no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

473 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

i mean those who see shutting down our fossil fuel production completely as a way to lessen our emissions. it won't.

i don't care if there's no current will to nationalize. there's no current majority will to shut down fossil fuel production either and it doesn't stop people from trying.

i believe in harm reduction and imv the only way to reduce harm is to nationalize and work towards alternatives with money made. and i don't mean nuclear.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

i mean those who see shutting down our fossil fuel production completely as a way to lessen our emissions. it won't.

..nobody is arguing this. people want a say because this is being rammed down our throats whether you agree with it or not. they want the oil to go to market and that's that. there is a history to these struggles and how we got here in the first place. the system is rotten and people can only fight where and how they can. there are no negotiations. were in the midst of a pitched battle.

i don't care if there's no current will to nationalize. there's no current majority will to shut down fossil fuel production either and it doesn't stop people from trying.

..again no one wants to shut down fuel production. but there is large community support for stopping the pipelines.

i believe in harm reduction and imv the only way to reduce harm is to nationalize and work towards alternatives with money made. and i don't mean nuclear.

..the recent report released in alberta, certainly not the only issue but the most pointed one so far, asserts that the tar sands project is in violation of first nation rights and treaties. this must be addressed now. today. so this is where the harm reduction starts. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Enbridge wants to break its oilsands addiction

Canada’s largest pipeline company is trying to rebalance its business so that it won’t be dependent on Alberta’s oilsands sector after 2019, Enbridge executives told a conference call on Friday.

“The reality is the FIDs (final investment decisions) on new incremental (oilsands) projects are obviously going to be tougher in this environment,” said Al Monaco, Enbridge’s president and chief executive officer.

quote:

Monaco also said that Enbridge might not make a deadline required to start construction on its proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project linking Alberta’s oilsands to the northwestern British Columbia coast before the end of the year since it is still working on meeting more than 200 project conditions.

Although Monaco said Enbridge was quietly making progress in negotiations with local communities and First Nations, most expect Northern Gateway will not proceed because of opposition from the newly-elected Liberal government in Ottawa and its plans to introduce a ban on oil tanker traffic off the North Coast of B.C.

quizzical

it's just a plan now not a moritorium?

quizzical

epaulo13 wrote:
i mean those who see shutting down our fossil fuel production completely as a way to lessen our emissions. it won't.

..nobody is arguing this. people want a say because this is being rammed down our throats whether you agree with it or not. they want the oil to go to market and that's that. there is a history to these struggles and how we got here in the first place. the system is rotten and people can only fight where and how they can. there are no negotiations. were in the midst of a pitched battle.

i don't care if there's no current will to nationalize. there's no current majority will to shut down fossil fuel production either and it doesn't stop people from trying.

..again no one wants to shut down fuel production. but there is large community support for stopping the pipelines.

i believe in harm reduction and imv the only way to reduce harm is to nationalize and work towards alternatives with money made. and i don't mean nuclear.

..the recent report released in alberta, certainly not the only issue but the most pointed one so far, asserts that the tar sands project is in violation of first nation rights and treaties. this must be addressed now. today. so this is where the harm reduction starts. 

i find this double speak epaulo.

oh sure produce but you can't get it to market......

1000's of FN in AB and SK are out of work, who used to work in the industry too.....do NOT speak as if all are unified please.

i agree FN's rights and treaties need to be honoured. we nationalize the industry and give (i'd like a better word than give, it's their land and they hould just have it) FN's their rights to decide what is done on their non-ceded land.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

i agree FN's rights and treaties need to be honoured. we nationalize the industry and give (i'd like a better word than give, it's their land and they hould just have it) FN's their rights to decide what is done on their non-ceded land.

..you say the treaties and rights need to be honoured then conclude we nationalize. that is not how it works. you honour then you decide how to proceed. and you address the real concerns of all communities affected. and you respect some communities that say no.

..but that is not the reality today. it's pipelines by hook or by crook. so what are people going to do? they didn't create this crisis. but there are govs and corps that are driving the tar sands/pipelines agenda. where is your plan to to reverse this? you must realize quzzical how herculean a task this is. however rudementary blocking pipelines is..it is effective. it get's the attention of the powers that be. it forces them to the table.

..i honestly don't see you and i in conflict here quizzical.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

A new year update on Kinder Morgan

January was a busy start to the new year on the Kinder Morgan file. Here’s a snapshot:

BC’s opposed

On January 11, 2016 the Province of BC came out against the project, because of oil spill risk and inadequate spill response.

