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.
Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
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?
As expected.. Now comes the never-ending deflection and dodging on what is a very straight forward question.
Take care bud.
Take care bud.
Northern Gateway pipeline debate could stand better diplomacy
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Say you didn’t haul out those same “radical” comments, or call opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline “champagne socialists” when your speaking tour of chambers of commerce across Western Canada rolled into Calgary on Wednesday.
Apparently, no such luck.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver touched down in Calgary to reinforce the message from the federal government that securing Asian markets for exports of oil and natural gas is critically important to Canada’s economic prosperity.
Where others lament how the pipeline debate has devolved into shrill rhetoric, Oliver claimed he has “made it his mandate” to refute any false claims about development of the oilsands and the pipelines to carry bitumen to refineries.
We’ve come to expect blunt, and at times bombastic, statements from the former investment banker who has become the point person for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government on the contentious Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines.
Since the two ratcheted up the rhetoric about “radicals” with their secretive foreign sources of funding it’s further polarized an already contentious debate over Enbridge Inc.’s plans for it’s $5.5-billion pipeline from the oilsands to a tidewater port on the B.C. coast.
On the eve of the public hearings that began three weeks ago, Oliver vilified “environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.”
His comments have rallied support among pipeline supporters, but he has also done more to make radical chic than anyone since Tom Wolfe.
The Victoria-based environmental group The Dogwood Initiative, which opposes the pipeline and increased tanker traffic in coastal B.C. waters, has noted in the week after Oliver made his comment that more than 18,000 people signed its petition. “I have a right to my opinion and not to have it trashed in such a disrespectful manner,” said a post on the group’s website by a woman named Linda from Gabriola Island. “Please stop your very aggressive attitude to ordinary citizens who love their country.”
Some 4,500 people — including a couple dozen from outside Canada — are scheduled to appear at the hearings that take place in B.C. and Alberta over the next 18 months.
At the Chamber of Commerce address in Calgary, Oliver drew some laughs and cheers of “hear hear” from a largely pro-pipeline audience with his comments about ideologues “hijacking” Canada’s regulatory review. “You wouldn’t hear from American special interest groups, celebrity environmentalists and champagne socialists that Canada’s oilsands are subject to the toughest environmental monitoring and regulation in the world,” Oliver said.
He also surmised members of the OPEC cartel, who hike up prices at the pump, must be “smiling” with gratitude over the public bickering across North America that is derailing oil infrastructure projects.
He made no mention of speculators in commodity markets in New York and London who also drive up prices, but I digress.)
The stakes in the pipeline debate are immense. More than $100 billion of oilsands projects have been announced for northern Alberta that have the potential create thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in taxes and significant environmental impacts.
Canada needs an export pipeline to a location on the West Coast to sustain the economic impact on the national economy from oilsands development. What isn’t needed is more antagonistic comments from government ministers.
Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer that Canada’s top elected officials rise above the level of discourse offered by the spokesman, now former spokesman, from the environmental lobby group ForestEthics when he accuses Ottawa of applying “undemocratic and potentially illegal pressure” to silence pipeline critics.
Andrew Frank was dismissed as communications manager at ForestEthics over his plans to go public with allegations the Prime Minister’s Office had threatened to rescind charitable funding status for Tides Canada over its relationship with ForestEthics. Tides Canada has refuted the claims and Oliver’s only comment Wednesday was “my understanding is there was absolutely no truth to the story.”
To me, that’s how Oliver and Harper should conduct themselves in both the Keystone or Northern Gateway debates: address the issues, refute the criticism, make your case and avoid the comments that draw cheap laughs.
Both the Herald and our sister paper, The National Post, have reported this week on recent polls by Environics Research and Forum Research that found Canadians very divided in their opinions on oilsands and export pipelines.
I support pipeline developments and I’m glad I know where some of the funding for environmental opponents comes from, but Oliver and Harper should keep in mind not everyone opposed to pipeline projects is foreign or radical.
Say you didn’t haul out those same “radical” comments, or call opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline “champagne socialists” when your speaking tour of chambers of commerce across Western Canada rolled into Calgary on Wednesday.
