Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Weitz]

Watching the press conference... They are pulling hard at any emotional strings they can.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well its going to where it should have gone after the first loss.


At least now win or lose it should put a nail in the concept of meaningful consulting.

[peter12]

Unanimous decision by the Federal Court on a decision hinging whether or not the federal government followed the consultation blueprint laid out by the previous court decision means this is very unlikely Supreme Court does anything about this.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well its going to where it should have gone after the first loss.

I would argue second loss.

Northern Gateway was quashed by the FCA in 2016 for failure to have meaningful two-way consultation. I'll never understand why they thought the same #### would be okay for Trans Mountain.

"Hmm, we didn't meet the constitutional requirement for meaningful two-way consultation last time. Let's do the exact same thing on this one!"

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would argue second loss.

Northern Gateway was quashed by the FCA in 2016 for failure to have meaningful two-way consultation. I'll never understand why they thought the same #### would be okay for Trans Mountain.

"Hmm, we didn't meet the constitutional requirement for meaningful two-way consultation last time. Let's do the exact same thing on this one!"

Back to my previous post, what makes this decision so robust is it basically takes into account all previous Canadian case law, plus an enhanced framework for consultation that was put in place by the Federal Court of Appeals to guide the Crown through these types of constitutional negotiations.

The federal government passed with flying colours. I am also not really sure what question the Indigenous communities will be appealing to the Supreme Court.

[Robbob]

IF/When they appeal it, would the SCC even take on the case? They seemed to have really outlined the consultation and how it was met.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Well written decision. I don't see much for the SCC to do here either.

Although the veto issue has been decided in the past, it keeps rearing its ugly head. This FCA decision spells out very well that any attempt at gaining a veto by using mechanisms that aren't called a veto but act as one, won't fly.

Also, the FCA was pretty clear that: 1) this appeal was limited to only those aspects of the consultation that were not up to standard in the first decision, 2) the applicants were not allowed to re-litigate issues around consultation that was considered appropriate and 3) the applicants couldn't introduce new issues to litigate that they failed to raise earlier.

[peter12]

I really think that it is up in the air if the case even gets heard by the SCC. The SCC does like to get involved, but on what basis, I am just not certain. The veto question has been all but settled at this point. We have always struggled with what reasonable accommodation, but this decision points to that if the Crown focuses with laser precision on mutually identified issues and acts to solve them within reason, it passes the test.

That said, the FCA is very clear that the Crown isn't always required to accommodate or even agree with Indigenous communities if a reasonable exchange of views has taken place. With respect to the spills question, the Crown's experts disagreed on the impact of spills, but has earmarked additional funds to study the question. Again, the FCA found that reasonable.

[Fuzzy14]

It’s strange. It almost feels at first glance like they knew they couldn’t win considering the narrow questions that were to be examined and based on the standard of review so they elected to instead try and relitigate the entire matter in preparation for their eventual appearance before the Supreme Court. Very odd.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

It’s strange. It almost feels at first glance like they knew they couldn’t win considering the narrow questions that were to be examined and based on the standard of review so they elected to instead try and relitigate the entire matter in preparation for their eventual appearance before the Supreme Court. Very odd.

I am just reading through the decision now and it looks like the FCA kind of anticipated that. They stop just short of calling the claimants out on litigating in bad faith.

[peter12]

I just watched the press conference with the four Indignenous groups and honestly, I think they made fools of themselves. They made it very clear that this litigation is being done in bad faith to obstruct, delay and stop this pipeline. This is very different from the arguments made before the FCA.

[CaptainCrunch]

of course Blanchet attacks the decisions and say that this is the result of a crooked court.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1224780429284298753

[csnarpy]

Ok, now it’s time to love on and do this to Quebec!

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by peter12

I just watched the press conference with the four Indignenous groups and honestly, I think they made fools of themselves. They made it very clear that this litigation is being done in bad faith to obstruct, delay and stop this pipeline. This is very different from the arguments made before the FCA.

Really yet another evidence point that these groups are completely disengenouous and acting in bad faith making a mockey of the consultation process while costing our national economy real dollars that could make life better for everyone, including them.