BC can do its own assessment

Later that week, the BC Supreme Court released its decision in Coastal First Nations v British Columbia,  a court case concerning the obligation of the Province to consult with First Nations in relation to the Enbridge Pipelines and Tankers Project, which has major implications for the Kinder Morgan Pipeline and Tankers expansion project as well. The case concerns the BC-Canada  Equivalency Agreement – an agreement between the BC Environmental Assessment Office and the National Energy Board signed in 2010 that allows for the National Energy Board (NEB) process to substitute for a BC Environmental Assessment process. The BC Supreme Court decision confirmed that the Province must consult First Nations on whether to withdraw from the Equivalency Agreement to conduct its own assessment of the Enbridge project, and also confirms that the Province must consult with First Nations about whether to issue a certificate at all – two conclusions that apply equally to the Kinder Morgan project. Read our environmental law alert about the decision here.

quote:

What happened while the NEB was at work

In the meantime, while the NEB was hearing arguments in Burnaby, Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s appeal of the NEB’s hearing order that started its Kinder Morgan review was argued before the Federal Court of Appeal on January 22, 2016. The Attorney General of Canada requested an adjournment, which was partially granted to enable Canada to consider whether its inherited legal position on consultation and marine shipping would change. Canada is to advise the court of its change by April 22, 2016.

On January 26th, also during the NEB hearings in Burnaby, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a branch of the Office of the Auditor General, tabled a report in the House of Commons indicating the NEB  “is failing to follow through and adequately track the compliance of pipeline companies with the conditions set for their projects”.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i mean those who see shutting down our fossil fuel production completely as a way to lessen our emissions. it won't.

Yes it will because producing oil from the sands is more carbon intensive than mining oil that is easier to extract. In any case Saudi Arabia is waging a price war we can't afford to fight.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-oil-minister-production-wont-be-cut-to...

Ali al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s powerful petroleum minister, told the elite of the global energy industry here Tuesday that demand for oil remains strong but that for prices to recover, excess supply will still need to be curbed. That rebalancing, he said, will start as low prices squeeze out the production of oil that is the most expensive to extract and sell.

That production comes from places including U.S. shale fields, Canada’s oil sands and deepwater projects that attracted investment during the years oil was priced over $100. Now it is closer to $30.

Mr. Naimi’s message is a shot across the bow for an industry already struggling to adjust to a price drop of more than 70% since June 2014, to a level at which many producers can’t survive.

Never before has Mr. Naimi, who has dominated Saudi oil policy for two decades, laid out so bluntly the Kingdom’s vision for how the industry should adjust to market conditions. New sources of supply are converging with pressures on oil demand created by China’s slowing economy, growing energy efficiency and, eventually, new power sources such as solar and wind.

“The producers of these high-cost barrels must find a way to lower their costs, borrow cash or liquidate,” Mr. Naimi told the IHS CERAWeek gathering, which included top executives from many of the world’s biggest oil companies and senior officials from big producing countries.

He added that prices hovering above $100 a barrel for years encouraged inefficient producers to grow output, and those barrels will have to leave the market first.

“It sounds harsh, and unfortunately it is. But it’s the most efficient way to rebalance markets.”

Saudi Arabia could produce oil profitably at $20 per barrel, Mr. Naimi asserted, a level well below current prices. “We don’t want to, but if we have to, we will,” he said. Few, if any, other officials or executives in the room could say that about their country or company.

The oil states see the writing on the wall. They know we have entered the countdown to the end of big oil. When they no longer have a world hungry for oil many of those states might not even be viable. They have oceans of sand.

Saudi Arabia has agriculture but it is supported by oil:

The private sector as well plays a role in the nation, as the government offers long-term interest free loans, along with low-cost water, fuel, electricity and duty-free imports of raw materials and machinery. Still, Saudi Arabia is dependent on imports to meet 70% of its food requirements.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Saudi_Arabia

Without the oil industry they have nothing. The oligarchs of Saudi Arabia are sure to have plenty of their wealth elsewhere in the world.

For Alberta the writing is on the wall. The decline of the oil industry is permanent. It will continue to produce but it will no longer be profitable to invest in expansion. The wealthy will keep up the charade that it isn't so to bleed as much money from the industry as they can before it ends which it will within a matter of decades.

It will end because the ravages of climate change will become more severe every decade now and the technology already exists to use other sources of energy. Aside from impact on the climate, oil remains a dirty fuel source that harms our health in a multitude of ways. It's terrible that we are still tolerating exhaust fumes in cities that are killing us.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pipeline popularity dropping in B.C.: Insights West

Support for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has also fallen by six percentage points, to 36%. As with Enbridge’s project, opposition has remained stable, falling one percentage point to 45%.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

No power from B.C. without pipeline to west coast, says Notley

British Columbia may have surplus renewable power to sell to Alberta, but Premier Rachel Notley said Friday her government won’t be buying it unless it can get an oil pipeline built to the coast.

“We’re not necessarily going to have that much demand for that much electricity if we can’t find someone to sell our product to,” Notley told reporters in a teleconference from Fort McMurray. 

“We have to get our product to other markets.”

 Alberta’s premier said neighbouring provinces that want to talk about new power lines crossing provincial borders “need to understand that is tied to inter-jurisdictional product distribution infrastructure” — like pipelines to carry bitumen to tidewater.

“That just has to happen,” she said. “It’s not separate.”

