Government and many Provinces has gone a long way to pay for many of those programs we enjoy.

The trouble with Notley and Trudeau's (historic) positions on oil is they are largely effective when you are in opposition, but impossible to maintain when you are in Government.

We can't "stop" using oil overnight;
Alternative technologies are amongst the most government subsidized in human history and we still aren't there, when we get there I will be over the moon to fill my hovercraft with water, alcohol, horsehair or whatever the tech is at the time, but for the short term we are stuck with tanking up.

With that out of the way;

The Federal Government is in the process of talking tough with our greatest trade partner.

However the Federal Government has by its actions and inaction made us far more reliant on sending goods North than we were five years ago.

Trans Mountain gives Canada better access to the Asian Markets whose consumption is increasing and need alternate sources;

Energy East not only allowed for us to have better access to a European Market and assist them as their North Sea oil reserves decreased but also allowed us more freedom to refine our own oil into gasoline while producing Thousands of jobs in Quebec and the Martimes.

Having those in process would have made our negotiation with the US far more creditable than it is on this issue.

Instead we sit back and watch it go south, get refined in the south, and pay more for a full tank of gas in Edmonton than in Oregon.

Its Economic Madness.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you really think they're talking tuff? As I see it, they're hardly talking at all.

The Canadian Minister of International Trade walked through the airport in Washington DC wearing a t-shirt with slogans on it. Once a week she goes to the office of the US Trade Ambassador, a far lower rank, in his office, so far as I can tell.

Do the Kremlinology.

Franz Kafka wrote a book called The Castle, in which a tutor arrives to teach the prince. He overplays his hand in negotiations. The book is a study of how impersonal bureaucracy wears down an individual who doesn't accept its terms. In the end, the tutor ends up chasing the sleigh of the overseer through the snow, begging ... and hardly anybody pays him any attention. His self-importance has been demolished.

I think of that book whenever I see the rictus grin of Crystia gazing out at me from a screen. It seems to characterize their vain enterprise. But there is no reason that Canada should pay the price.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8052
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By talking tough;
I mean the usual petulant talking tough in front of microphones about how hard they are working for the average Canadian.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Pipeline Politics

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB