Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

ENGOs are desperate to undermine the regulatory body regardless if its problematic or not. A science based regulator doesn't weigh hyperbole and negative feelings adequately enough to tip the scale in their favor. The majority of pipeline projects will be approved if empirical evidence is used to determine the outcome.

Well looks like Alberta's screwed then.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

ENGOs are desperate to undermine the regulatory body regardless if its problematic or not. A science based regulator doesn't weigh hyperbole and negative feelings adequately enough to tip the scale in their favor. The majority of pipeline projects will be approved if empirical evidence is used to determine the outcome.

I just don't agree with this, because the issue has become so political. For example, this post below seems to make sense these days.

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

My opinion only, but I strongly believe that so long as the Liberal's are in power, Energy East will not be approved; TMX has a better chance.

Rationale being, if you are a majority federal government you need to maintain power in Quebec. Approving EE virtually assures the Liberal government loses Quebec seats to either the NDP or the PQ (won't go to the PC's who are pro-pipelines).

B.C. is just not as large a threat to re-election for the federal Liberals, therefore approving TMX comes with less of a price.

The burden the country / NEB has placed on pipelines seems like a massive double standard to me. So the pipeline company has to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas effects of production flowing through the line aren't that large? Why? When we build roads, schools, buildings, anything, does anything else have to hit that same standard? Why not? Also, why the pipeline company but never the upstream producers??

What about tanker traffic on the west coast? Are there chemicals or other dangerous items on those boats that sail on into Vancouver or other ports on a daily basis? Why aren't those blocked? Where's the moratorium on those? What about shipments of other items leaving Canada? Why is this all allowed?

I just don't understand why the massive double standards are so at play, and I also don't understand why energy companies have done such an insanely poor job of marketing, and trying to sway public opinion as if they're just entitled to it, or as if ignoring the swelling discontent of massive energy projects on the environment will work. It won't, get out there, call out the massive double standards on tv ads during ####ing Hockey Night in Canada, point out the efforts industry is doing to handle things responsibly, educate people on how much energy they use, etc. etc. etc.

[Corral]

Well I think we are coming into agreement on this one. Agencies like the NEB or the AER are not to blame for this. Sure in recent years major project hearings have expanded immensely, but still at some point these projects get their approval for the most part. First nations consultation has definitely become a roadblock, but it is not a regulatory issue. It is a constitutional right - just like your right not to be detained without due process. Sadly for all involved, the persons ultimately responsible for adequate consultation (your elected representatives) are rarely up to the task and are more interested in keeping their seat (just like IliketoPuck indicates above).

[Mr.Coffee]

Yes, consultation is a constitutional right, but consultation can mean many different things and in my world, it does not mean approval rights.

So yeah, we've consulted, told you about our pipeline, you live in Kelowna and allege to have great ancestors vaguely in / around the territory we are building a pipeline in 500km away... and you want some cash for it (because, that's virtually always what it's about). No, we don't owe you anything and you can't hold us hostage with obscene demands with no basis.

The end, we've consulted. The NEB or the regulatory body at that point should say yes, that is sufficient. And to the people who's land the line goes across, ensure that there's a different standard applied.

[Corral]

No doubt major pipelines have become a target for the discontent on climate change. That being said, the Harper government didn't do the energy industry any favours by ignoring the greenhouse gas file for 10 years while the rest of the world became increasingly concerned with it. Pretending climate change isn't a problem was perhaps his most significant political blunder, and it was almost too easy for Trudeau to score political points with his quick policy announcement last Fall that pipeline projects would undergo closer scrutiny on GHGs.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Yes, consultation is a constitutional right, but consultation can mean many different things and in my world, it does not mean approval rights.

So yeah, we've consulted, told you about our pipeline, you live in Kelowna and allege to have great ancestors vaguely in / around the territory we are building a pipeline in 500km away... and you want some cash for it (because, that's virtually always what it's about). No, we don't owe you anything and you can't hold us hostage with obscene demands with no basis.

The end, we've consulted. The NEB or the regulatory body at that point should say yes, that is sufficient. And to the people who's land the line goes across, ensure that there's a different standard applied.

Sadly its a little more complicated than that when the Crown cannot prove it lawfully took up your lands (the case in BC where there is no treaties)

[Mr.Coffee]

that's fine but where's the honesty on the entire story on GHG? Why all the limelight on oil and gas?

There are other environmental things to worry about that don't get any press?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Corral

Sadly its a little more complicated than that when the Crown cannot prove it lawfully took up your lands (the case in BC where there is no treaties)

See and to get real nitpicky here I still disagree. A supreme court ruling should be able to apply reasonableness here, even in the event of no treaty in place.

Basically what I'm saying is the NEB declares consultation has been adequate. The FN group sues, saying no. It gets all the way to supreme court. A supreme court decision is levied that states that the constitutional rights for consultation shouldn't trump what's in the best interest of the nation so long as the consultation has been handled relatively adequately and with respect to legitimacy of consultation concerns and most importantly- impacts.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

that's fine but where's the honesty on the entire story on GHG? Why all the limelight on oil and gas?

There are other environmental things to worry about that don't get any press?

Totally agree. And the GHG problem is probably one that we cannot solve anyways.