Notley’s comments come one day after her energy minister, Marg McCuaig-Boyd, lowered the boom in a succinct statement on B.C.’s proposal to sell electricity to Alberta.

“We’ll do what’s best for Albertans and Alberta’s economy,” McCuaig-Boyd said. “We won’t be buying more power if we can’t get our resources to market.”

On Friday, B.C. Energy Minister Bill Bennett said he didn’t have a problem with Notley and her minister linking a potential power deal to pipeline support.

Alberta has been pushing to get new oil pipelines built to the east and west coasts, to help unlock higher prices for its crude by accessing new export markets....

Pondering

So, Alberta won't be needing any more electricity without new pipelines?  That's good news. BC can always sell excess electricity to the US.

quizzical

you've got no clue about BC's hydro exports to the US pondering.

AB needs to get off of coal fired electrical plants.

seeing as how you're in favour of pragmaticism in governance you should get why the AB government is taking this position and why the current BC government is finding favour in the positioning.

and this coming on the heels of a first ministers conference you have to know it was all planned out.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

you've got no clue about BC's hydro exports to the US pondering.

AB needs to get off of coal fired electrical plants.

seeing as how you're in favour of pragmaticism in governance you should get why the AB government is taking this position and why the current BC government is finding favour in the positioning.

and this coming on the heels of a first ministers conference you have to know it was all planned out.

If Alberta needs to get off of coal fired electrical plants then they should buy electricity from BC rather than trying to blackmail BC into accepting a leaky pipeline.

quizzical

now you're just being purposely obtuse.

as you know the article says the BC Liberal government has no issues with the 2 being tied together.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

now you're just being purposely obtuse.

as you know the article says the BC Liberal government has no issues with the 2 being tied together.

Right. If Alberta doesn't want electricity from BC unless they get a pipeline to the west coast that's fine. It's entirely up to Alberta and well within their rights. That doesn't mean that BC will okay a pipeline. Even if they do the people will stop it.

quizzical

even though i understand you're being deliberately obtuse i'll lay it out anyway.

1. AB doesn't need the hydro from BC if there's no use for it.

2. BC government doesn't get to decide about the pipelines. the NEB gets to decide. (aside  how's the appointee  reversal going on  in respect to Harper's appointees? i would bet they're keeping them Liberals Tories same old story....lolol)

3. the BC Liberals are facing an election next year. they want it to appear they're being forced to let it happen by both the NEB and AB for those in the lower mainland rejecting it and at the same time appear they're for it in northern communities it goes through. typical Corporatist party.

4. what people pondering will stop it? no one north of Merritt will and activists these days in BC don't want to go to jail so they do token protests then leave when a court injunction happpens. just like site c.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..recently the bcgeu came out against the pipelines in bc. and in support of those resisting.

How a BC Union Dumped Fossil Fuels and Cashed In

"Hey, you placed an order to move all of your money out of equities. What's going on?!"

No surprise that the investment manager was twitchy. BC Government and Service Employees' Union treasurer Paul Finch expected a reaction when he pulled $20 million from Canadian equities in one day in 2014.

Both the strike fund, and the union's general reserves -- Finch told the investment managers to sell the equity holdings. Now.

"We just moved everything into cash, straight up," he told The Tyee. "I don't think our advisors and our investment firm were too happy about it."

quote:

'They lost hundreds of millions of dollars'

Divestment activists have been pushing universities, government pension plans, churches and corporations to shed their investments in the oil and gas sector on ethical grounds.

But Peter Chapman, executive director of the Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), said some major investors who have committed to limiting global temperature increases to two degrees Celsius are looking at the issue pragmatically.

"The goal for pension funds and other institutional investors isn't divestment -- it's managing the risk of climate change," he said. "If any institutional investor, pension fund, or endowment fund recognizes that climate is a risk, then they need to address it."

Dumping oil and gas stocks isn't a complete solution, Chapman said.

"Even if you were to eliminate fossil fuels from your portfolio, you wouldn't fully address all the climate change issues in that portfolio," he said. "There are many different ways investors can address climate change."

Investors can pressure companies to commit to climate change goals and cut emissions, he said. They can pressure corporations to disclose to shareholders lobbying efforts against government initiatives to limit global warming. And investors can press companies to move "away from the production of more fossil fuel capacities, and towards low-carbon solutions," Chapman said.

Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said the collapse of oil prices has bolstered the financial case against fossil-fuel investments.

"The folks investing money have to answer why they lost hundreds of millions of dollars, in some cases billions, by not foreseeing the collapse of commodity prices," he said.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
 

1. AB doesn't need the hydro from BC if there's no use for it.

 

That's good, it will help the fight against Cite C.

quizzical wrote:
  2. BC government doesn't get to decide about the pipelines. the NEB gets to decide.

Then why bring up the issue of electricity?

quizzical wrote:
  3. the BC Liberals are facing an election next year. they want it to appear they're being forced to let it happen by both the NEB and AB for those in the lower mainland rejecting it and at the same time appear they're for it in northern communities it goes through. typical Corporatist party.

