Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

This is old news (last week) that relates the Northern Gateway review.

I already posted it in that thread and you even responded to it.

I thought that this needed it's own dedicated thread MF, something that captures the true spirit of the magnitude of the Fed's decision and not just buried in the maze of articles that you post.

At least it will stop the long filibuster we're getting now......and save money for the rich "donnors" from south of the border...

Magnitude of what?

There have been no changes in policy.

That's kinda the sad reality on this whole deal.

These lobbies need to forward a compelling argument as opposed to the delaying/deferring tactics that they rely on right now. You either have something of value to say, or you don't and in the eco-lobby's case; they have nothing but fear tactics and rhetoric.

There are lobbies on all sides.

Essentially the oil lobbies have the upper hand because they have way more money. So much so that they can influence government and the media.

But we all know this already and I'm not sure what it has to do with a 'crushing blow'.

Looks like members of the CPC are finally waking up to their own hypocrisy about "Ethical Oil".

Cracks Appearing in Government’s Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal

CFN – With the Harper Government now proceeding at full throttle to push through the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to supply China, an unexpected crack has appeared within the governing party’s ranks. Calgary West Ultra-Right Conservative MP Rob Anders is publicly questioning the proposal to sell Canadian “Ethical Oil” resources to non-ethical Communist China, despite Ezra Levant’s invention of the ethical oil mantra becoming official government policy.

Earlier this month -- reported Anders as speaking out against the Chinese takeover of the MacKay River Tar Sands project. Anders condemned the sale of project to China, whom he describes as “the world’s worst human rights abuser.” However, in keeping with government policy, he still considers Tar Sands oil as “ethical”, but describes the Chinese as being an “unethical client.”
Anders, a staunch anti-Communist, vetoed an all-party resolution in the House of Commons to grant Nelson Mandela Honorary Canadian Citizenship, claiming that the South African leader was a Communist and terrorist. He has claimed that the Chinese Government has tried to set up “unattractive male Conservative MPs with hookers”, and has compared the 2010 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics. However, despite his anti-Communist, pro-human rights feelings, Anders stopped short of condemning the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which will export unrefined Tar Sands bitumen crude to China.

In 1994, Anders worked for Far Right Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe as a professional heckler(!) and was labelled a “foreign political saboteur” by CNN. Inhofe is a prominent science denier, who benefits from major campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, and the electric utilities.


Anders May Face Consequences for Criticising Government Policy

Since taking power as a minority government in 2006, the Harper Government had strictly enforced what its senior civil servants, diplomats and MPs can say to the media. Any of these people, whether the High Commissioner to Great Britain on a speaking engagement, or a lobby-fodder back bencher at a constituency barbecue, needs to file a “Message Event Proposal” (sometimes known as a Media Event Proposal), or “MEP” through the Privy Council Office, and ultimately the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Without an approved MEP, the person is forbidden to speak. The purpose is to ensure that whoever is speaking toes the line and only promotes official Conservative Government policy.For MP Anders to have made such a statement regarding exporting Tar Sands oil to China marks a clear rebellion against government policy, as no MEP criticising any aspect of the Alberta Tar Sands would have been approved by the PMO. Ezra Levant, author of “Ethical Oil” and the Harper Government’s Tar Sands policy considers that the Chinese will start behaving “ethically” now that they are doing business in Alberta. So far he has published no reaction to the criticism from his long-time friend Anders.

Cracks Appearing in Government

This doesn't help now, does it?

--

On the cumbersome list of 4,500 interveners are American-backed environmental organizations that make the curious claim that Northern Gateway is not in the “national interest.”

Poking their noses into Canadian regulatory affairs is nothing new for the U.S. environmental lobby, which pumps hundreds of millions into their Canadian branch plants. According to blogger Vivian Krause, who has sifted through U.S. tax records, American foundations have funnelled $300 million into Canada’s environmental movement in the past 10 years.

Ironically, many of these foundations made their money in oil, including the Rockefellers and the Pews. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this, noting that it is certainly not in the “national interest” of the U.S. to see Northern Gateway built. Keeping Alberta’s oil landlocked ensures the U.S. will remain Canada’s sole customer for bitumen exports, in turn ensuring a favourable North American differential between West Texas Intermediate and the international Brent prices for crude, which could cost Canadian producers $8 billion a year through 2025, with about $1.6 billion a year in royalty losses to Alberta and Canadian taxpayers.

You act like lobbyism is news.

And you even highlighted that the origins of their lobbyism comes from oil!

Meaning, some environmental groups are not really environmental groups, are they?

Hmmm....

Cracks Appearing in Government ....as they bend over, drop therir draws and all parties voice out in unison.... "kiss my ass" to Canadians!

Maybe it's time to start regulating the Lobby groups operations just like the P/L companies are regulated.

Hmmmm......

lol

Harper really brought this upon himself by taking up Ezra's ethical oil scam.

There wouldn't be half as much opposition to the pipeline if they didn't try to position it as some sort of moral obligation, lol

I F.O.ed Friday morn and F.I. tomorrow morn with a bunch of issues (F.U.M.) solved. The cold snap couldn't have happened at a better time but moving things is still slow with low weight limits.

Regulation of lobbyism?

From a self-proclaimed free market capitalist?

You stay right there, I'm going to go grab some coffee, lol

Kinda like the 'dirty oil' scam... I'm still waiting to see what clean oil is all about.

There is an economic reality that translates into a moral one... That is, ofcourse, assuming that you still want to have the same levels of healthcare, education and welfare without having to source more national debt to support those programs.

Yes, raising corporate taxes definitely helps everyone.