At the end of it, I got into this discussion because I disagree with Gwyn Morgan pointing the finger at the regulatory regime and felt that needed to be challenged. I'm going to leave it at that. Have a good night.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Corral

Sadly its a little more complicated than that when the Crown cannot prove it lawfully took up your lands (the case in BC where there is no treaties)

'No Treaties' sounds a lot like 'Start Digging' to me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Yes, consultation is a constitutional right, but consultation can mean many different things and in my world, it does not mean approval rights.

So yeah, we've consulted, told you about our pipeline, you live in Kelowna and allege to have great ancestors vaguely in / around the territory we are building a pipeline in 500km away... and you want some cash for it (because, that's virtually always what it's about). No, we don't owe you anything and you can't hold us hostage with obscene demands with no basis.

The end, we've consulted. The NEB or the regulatory body at that point should say yes, that is sufficient. And to the people who's land the line goes across, ensure that there's a different standard applied.

Consultation is kind of a right. The 2004 Haida v. BC SCC ruling specifically had to do with forestry and a cutblock with defined boundaries, and two affected FN communities.

That is what the consultation regs were designed around. Totally unsuitable for a pipeline.

Holy cow, consultation strategies for pipelines suck. Even if you get a community "buy-in," you still have to deal with rogue factions and protests. FN government is typically just family cronyism writ large. There is no accountability, and no legitimacy. Meanwhile, ordinary First Nation people suffer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Corral

Sadly its a little more complicated than that when the Crown cannot prove it lawfully took up your lands (the case in BC where there is no treaties)

I cannot stand this rhetorical ploy. First Nations were engaged in inter-tribal warfare long before Europeans came to this province. The boundaries were constantly shifting, and factions took full advantage of political alliances, and technology to push their enemies out of coveted territory.

The Cree wiped out dozens of bands in their westward expansion. The Blackfoot pushed into southern AB, displacing the Blood and Peigan.

The Nis'ga have a blood feud with the Haida and Gitanyow going back hundreds of years. How can they lawfully prove who owns what?

Meanwhile, why are so many B.C. communities going through the treaty process now? They want the benefits provided through the treaties, but until they get that, they are happy to use their absence as a rhetorical tool.

As an aside, I find this rebelliousness somewhat admirable.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The burden the country / NEB has placed on pipelines seems like a massive double standard to me. So the pipeline company has to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas effects of production flowing through the line aren't that large? Why? When we build roads, schools, buildings, anything, does anything else have to hit that same standard? Why not? Also, why the pipeline company but never the upstream producers??

I honestly don't understand why the extract and transportation of oil is under intense criticism and political scrutiny, while the vehicles and people who consume the stuff get a pass. A Nissan truck in Ontario is going to emit hundreds of tonnes of greenouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in its lifespan. Why aren't people campaigning for Canada to transition away from automobile manufacture? How about Bombardier plants in Quebec? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people protesting at airports, where every plane lifting off is blasting hundreds of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere?

Originally Posted by peter12

Holy cow, consultation strategies for pipelines suck. Even if you get a community "buy-in," you still have to deal with rogue factions and protests. FN government is typically just family cronyism writ large. There is no accountability, and no legitimacy. Meanwhile, ordinary First Nation people suffer.

Yep. Every native band I've seen has the same dynamic: two bitterly feuding families who contest the leadership and the money and opportunities for nepotism that come with it. The notion you could achieve consensus even within a single native band is hopelessly naive.

[IliketoPuck]

Article from David Yager today. I'd encourage everyone interested in the last few pages of discussion to give it a read.

http://energynow.ca/pipeline-analysi...er-management/

He articulates and expands upon the discussion of the last few pages quite well.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I honestly don't understand why the extract and transportation of oil is under intense criticism and political scrutiny, while the vehicles and people who consume the stuff get a pass. A Nissan truck in Ontario is going to emit hundreds of tonnes of greenouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in its lifespan. Why aren't people campaigning for Canada to transition away from automobile manufacture? How about Bombardier plants in Quebec? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people protesting at airports, where every plane lifting off is blasting hundreds of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere?

Is it because no one is paying them to do that?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Is it because no one is paying them to do that?

Nah.

It's because they think that everything will run off of electricity.

Electric cars, electric planes.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Article from David Yager today. I'd encourage everyone interested in the last few pages of discussion to give it a read.

http://energynow.ca/pipeline-analysi...er-management/

He articulates and expands upon the discussion of the last few pages quite well.

Thanks for the article. It almost sounds like something I would write, albeit much more eloquent than I can hope to achieve.

I've sarcastically derided "consultations" so many times - anything from SW BRT to pipelines to secondary suites. It's a huge problem and I'm glad that there are lots of people that see it.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Thanks for the article. It almost sounds like something I would write, albeit much more eloquent than I can hope to achieve.

I've sarcastically derided "consultations" so many times - anything from SW BRT to pipelines to secondary suites. It's a huge problem and I'm glad that there are lots of people that see it.

Anytime!

The last two paragraphs were really interesting, he raised a pretty good point. If it can be agreed that "social license" cannot be purchased from environmentalist groups by implementing carbon taxes, why implement them? Why make living in the province even more difficult for those affected by the downturn?

[Shazam]

They need the money.

[IliketoPuck]

http://boereport.com/2016/09/12/obam...o-keystone-xl/

Loving the environmentalists thought process here.

Lets block a pipeline in North Dakota and make the energy companies ship the oil by rail instead.

What a time to be alive.