Which pipeline are you talking about? Northern Gateway is blocked by the moratorium on tanker traffic and resistence from First Nations. Trans-mountain is being blocked by Burnaby and was refused by the BC government.

quizzical wrote:
  4. what people pondering will stop it? no one north of Merritt will and activists these days in BC don't want to go to jail so they do token protests then leave when a court injunction happpens. just like site c. 

The Moratorium on tanker traffic makes the Northern Gateway unfeasible. If that wasn't enough, the BC court has ruled in favor of First Nations.

At the centre of the challenge was an equivalency agreement in which British Columbia gave the National Energy Board the power to review the controversial pipeline proposal. The court found the province "breached the honour of the Crown" by failing to consult with the Gitga'at and Coastal First Nations.

That means the equivalency agreement is invalid and the province must make its own decision on Northern Gateway — after consulting with and accommodating First Nations along the route.

"We're now at the point where if Northern Gateway as a company wanted to move ahead, it would almost have to start over," said Art Sterritt, a member of the Gitga'at who's been a staunch opponent of Northern Gateway.

http://www.theprovince.com/business/supreme+court+hands+another+setback+...

The oil companies and Alberta brought this on themselves. They counted on Harper being able to force the pipelines through so they could just disregard any opposition. Trudeau still wants to get them through and had his approach been taken 10 years ago they might have been build already. Fortunately 10 years of Harper bullying gave the environmental movement 10 years to build up opposition. The oil companies haven't learned their lessons either as they are snubbing Quebec.

The funding requested by the Privy Council Office (PCO), which provides non-partisan support to the prime minister and cabinet, would bring the price tag of operating the pm.gc.ca website to $1.6 million this year.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from post #217

'Now for our pension funds'

The BCGEU's $20-million shift seemed bold on that summer day in 2014. But it's tiny compared to the $70 billion in members' pension funds.

Three-quarters of the union's 68,000 members are enrolled in a pension plan, most in the B.C. Municipal Pension Plan ($40 billion in 2015), the B.C. Public Service Pension Plan ($27 billion) and the BCGEU Pension Plan ($150 million).

A 2015 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' report estimated that in 2013 the largest of the three held more than 10 per cent of its assets in the fossil fuel sector and suffered a roughly $505-million hit from the oil price crash. The Public Service Pension Plan held roughly 11 per cent in fossil fuels, and lost an estimated $310 million.

In a comment on the BCGEU website last August, one member praised the union for divesting its equity assets: "Perhaps should have been done earlier... but better now than never -- and a bold, responsible move... now for our pension funds."

The Municipal Plan's 2014 financial report states that its "asset mix continues to reflect an increased focus on real assets such as land, buildings, regulated utilities and renewable resources," because "responsible investing is an integral part of investment."

The CCPA's Lee, who co-authored the left-leaning think-tank's 2014 report, Pension Funds and Fossil Fuels: The Economic Case for Divestment, said Canadian pension funds are still in a state of "climate change denial." Many have refused to divest, arguing their duty is to get the greatest return on investments for current and future retirees.

quizzical

Quote:
What's next for the Kinder Morgan pipeline? 

The National Energy Board hearing for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has ended, so what’s next for Kinder Morgan? Company spokesperson Ali Hounsell chats with the NOW about protesters, climate change and economics.

The company seems to be moving ahead with preparatory work for the pipeline. Is Kinder Morgan fairly confident it’s going to get approval on this? We believe we’ve demonstrated the need to the National Energy Board, and we can build and operate the project in consideration of the environment, First Nations and other communities. So we’re confident we’ve presented our case, and we continue to plan for construction. But of course, we’ll have to see what the National Energy Board and the federal government have to say.

What about the draft conditions? I understand there are 150 right now and there could be more. Can the company handle those? The draft conditions that were issued by the National Energy Board were rigorous and thorough but, we believe, achievable. We expect when the NEB issues their recommendation in May that there would be further - or amendments to, or enhancements to - conditions that have already been issued in draft, so we will look at them at that time. …

What if cabinet says yes but with conditions, and Kinder Morgan moves ahead, but you have massive protests on your hands? What’s the company’s plan to handle that? I think we will have to incorporate safety and security into our planning for construction. The safety of the people who will be working on the pipeline at the facilities will be our number 1 priority. -

they sound pretty confident.

 

Pondering

Of course they sound confident. That's what people at the top of a pyramid always project. Energy companies are going bankrupt and even the biggies like Enron will shut down before the bill comes due to remove all those pipelines. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/09/fossil-fuels-probably-dead-says-...

Hunter Harrison told a transportation conference today that the transition to alternative fuels will be long, but new investments in traditional energy sources will dry up because of environmental hurdles.

The country's second-largest railway has seen shipments of crude drop due to declining demand brought on by the dramatic fall in oil prices.

Thermal coal shipments have also waned.

