1754 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Yes, Energy East would be a solid step in providing the rest of Canada with sufficient crude, which would inevitably lead to the creation of more heavy crude refineries.

Our heavy crude is also desperately needed for road building in China.

[RFS]

I agree with sparky we need a Canadian Juche

[Victoria Watcher]

I agree with sparky we need a Canadian Juche

 

had to look that up.

[Mike K.]

The situation just took a major turn. First Nations are sending US-lead and US-funded anti-oil activists operating in Canada a very clear message.

Dozens of Indigenous groups are turning forcefully against the anti-pipeline agenda of Greenpeace and other U.S.-funded green and social justice groups.

...

At least two major groups, the Iron Coalition and Project Reconciliation, seek to bring together hundreds of First Nation communities across Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan to purchase TMX, which the Trudeau Liberals bought for $4.5 billion one year ago.

The two groups are greatly encouraged by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s openness to First Nations ownership. “When it comes to potential Indigenous buy-in, we’re not putting a limit on it,” Trudeau said on Tuesday, saying it could be anywhere from 25 to 100 per cent.

- https://nationalpost...cf-e718f50f5d4c

[spanky123]

^Everyone has a number.

[Victoria Watcher]

more pipe rolls through canmore:

 

https://twitter.com/...869700029718528

[rjag]

so 300 of the usual folks such as Rose Henry turned up and made a nuisance of themselves. I bet if they took role call 1/2 or more would have been there for the SJA statue and all the other 'we hate the world and it owes us' events

[LJ]

US organizations stopping the pipeline and production....

 

• Calgary Herald
• 22 Jun 2019
• LICIA CORBELLA Licia Corbella is a Postmedia opinion columnist. lcorbella@postmedia.com

ON JACKSON/FILES Vivian Krause has traced $600 million that has flowed into Canada from U.S. foundations to restrict Canada’s energy sector. The Great Bear Rainforest that thwarted the Northern Gateway pipeline had been significantly funded by the family that founded the U.S. oil industry.

If you ever doubted whether Canada’s government is acting like a useful idiot for U.S. interests, the passage Friday of bills C-48 and C-69 in the Senate provided ample proof. Independent researcher Vivian Krause has stacks of documents to prove it.

But first, in Alberta, Premier Jason Kenney went appropriately nuclear over this.

“The passage of these two bills not only undermines Canada’s economy, but also the Canadian federation,” Kenney said. He’ll undoubtedly be criticized for saying this by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other members of the Laurentian elite. But this isn’t so much a threat as a warning.

“Their passage brings us closer to moving forward with a referendum on a constitutional amendment to eliminate equalization from the Canadian Constitution. If Albertans cannot develop our resources within the federation, then we should not be expected to pay the bill in the federation,” he said.

And it’s a very, very hefty bill. According to Statistics Canada figures, Alberta is the largest net contributor to confederation, by far.

In 2011, $17.88 billion of Albertan’s tax contributions remained in Ottawa; in 2012 it was $19.23 billion; in 2013, $23.51 billion; in 2014, $27.05 billion; in 2015, $25.36 billion; in 2016, $21.81 billion, and in 2017 — still in the grips of a devastating economic slowdown — Alberta contributed $21.8 billion to confederation.

As Kenney pointed out, Bill C-48 is a “prejudicial attack” on Alberta, banning from Canada’s northwest coast “only one product — bitumen — produced in only one province, Alberta.”

The Senate’s standing committee on transport recommended that this flawed legislation be scrapped altogether. It very nearly was, passing by a vote of 49-46. That close call makes it no less devastating to Alberta.

What’s most interesting about these bills is both are completely in line with the aims of foreign-funded NGOs whose stated aim was to “landlock the tar sands.”

Krause — the Vancouver-based researcher, who over the last 10 years has been following the money trail behind environmental activism in Canada — backs up every claim with tax filings and other documents.

She has traced $600 million that has flowed into Canada from U.S. foundations to restrict the development and export of oil and natural gas from Canada and provided the Senate committee with an 80-page document that showed each of those grants that specifically refers to a tanker ban in B.C.’s waters.

As she stated in her compelling testimony on May 7 before the Senate committee that spent thousands of hours studying Bill C-48, Krause found more than 50 grants that specifically mentioned a tanker ban or tanker traffic.

When Trudeau announced on Nov. 26, 2016, that he would approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion but kill Northern Gateway pipeline — which had been approved by the National Energy Board after years of gruelling regulatory hoop jumping by Enbridge and was passed by the Harper government — he also promised a tanker ban.

The reason Trudeau gave for scrapping Northern Gateway and bringing in a tanker ban was because the tanker traffic that would have carried Alberta bitumen to Asia went through an area known as the Great Bear Rainforest.

Krause says that as far back as 1999, the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest has been significantly funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation — the family that ironically founded the U.S. oil industry and made billions doing so. More recently, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation granted $267 million to Canadian environmental groups.

“The top recipient of these funds, Tides Canada, the central proponent of the Great Bear Rainforest, has received $83 million,” Krause told the Senate committee.

Originally, the proposed Kermode bear (which is a white black bear) or Great Bear protected area was just a small part of the B.C. coast. “But now,” Krause said, “environmental and First Nations groups say that along the entire B.C. coast, from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern border of Alaska, there can be no tankers anywhere.”

So why are these U.S. foundations doing this?

“Something is being protected here at great expense and cost, but obviously not the bear,” concluded Krause. “What is being protected is the American monopoly on access to exports of Canadian oil. The Great Bear Rainforest has become the great trade barrier, keeping our country out of global energy markets.”