But you need a government that won't spend it wastefully on prisons and jets for that to work.

Fine.. Deregulate the energy sector then and eliminate the need for these review panels... I'm good with that.


Sounds like it's moving along (albeit slower than hoped) but that is still good news.

Stay warm! I know first-hand how cold winter gets in Manitoba.

I followed the money and ended up here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...0317_13fhr.txt

I'd love to see what the Union pensions are invested in and how well they match in investment picks to the CPP and Action Plan?

And with that, you have now admitted that you don't stand by a regulation board.

Welcome to the end of this thread.

We're ahead on meters pushed, no injuries or sickness and the pickerel are incredible.

NDP is backing this just as much as Harper took of the reigns from what was started by the Libs. Massive infrastructure and resource development takes decades to unfold. You should have started protesting 30 years ago for this endeavour.

Great.. Then, you'd be supportive of taxing these eco-lobbies?

Maybe force them to declare the sources of all their income just like every Canadian corporation?

What does that have to do with the regulatory process?

Low taxes and high volume exports trumps sitting on the lion's share of strategic resources with your thumb up your ass and no employment.

What about reasonable taxes and reasonable exports for a sustainable environment and economy?

What about taxing the eco-lobbies?

What about it?

As expected.. Now comes the never-ending deflection and dodging on what is a very straight forward question.

Take care bud.

Northern Gateway pipeline debate could stand better diplomacy

Sound like all you selfish,narrow minded,tory phuks care about is job security.

Only $17 B added to GDP over 15 years?

Definitely not a good deal for us.


Factbox: Enbridge pipeline to the Pacific: facts and issues

PROJECT

Industry backers that have provided funding or shipping commitments to Northern Gateway include Suncor Energy Inc, Cenovus Energy Inc, Nexen Inc, Total SA, MEG Energy and China's Sinopec Corp.

Estimated cost: C$5.5 billion.

Capacity: 525,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude. An adjacent pipeline would carry 193,000 bpd of condensate in the opposite direction. The light hydrocarbon is used as diluent that allows heavy oil sands bitumen to flow in pipelines.


RATIONALE

Ocean access for large volumes of oil sands-derived crude would, they say, will allow it to be priced against higher-value international benchmarks, raising returns for producers that are developing the tar sands, the world's third-largest crude deposit.

Enbridge has said its project could add up to $3 to the price of a barrel of crude.

Northern Gateway, and another West Coast expansion proposed by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners for its Trans Mountain Pipeline, would also benefit China and other Asian countries looking to be less reliant on Middle Eastern oil supplies. Companies from those countries have invested billions of dollars in the past decade in oil sands development projects in Alberta.


ISSUES

Environment: Many of the nongovernmental organizations that oppose Keystone XL, including the Natural Resources Defence Council, Greenpeace and Sierra Club, are also lined up against Northern Gateway. The route of the pipeline is too dangerous, owing to seismic activity, frequent landslides and other natural hazards that could lead to oil spills. The chemical makeup of the diluted bitumen that would flow through the pipeline is more corrosive than conventional oil, a contention that has not been proven by independent study. They point to a highly damaging Enbridge pipeline rupture in Michigan in 2010 as an example of the risks for British Columbia.

Enbridge has said the pipeline would use the newest technology, vastly reducing Northern Gateway's risks of rupture, and that it chose the route for its safety. For instance, the company considered running the line to an existing port at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, but ruled it out because of the steep and rugged terrain.

Environmentalists also decry the increased tanker traffic, more than 200 ships per year, that would sail in the Douglas Channel en route to Kitimat, and warn of catastrophic oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.

As with Keystone XL and other projects aimed at expanding markets for crude from the oil sands, Northern Gateway will foster more damaging development. Oil sands projects are more energy and carbon intensive than conventional crude production, and have a greater impact on land and water and on local communities.

Aboriginal relations: As part of the regulatory process, Enbridge is obligated to consult with dozens of native communities along the proposed route. For generations, Canada's aboriginal people have felt disregarded in the development of natural resources as their communities have missed out on wealth, jobs and other economic activity derived from their lands and waterways. Meanwhile, traditional ways of life have been threatened.

The company has said it has the support of 40 percent of aboriginal bands. But, some groupings, including the Coastal First Nations and Yinka Dene Alliance, each made up of several bands, have said they will not support the project under any circumstances, saying they fear environmental damage. Some are preparing legal cases should it get approved against their wishes.

Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the country's largest aboriginal organization, has said that Enbridge requires the consent of natives for the project to proceed. There are communities that have yet to decide on support for the project.


POLITICS

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his senior ministers support Northern Gateway strongly. Oliver speaks frequently about economic opportunities that will come with new markets for oil sands-derived crude, citing a University of Calgary study showing a C$17 billion increase in Canada's GDP between 2016 and 2030.

The Harper government, which has been a major ally of the oil industry, has gone on the offensive against environmental groups, with Oliver blasting many of them as "foreign-funded radicals" bent on "hijacking" the regulatory process. In fact, the government is now looking for ways to streamline reviews after the unprecedented number of participants in the Northern Gateway hearings led to a longer schedule.

This has angered opponents, from large organizations that do have some foreign funding to grass roots groups and individuals, who have said they believe the state seeks to demonize them for legitimately held concerns about a major industrial project. They have charged that the government trying to influence the arm's-length review panel.

At the provincial level, Alberta Premier Alison Redford is, unsurprisingly, a major supporter of the pipeline. Christy Clark, the premier of British Columbia, has yet to take a stance for or against.

Factbox: Enbridge pipeline to the Pacific: facts and issues - Chicago Tribune