 

quizzical

there's no doubt in my mind transmountain will be a go. if not energy east and keystone too.

we get off of oil and they can ship water out of the country en masse

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Government's post-NEB Kinder Morgan review just beginning

The National Energy Board’s Kinder Morgan hearing has wrapped up, but the federal government’s new review process for the pipeline is just beginning.

The NEB is set to deliver its final recommendation to Cabinet on the pipeline proposal by May 20. Cabinet has the final say on whether the pipeline will be built.

The feds are also planning to appoint a new ministerial representative to consult with communities along the pipeline. The NOW asked if that representative would come to Burnaby, and Natural Resources Canada didn’t answer but said the rep would should be appointed before the NEB’s final recommendation in May.

The federal government is also conducting an analysis of upstream greenhouse gas emissions for the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal, and the results will be made public in May. The public will be able to comment on the analysis.

The Liberals also promised more consultation with First Nations, and according to Natural Resources Canada, that’s already underway, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation will be consulted.

Burnaby South MP Kennedy Stewart said the measures are not changes and just a “smokescreen.”....

quizzical

none stop commercials with FN persons they're in favour of pipeline projects.

even if the Bands who are impacted aren't white people along the way will, or do, believe they are.

Pondering

Burnaby South MP Kennedy Stewart said the measures are not changes and just a “smokescreen.”

“The National Energy Board process has not changed at all. It’s Stephen Harper’s process, and it’s Stephen Harper’s panel that’s making the decision,” said Stewart. “However they try to colour around the edges and say they are listening, and that the process has changed - it hasn’t. They would have to alter the National Energy Board Act through Parliament, and they haven’t.”

- See more at: http://www.burnabynow.com/news/government-s-post-neb-kinder-morgan-revie...

The NEB doesn't make the decision cabinet does. The commercials don't matter. I've seen all kinds of touching commercials about oil workers.

quizzical

did you not read your own quote?

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/30/nothern-gateway-approval_n_10757...

VANCOUVER — The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the government's approval of a controversial pipeline proposal that would link Alberta's oilsands to British Columbia's north coast.

In a written decision, the court says Canada fell short in its duty to consult with aboriginal people before giving the green light to Enbridge's $7.9-billion Northern Gateway project.

The pipeline proposal received federal approval in 2014 but has been mired in legal uncertainty ever since.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NorthReport

How 'bout a dump truck, eh!

How an Alberta PR stunt backfired in Washington, sparking a decade of oilsands opposition

‘It was a pivotal moment. When you bring a tarsands dump truck to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., it was like bringing the tarsands into our backyard’

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

did you not read your own quote?

I did. Legally, the final decision is up to Cabinet. They don't have to take the advice of the NEB.

In practice, if provinces are strongly opposed to a pipeline they can't force it through unless they are willing to use the army and I doubt they would.

Particularly in Quebec any attempt to force a pipeline through against the will of Quebecers is just the thing sovereignists would love. A valid reason to separate from Canada.

The article North Report referenced still shows blindness.

There is no way we will allow leaky bitumen pipelines across Quebec and I very much doubt BC can be convinced either. No rules or reviews matter because the oil industry has proven themselves untrustworthy on pipelines and rail.

You prove how tone deaf your province is. You have bought into Harper's Alberta propaganda (and Brad Wall's).

Maybe if the oil industry could go five years without accidents they might have a chance but I doubt they can achieve that.

  • 2010: A refined product pipeline rupture at Bronte Creek in Oakville, Ontario, detected on March 11, from Trans Northern Pipeline Inc. system, estimated 23,770 gallons of gasoline released to creek, soil and ground water. Transportation Safety Board Report Number P10H0021. http://www.tsp.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2010/p10h0021/p10h002...
  • 2011: In April, a pipeline break northeast of Peace River, Alberta, leaked 28,000 barrels of crude oil, Some wildlife was killed from the spill. The Energy Resources Conservation Board, an independent government agency that was dissolved in 2013, reprimanded the company, saying it had inadequate leak detection and failed to test its emergency response plan.[11]
  • 2012: In June, almost half a million liters of sour crude oil leaked into a creek that flows into the Red Deer River, located about 100 kilometers north of Calgary, near the community of Sundre.[12]
  • 2012: On June 19, an Enbridge pipeline had a gasket failure, spilling about 1,400 barrels of crude oil, at a pumping station near Elk Point, Alberta.[13]
  • 2013: In June, between 400,000 and 600,000 liters of produced water escaped from a pipeline, in addition to 5,000 liters of oil, near Little Buffalo, Alberta.[14]
  • 2013: On October 17, a 36-inch natural gas pipeline ruptured southwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta. An estimated 16.5 million cubic meters of natural gas were released. The rupture did not result in a fire, there were no injuries and no evacuation was required. A fracture in a pipe elbow was the identified for the reason of the failure.[15]
  • 2014: On January 25, a TransCanada Corporation gas transmission pipeline exploded and burned, causing a natural gas shortage in Manitoba and parts of the United States.[16]
  • 2014: On April 2, a pipeline failed, and spilled 70,000 liters of oil and processed water, northwest of Slave Lake, Alberta.[17]
  • 2014: In November, 60,000 liters of crude oil spilled into muskeg from a failed pipeline, in Red Earth Creek in northern Alberta. Officials were delayed in reaching the scene, due to poor weather at the time.[18]
  • 2015: On March 01, a pipeline leak spilled about 17,000 barrel of condensate, in Northern Alberta.[19]
  • 2015: On May 5, a gas transmission pipeline failed approximately 36 kilometers southeast of Drumheller, Alberta. The incident resulted in an undetermined volume of sweet natural gas and associated hydrocarbon liquid being released onto agricultural land.[20]
  • 2015: On July 15, a pipeline at a Long Lake oil sands facility in northern Alberta leaked about 31,500 barrels of oil emulsion. The spill covered approximately 16,000 square meters (4 acres) but was mostly contained within the pipeline's right of way.[21]
  • 2015: On August 14, a leak from a pipeline spilled about 100,000 liters of an oil, water, & gas emulsion on the Hay Lake First Nation, about 100 kilometers northwest of High Level, Alberta[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#Canada