She went on to explain how nearly all of the main organizations that campaigned in favour of Bill C-48 are funded by an initiative called the Tar Sands Campaign — something Krause singlehandedly exposed — as an international effort to sabotage the Canadian oil and gas industry by keeping Canada out of global markets and landlocking Canadian oil to keep the Canadian oil prices low.

“The wording used in some of the grants and other documents is revealing. For example, a grant for $97,000 to West Coast Environmental Law states that the purpose of the funds was:

“to constrain development of Alberta’s tar sands by establishing a legislative ban on crude oil tankers on British Columbia’s north coast.”

As Krause told the committee, “Note that the funds are not to bring about a ban in order to protect the coast, but rather to get a legislative tanker ban as a way to thwart the Canadian oil industry.”

Is it any wonder the Senate committee urged the Senate on the whole to vote against this disastrous, discriminatory bill that turns our federal government into America’s useful idiot?

“Another document, a proposal submitted to a U.S. funder, states that its intended outcome was ‘public pressure directed at the Canadian government encouraging a legislated ban on oil tankers in B.C. inshore waters.’ That proposal goes on to say in the very next sentence, ‘Simply put, if tankers are banned, no pipeline will ever be built.’ ”

Krause, who chooses her words carefully, then said: “For years, politicians have ignored, tolerated and acquiesced to this falsely premised activism. It is time that this comes to an end. It is time that this committee brings this scam to an end by rejecting Bill C-48. The Kermode bear merits protection, but there’s no point in putting off limits the entire B.C. coast in order to protect a bear that doesn’t live there.”

Only fools would do that. Cue Trudeau.

[Victoria Watcher]

Debunking more misinformation about the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project. Some simple facts about bitumen, heavy oil, and Asian Markets.

 

As someone interested in evidence-based decision-making there are few topics as frustrating to discuss as the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project. The reason for this is that the media landscape is so completely full of misinformation and bad information that evidence-based decision making is almost impossible. This weekend I had an extended discussion with an “independent podcaster” about the project after listening to him in a radio segment with Lynda Steele on CKNW.

 

The segment had so many errors that I sent out a number of intemperate tweets in his direction. His response was to present a number of media stories that served as the basis for his opinions. The problem was that most of these stories were full of errors. Therein lies the dilemma. There is so much bad information out there that even well-meaning observers are going to get it wrong. Between the bad information he was being fed in media stories, and the deliberate misinformation being spread by opponents of the project, it is virtually impossible for the regular observer (i.e this podcaster) to know what is right and what is wrong. This post will look at a few more of these myths.

 

 

https://achemistinla...-asian-markets/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 June 2019 - 03:31 AM.

[RFS]

The unfortunate truth is that anyone who gets their news from the CBC will think this pipeline is about to usher in the 10 plagues of Egypt

[rjag]

I really like what Blair King has to say. Very good info without all the politicized chicken little nonsense

 

https://achemistinla...gory/oil-sands/

Edited by rjag, 24 June 2019 - 07:33 AM.

[G-Man]

I don't see a benefit for Victoria or BC here at all. Seems the benefits all happen elsewhere and we are taking on the risk. In twenty years the pipeline will seem like a huge waste of resources and the risk of permanent damage will be there in the interim.

[Victoria Watcher]

there is no benefit to rockland being part of victoria. it’s for the greater good. if victoria wants to swear off all fossil fuel usage then we have a right to reject it. but we use oil.

the old pipeline has been doing well for 60 years. there is no new risk.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 June 2019 - 11:32 AM.

[Mike K.]

Export and import jurisdictions are some of the wealthiest regions on earth.

We benefit by charging fees to export a product that is created or extracted elsewhere. We’re the fortunate ones, doing very little but generating immense wealth doing it.

[G-Man]

I don't think that we are generating immense wealth in BC. The money is going to Alberta. Maybe a few stevedore jobs here.

[Victoria Watcher]

I don't think that we are generating immense wealth in BC. The money is going to Alberta. Maybe a few stevedore jobs here.

 

how about the 2,000 deltaport truckers?  they are mostly moving goods along to other parts of canada and the us  not bc.  should we axe deltaport?  not in our interest.  and close prince rupert and kitimat?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 June 2019 - 05:12 PM.

[Mike K.]

Vancouver produces nothing, yet it plays one of the most important roles in the western world. It’s role? An import, but more importantly, an export hub for Canadian raw materials and manufactured goods destined for markets across the entire world.

It is also Canada’s key gateway to Asia, and North America’s largest coal exporter. Vancouver's role, in fact, to North American industry is incalculable and all British Columbians are wealthier for it.

[G-Man]

I would be happy to see the coal port close. Delta port cargo is another story and would be happy to see it expand.

[Victoria Watcher]

I would be happy to see the coal port close. Delta port cargo is another story and would be happy to see it expand.

 

sounds like you are uncanadian. what we do here is export our natural resources. that's what supports paying you to administer us.  you create zero wealth so the other 90% of us must be that engine to pay your salary.  if you cripple our ability to do that then some of you lose your jobs.

 

..

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 June 2019 - 06:35 PM.

[Mike K.]

I would be happy to see the coal port close. Delta port cargo is another story and would be happy to see it expand.

Without the coal, how will shipbuilders create the steel necessary to build the vessels for an expanded cargo port?

And who will buy the higher volume of goods, if hundreds of thousands of Canadians lose their energy-related high paying jobs?