Apparently, no such luck.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver touched down in Calgary to reinforce the message from the federal government that securing Asian markets for exports of oil and natural gas is critically important to Canada’s economic prosperity.
Where others lament how the pipeline debate has devolved into shrill rhetoric, Oliver claimed he has “made it his mandate” to refute any false claims about development of the oilsands and the pipelines to carry bitumen to refineries.
We’ve come to expect blunt, and at times bombastic, statements from the former investment banker who has become the point person for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government on the contentious Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines.
Since the two ratcheted up the rhetoric about “radicals” with their secretive foreign sources of funding it’s further polarized an already contentious debate over Enbridge Inc.’s plans for it’s $5.5-billion pipeline from the oilsands to a tidewater port on the B.C. coast.
On the eve of the public hearings that began three weeks ago, Oliver vilified “environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.”
His comments have rallied support among pipeline supporters, but he has also done more to make radical chic than anyone since Tom Wolfe.
The Victoria-based environmental group The Dogwood Initiative, which opposes the pipeline and increased tanker traffic in coastal B.C. waters, has noted in the week after Oliver made his comment that more than 18,000 people signed its petition. “I have a right to my opinion and not to have it trashed in such a disrespectful manner,” said a post on the group’s website by a woman named Linda from Gabriola Island. “Please stop your very aggressive attitude to ordinary citizens who love their country.”
Some 4,500 people — including a couple dozen from outside Canada — are scheduled to appear at the hearings that take place in B.C. and Alberta over the next 18 months.
At the Chamber of Commerce address in Calgary, Oliver drew some laughs and cheers of “hear hear” from a largely pro-pipeline audience with his comments about ideologues “hijacking” Canada’s regulatory review. “You wouldn’t hear from American special interest groups, celebrity environmentalists and champagne socialists that Canada’s oilsands are subject to the toughest environmental monitoring and regulation in the world,” Oliver said.
He also surmised members of the OPEC cartel, who hike up prices at the pump, must be “smiling” with gratitude over the public bickering across North America that is derailing oil infrastructure projects.
He made no mention of speculators in commodity markets in New York and London who also drive up prices, but I digress.)
The stakes in the pipeline debate are immense. More than $100 billion of oilsands projects have been announced for northern Alberta that have the potential create thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in taxes and significant environmental impacts.
Canada needs an export pipeline to a location on the West Coast to sustain the economic impact on the national economy from oilsands development. What isn’t needed is more antagonistic comments from government ministers.
Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer that Canada’s top elected officials rise above the level of discourse offered by the spokesman, now former spokesman, from the environmental lobby group ForestEthics when he accuses Ottawa of applying “undemocratic and potentially illegal pressure” to silence pipeline critics.
Andrew Frank was dismissed as communications manager at ForestEthics over his plans to go public with allegations the Prime Minister’s Office had threatened to rescind charitable funding status for Tides Canada over its relationship with ForestEthics. Tides Canada has refuted the claims and Oliver’s only comment Wednesday was “my understanding is there was absolutely no truth to the story.”
To me, that’s how Oliver and Harper should conduct themselves in both the Keystone or Northern Gateway debates: address the issues, refute the criticism, make your case and avoid the comments that draw cheap laughs.
Both the Herald and our sister paper, The National Post, have reported this week on recent polls by Environics Research and Forum Research that found Canadians very divided in their opinions on oilsands and export pipelines.
I support pipeline developments and I’m glad I know where some of the funding for environmental opponents comes from, but Oliver and Harper should keep in mind not everyone opposed to pipeline projects is foreign or radical.
Re: Enviro Lobby Dealt Crushing Blow By Regulation Board
Sound like all you selfish,narrow minded,tory phuks care about is job security.
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
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
$17B might just cover the cost of paying down Ontario's debt, or at least interest payments that the province has accrued MF... That's a bad deal, is it?
Besides, that number is in addition to the already massive income generation that exists today.
Any clue how much of that money will go towards well paying jobs for the next 5-6 years, MF?.. All of those jobs will be paying into the tax base to help pay for all of the entitlements that you consider your birthright.
Brent Crude is trading for about $10 more per bbl.
By virtue of selling into the Asian market, Canadians will benefit from that margin. As it stands, the benefit is currently going to the Gulf Coast refiners that sell that product (or some of it) at Brent Crude prices.