Insurance companies won't cover them. They have to have limited liability to get coverage. The people responsible for Lac Magantic didn't pay they went bankrupt leaving us holding the bag.

The oil companies know that their pipelines aren't safe so they tried to threaten us with increased rail transport but we aren't stupid. We know that the oil sands will not expand based on rail shipments. The oil sands are effectively capped at what they are now producing.

The oil companies and by extension Alberta brough this on themselves by priorizing profit over safety. Seriously, why would you expect us to believe that this time would be any different? Obviously the oil companies can't or won't build leakproof pipelines.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Marche des Peuples Supports Indigenous Resistance Against Northern Gateway

quote:

The Marche des Peuples pour la Terre Mère would like to express our satisfaction at the Court’s decision to recognize the government’s responsibility to consult with the original inhabitants of this land. When First Nations say “no,” that “no” should always be final. This principle applies not only to pipelines, but also to any type of extractive project which could affect their territory.

We would also like to highlight the fact that this decision did not occur in a vacuum, but rather took place in a context of sustained, long-term indigenous resistance to colonial projects such as pipelines and the tar sands. Because of this resistance, it has become possible to stop these projects in their tracks. The courts are finally beginning to recognize this now -- only after years of mobilizations, direct actions, and legal challenges.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Quebec's Jean Charest had private meeting with pipeline watchdog after TransCanada hired him

Jean Charest gave political advice to members of a federal panel reviewing a major TransCanada Corp. pipeline project in a private meeting while he was under contract with the Alberta-based company, says Grégory Larroque, the spokesman and counsel for the former Quebec premier.

The meeting, held at the downtown Montreal offices of Charest's law firm - McCarthy Tétrault - was requested by members of Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) who were seeking advice about how to engage with Quebecers, explained Larroque, a former political staffer to provincial cabinet ministers in Quebec. The NEB's chairman and CEO Peter Watson attended the meeting along with two board members, Lyne Mercier and Jacques Gauthier, who are both on a three-member panel reviewing TransCanada's Energy East application.

quote:

"Infiltration by industry"

If approved, Energy East would allow TransCanada to ship up to 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Saskatchewan and midwestern U.S. states to refineries in Quebec as well as to a terminal and Irving Oil refinery in New Brunswick. Canada's oilsands producers say the project is needed to support jobs and growth in their sector, while environmentalists say it must be blocked to slow down the country's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

"This is just another example of the apparent coziness between the oil and gas industry, major political parties, both provincial and federal, and the NEB," said Carole Dupuis, the coordinator of a Quebec-based citizens group called Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec. "Whether this takes the form of meetings behind closed doors, parties using industry members as political campaigners or the revolving door between the NEB and the oil and gas industry, it all adds up to a sort of infiltration of the political and regulatory worlds by the industry."

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/14/alberta-pipeline-leak_n_10467076...

CALGARY — A pipeline leak has spilled an estimated 380,000 litres of light petroleum within five kilometres of a provincially designated grizzly bear management zone in northwestern Alberta, and an undetermined amount of it has reached a nearby creek.

Producer ConocoPhillips Canada said in a statement posted on its website Tuesday that the leak of condensate, a liquid produced with natural gas, was seen at a pipeline right-of-way near its Resthaven gas plant about 65 kilometres northeast of Grande Cache last Thursday afternoon.

It said its staff also observed condensate in nearby Webb Creek.

Spill contaminated creek 4.5 kilometres away

The Alberta Energy Regulator said condensate was visible as a sheen on the surface of the creek for about 4.5 kilometres below the pipeline leak.

The creek flows to a beaver dam and then into the Simonette River. While no sheen was visible on the river, an analysis indicated hydrocarbons present at slightly above minimum detection limits, the provincial agency said.