Luckily it also seemed like the judges in this case realized this as well, they had this to say about the Coldwater Band's complaints:

Throughout the consultations that preceded TWN 2018 and up to March 2019, Coldwater’s position was that it had a “strong preference” for the West Alternative given that it posed no risk to its aquifer and its drinking water supply (TWN 2018, para. 586). However, during the renewed consultation process, after Trans Mountain indicated its willingness to consider the West Alternative, Coldwater’s position began to shift. On or around March 6, 2019, Coldwater raised for the first time concerns about “how risky the river crossings associated with the West Alternative actually are” (Exhibit WW to the Spahan Affidavit, Coldwater Record, p. 499, emphasis added). It had long been known that the West Alternative had two river crossings; this was one of the reasons why Trans Mountain did not choose it as the preferred route.

[108] Later, in early June 2019, when confronted with the prospect that the West Alternative could provide a realistic solution to its aquifer concerns, Coldwater changed course altogether and asserted that no route was safe enough

This is a position that Coldwater was entitled to take. However, it would have been more useful and productive for everyone if this had been clear from the beginning.

The Squamish delayed on hearings

We agree that it would have been desirable for Squamish to have had an opportunity to comment on a revised and updated draft of the CCAR. But Squamish itself was a contributor to the delay: it took from the end of January 2019 until late March for Squamish to confirm its availability for a consultation meeting ultimately held in early April

And so did the group of bands in the Fraser Valley

[244] Based on the foregoing, it cannot seriously be argued that Canada failed to re-initiate consultation in a timely manner and then truncated its execution. Canada made every effort to schedule the workshops and substantially engage with Ts’elxwéyeqw on the ICA and the 89 recommendations, but was consistently faced with refusals to set dates. Additionally, Ts’elxwéyeqw did not provide its response to Canada’s analysis of the 89 recommendations sent on March 6, 2019 until May 3, 2019 (Exhibit A to the Dekker Affidavit, Canada Record, pp. 11489-11490).

Reading through this document it's clear what the Gov was up against, good on them for doing the best they could in the face of such difficult counter parties that were against this from the very start.

[peter12]

Yeah Dirac, I was glad to see that the judges explicitly mentioned the bad faith of the claimants (stopping just short of actually saying that). I'm no legal expert, but pretty clear the FCA was looking ahead to the inevitable SCC appeal with this decision.

[troutman]

U.K. to ban new gas vehicles, diesel cars by 2035

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk...035-2020-02-04

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by troutman

U.K. to ban new gas vehicles, diesel cars by 2035

With all of the UK's currently operating nuclear power plants scheduled to retire by 2035 (with only Hinkley Point C scheduled to begin operation and with only enough to replace about 40% of retired generation) and with similar retirements of nuclear (and other reliable power plants) in Europe over that time frame, I'd expect the UK's worries in 2035 will not be about electric cars but about keeping the lights on.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by troutman

U.K. to ban new gas vehicles, diesel cars by 2035

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk...035-2020-02-04

Kyoto and Paris agreements say hi.

Lets chat in 2035.

Either way, this is negligible in terms of demand for oil products. Lots more runway to seize while we can. Glad we are finally looking to get there.

[Fuzz]

I was just curious if this was at all possible based on energy usage. In 2017 Brits drove 526 billion km. Roughly the most efficient EV gets 15kWh/100km, so lets say efficiency increases to 10kWh/100km, or 0.1kWh/km.



So that works out to 52.6 TWh of electricity per year, assuming increased efficiency and no increase in km driven, or charging losses, grid losses etc. The UK(this includes more than GB, was just a quick search for numbers) currently generates 334TWh. So that's only a ~13.5% increase in production. Less than I thought it would be.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was just curious if this was at all possible based on energy usage. In 2017 Brits drove 526 billion km. Roughly the most efficient EV gets 15kWh/100km, so lets say efficiency increases to 10kWh/100km, or 0.1kWh/km.



So that works out to 52.6 TWh of electricity per year, assuming increased efficiency and no increase in km driven, or charging losses, grid losses etc. The UK(this includes more than GB, was just a quick search for numbers) currently generates 334TWh. So that's only a ~13.5% increase in production. Less than I thought it would be.

Also a lot of EV charging happens at night, when demand is lower. So often they are effectively charging on under-utilized baseload. (Although not so great if you're planning to also transition to solar...)