So much for your 'facts'
More like speculation at this point.
There are already thousands of vessels that travel that route each year. BC has already set the precedent on allowing huge traffic in their waters, so I don't see how that argument will stand up.
That fallacy is still a load of bunk.
Why wouldn't Harper promote Canada's oil industry... It's adding much needed GDP and taxes to the nation... Hell, just last week, your messiah Obama went on a rant during the State of the Union Address about drilling-up millions of new acres within the USA - why should Canada's be any different?
... Oh, that's right, the Chicago Tribune says so and it's a fact that they are looking out form the best interests of Canadians.
Funny how those 'large organizations' are too chicken-sh*t to identify themselves directly, but hide behind some organization of naive fools that don't understand that they're being used as a pawn in a game.
It was good to see the report by Vivien Krause that identified them.
Christy knows that the economic spin-off will reap big advantages for the people of BC. It's no surprise that she is mum on this.
Nevermind that this $17B is spread over 15 years, when the revenues we get from this are less than half the cost of the useless jets we're buying, it is not a good deal.
You mean that massive income from the downward GDP spiral since the CPC was elected?
$17 B over 15 years amounts to $30 for all of us per year. Hooray for one free trip to the gas station.
$17 Billion GDP over 15 years. To put this into perspective, the feds pay $33B every year toward the debt.
Are you still upset that your messiah, Joe Oliver, admitted that climate change was real?
She's keeping mum because she doesn't want to sacrifice some votes for her party.
That's just the differential (at $3 mind you) between Brent and WTI.
$17B doesn't recognize the actual per bbl price.
Learn a little about the subject.
Yeah.. Those bastards in the CPC, causing a global economic meltdown... Bastards - all of 'em.
That's just the differential (at $3 mind you) between Brent and WTI.
$17B doesn't recognize the actual per bbl price.
Learn a little about the subject.
That's just the differential (at $3 mind you) between Brent and WTI.
$17B doesn't recognize the actual per bbl price.
Learn a little about the subject.
BTW - you'd prefer to dig the hole deeper just out of spite? You must work for gvt or something.
Who?
It's still a load of bunk.. Hey, did you peruse the thread that talked about Alaska being in a -80F cold snap?.. That's global warming for ya.
You're quaking in your trekkie boots aren't you... The leader of the center of the eco-verse NOT condemning the P/L from the get-go.
Of course, it's a forecast, but it is definitely no where near the economic boon that was expected.
Harper's right hand man?
The guy who called environmentalists "radicals"? It's in the article you just critiqued.
He's on record for accepting climate change.
Last edited:
Right now, at this moment, the differential is $11.74. At 525,000 bbls/day, the figure jumps to $2,249,677,500 per year.
Get it? That figure represents the difference in commodity price between Brent and WTI. Add that differential to the actual cost of the resource and you get the revenues and GDP contribution from the sale.
Get it? That figure represents the difference in commodity price between Brent and WTI. Add that differential to the actual cost of the resource and you get the revenues and GDP contribution from the sale.
Why don't you do the math and prove it.
Until then, I'm sticking to the verified figure of $17B of GDP output over 15 years.
See above Einstein.
Multiply the price differential by the bbls/day by the # of days in operation (hint: P/L's don't go on strike so they generally run everyday of the year).
... But I do like the comment about "verified figure" particularly on the heels of the Chicago Tribune publishing a disclaimer about some of the enviro facts.
Multiply the price differential by the bbls/day by the # of days in operation (hint: P/L's don't go on strike so they generally run everyday of the year).
... But I do like the comment about "verified figure" particularly on the heels of the Chicago Tribune publishing a disclaimer about some of the enviro facts.
Maybe it's neccesary take a look at the entire A-P Gateway and it's kick in the GDP pants for the Canadian economy. The total goods running that line will be staggering.
Does it help if the article was originally posted with Reuters?
Keep making lame excuses.
It really brings out your eye shadow.
What is more toxic than a rail line? Nobody complained when A-P Bill Gatesway doubled the line capacity and built a port 3-4 days closer to Asia saving boatloads of bunker fuel each direction.