The AER said it was the largest hydrocarbon leak from a pipeline since Nexen, a subsidiary of China's CNOOC Ltd., spilled five million litres of bitumen emulsion in July 2015.

But we are supposed to trust that Energy East will be different so we can trust the oil producers to run a pipeline along the most populated regions right across Canada.

It is the hubris of oil companies that has led to the opposition of all new pipelines that cross other provinces so we are lucky we could stop them based on threats to the local environment because I am not convinced climate change would have been enough.

 

NorthReport

So we can ship the oil, and all the jobs of course, from Alberta, directly to the USA, and then by pipeline over to the Cherry Point, WA refinery. 

Cherry Point Refinery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Point_Refinery 

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

So we can ship the oil, and all the jobs of course, from Alberta, directly to the USA, and then by pipeline over to the Cherry Point, WA refinery. 

Cherry Point Refinery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Point_Refinery 

Yes, just like the USA ships oil and associated jobs to Eastern Canada refineries. Current oil infrastructure is sufficient to satisfy our needs as we transition to more green infrastructure.

The oil sands are not being shut down. Alberta can continue selling oil at the same rates they have been selling it at though existing channels. Both Alberta and Canada have gone through the boom bust cycle numerous times. We survived it before and we will survive again.

The main impediment to pipelines going through BC, Ontario, and Quebec isn't climate change it's the risk to all the land and waterways that would be threatened by the pipelines that always leak. Even if the oil companies promised to build the pipeline out of titanium they wouldn't be believed because they have lied over and over and over again. We would have to be stupid to believe the oil industry is capable of building a leak free pipeline. They very obviously can't or won't do it.

NorthReport
quizzical

amusing.

people acting like oil crashes aren't planned.

NorthReport

The drop in the value of the Cdn dollar was supposed to help exports but it hasn't and everything we import now costs a lot more. So let's bring the dollar back up to par and see what happens.  

quizzical

what's the fkn point of your last post NR? it's got nothing to do with this thread topic.

why don't you address the manufactured  oil crashes for example?

NorthReport

Looking to the future

Anyone who contributes or collects the Canada Pension Plan now owns part of Access Pipeline for the next 25 years

http://www.accesspipeline.com

SeekingAPolitic...

What are the prospects of the tar sands.

http://www.capp.ca/media/news-releases/capital-investment-in-canada-oil-...

 

Two things

1.  In the short term the prospects of the tar sands not good.  Capital investment means jobs and things are going get worst.

2.  This is tricky (long term) if investors think that 25 years done the road that oil will have lesser role in the energy makeup of the world.  Then alberta has a huge huge problem.  Investment in the tar sands viewed as being for the long term, investors are deciding how profitabel the oil will be in 25 years.  Not 1 , 5 , over 10 years, the nature of the tar sands is that if they deemed to unporfitable in 25 years then there will not be investment today.  This is a true threat to tar sands not a 5 years of oil prices that may be go up and down but if regluation (carbon caps) and future engery trends turn agaisnt the only sands.  Look at the coal industry, with little fuss canada has almost  elimated the use of coal.  If you talked to a coal investor 15 years ago they would laugh at you, coal will last forever.  We will use the last kilogram of coal in the ground becasue its so cheap.  Today coal companies are going bankrupt on regular basis and not that its exepensive to burn coal becasue that we have decided the coal is a hazard to the environment.  What if canada or even the wolrd desides the oil consumption is a hazard to the world.  The tar sands are very carbon entensive, if the world gets serious or Canada then the tar sands will stop growing today.  Investment will start to be capped becasue investors are not investing for the price of oil for 5 years from now, they are investing for 20 years down the road.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Regan Boychuk: Alberta NDP’s royalty review was scandalous and they just made it worse

The Alberta NDP’s recent royalty review was a scandalous gift to industry at Albertans' expense. Incredibly, the Notley government has now made matters even worse with Monday's announcement of two new subsidy programs, both gobsmacking examples of corporate welfare.

Even before these latest giveaways, Albertans were already getting absurdly low rates for their resources. The new corporate subsidies raise the spectre of billions in oil reclamation costs looming over Alberta taxpayers.

During the last campaign, the NDP promised to review royalties. Once in power, they did so. But the NDP's new royalty regime actually lowered rates that former Alberta Energy executive director Barry Rodgers had concluded were “too low ... the lowest royalty rates in the world.”

From a high of over 40 cents under former premier Peter Lougheed, Albertans are now collecting only 3.6 cents of every dollar’s worth of our oil and gas:

quote:

All of which brings us to Monday's announcement of two new subsidy programs for industry. The so-called Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery and Emerging Resources subsidy programs certainly serve the interests ATB and ARC. They most certainly do not serve the interests of Albertans: previous stimulus programs have cost billions without producing the promised jobs or increased drilling activity which are driven by commodity prices, not subsidies.

Mowat chaired the review panel and was the process’ public face. His ATB has been struggling with bad loans to oil and gas companies and the losses suffered by mounting bankruptcies:

The Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery subsidy program is aimed at keeping aging wells squeezing out just enough oil and gas to postpone the reclamation costs that will eventually threaten virtually every producer with bankruptcy.

Alberta regulators have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded reclamation liabilities to accumulate, posing heavy risks to bank loans if producers were ever required to fulfill their legal responsibilities to clean up contaminated sites. This subsidy will ensure Albertans only get paid a pittance for the dregs of their aging fields, while producers and their banks get to postpone long overdue reclamation up to another seven and a half years.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Burnaby residents pack meeting on pipeline, climate change

Close to 200 people came out to MP Terry Beech’s town hall meeting on climate change and the Kinder Morgan pipeline, raising concerns about everything from bees to bitumen, to tank farm explosions and oil spills.

quote:

The second half of the meeting was about the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, and many local residents raised more heated concerns.

Burnaby resident John Clarke garnered loud applause when he addressed Beech directly.

“Terry, do your part, do what you promised you would do. Stand up to your handlers in Ottawa and tell them the people here are fed up,” he said.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..petition

Prime Minister Trudeau: Reject Kinder Morgan

This December, Justin Trudeau will either approve or reject the Kinder Morgan tar sands pipeline. However, before he does, he has appointed a new review panel to listen to people across Canada and determine if the pipeline is in Canada's national interest.

If built, the Kinder Morgan pipeline will steamroll over Indigenous rights and make it impossible for Canada to meet the global climate change commitments made in Paris. It would make an oil spill in the Pacific Ocean almost inevitable.

None of these things are in Canada's national interest....

quizzical

sorry epaulo i won't give this amount of power to Justin to reject or approve anything in this world. he is beholding and his handlers are in control.

the twinning will go through for a variety of reasons.

i agree about oil spills in the straight have the potential to increase and is why there needs to be refined product only being exported.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

i agree about oil spills in the straight have the potential to increase and is why there needs to be refined product only being exported.

..what needs to be, imo, is decisions being made with the consent of the populations involved. not trying to force it downs peoples' throats. the concerns surrounding pipelines and the tarsands project are legitimate and not being addressed. i repeat, no matter what the concern they are not being addressed. 

..it’s been amply shown by enough folks across canada, that they don’t want pipelines or even the tar sands. certainly no tar sands expansion. yet the manoeuvring continues to try and bring the pipelines about. i see this now as a power struggle that has moved past debate. and refining isn’t on the agenda in either alberta or ottawa. nor would it be the deal maker if it were. right now indigenous rights are at stake and under attack. this supersedes all.  

quizzical

some indigenous rights are under attack while others aren't but would be if blocked. it's not simplistic as all are against. whose indigenous rights should supercede whose?

question epaulo; if the tar sands were a man made spill would you advocate for total clean up?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

quizzical wrote:

some indigenous rights are under attack while others aren't but would be if blocked. it's not simplistic as all are against. whose indigenous rights should supercede whose?

..quizzical can you please provide me with context as to whose and what rights are being violated if say the tsleil-waututh block the pipeline from coming onto their territory in vancouver? i have not heard any first nation make this claim in my years of following the tar sands and pipelines. that’s not to say it doesn’t exist but at the very least it needs to be brought forward for discussion.

..as for determining what rights supersede the slate isn't blank. there are treaties, processes and protocols that have been in play for years. the recent court decision re northern gateway is one example where the lack of consultations has sent governments back to the drawing board. the adoption of undrip by the canadian government is another where the processes of the ongoing tar sands project and proposed pipelines are in violation of.

mark_alfred

Rabble blog that makes a comparison between Brexit and local Liberal Party of Canada hypocrisy on environmental issues (the comparitor being local public anger that is overlooked by those in power).

Quote:

Glamour doesn't last anymore and the public simply won't accept Justin Trudeau, the hero of the environment, in Paris and Justin Trudeau the man frantically trying to build more LNG plants, pipelines and expand use of fossil fuels. There was a time when that sort of hypocrisy was expected, but times have changed and Mr. Trudeau and leaders like him all over the world are waiting for another large shoe to drop.

How is it possible, ordinary folks ask, we have the world's worst polluter, the tar sands, yet after all the lofty pledges at Paris, are moving to develop them as quickly as possible. How is it possible to square that circle?

Of course the Liberal party has found that you can do this if you're not bothered by hypocrisy. They never have been.  A very good example occurred in my area of Howe Sound where the Trudeau government had scarcely taken over before they approved Woodfibre LNG in Squamish on a shocking  environmental assessment then held a seminar through their local MP to teach us why climate change was bad and how to avoid it!

Collision course

The public is no longer fooled and, as the warnings of science increase exponentially, combined with an unwillingness to accept a word as told by developer or government, the collision comes closer.

NorthReport

No worries, Trump will not get elected.

Republican platform calls for reviving the Keystone XL

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/republican-platform-calls-for-reviving-th...

Pages