NDP to American's don't buy our tar sands

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yes, all within the context of the Keystone pipeline. That's my point. Not the entire oil industry, although it may read like that. Hence, awkwardly worded at points.

The article is not awkwardly worded. That is a quote from the NDP MP and it elevates the context beyond the Keystone pipeline to the entire oil industry. Keystone is the excuse to go down and preach their ill-advised and uneducated anti-oil sands agenda.

[Ozy_Flame]

Cap, which quote is that? The "bigger picture" quote in the article?

If it's that one, it most definitely is done within the context of the Keystone pipeline. The comment was made in response to the U.S.' response to the project by delaying approval. The 'bigger picture' part is the all possible impact points of the pipeline project, including the environmental risk to soil and water. Also, what other pipelines are currently going to be crossing states that Leslie is talking about?

[wookster]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Yeah but the gains to the nation are another point of debate. Some people might think that a significant raise in the price of a commoditiy which will affect the price that people pay for that commoditiy may not benefit the majority of the population. The oil companies will benefit from being able to sell their oil at a higher price, but the average Canadian who will inevitably be paying more at the pump may not quite see the benefit.

So far the opposition to this project has been largely framed in terms of the potential environmental impacts, but there are serious economic implications that have not really been looked at.

Thats because environmental impacts are all they have to go on...I don't see how there can be any economic implications about going ahead with the Keystone project. it would not raise gasoline prices for Canadians at all, in fact it would help keep them in check by raising the supply of oil to refineries. Oil is a global commodity based on supply and demand, not so much regional. The bigger the supply in correlation to the demand, the cheaper the price, so I'm not sure how oil companies will be able to sell at a higher price because of this? If anything, prices should get slightly lower.

Make no mistake, oil companies here will still make their money but so will the governments...and that means more money for infrastructure, health care etc. for everyone. And I also think that the environment is important as well and everyone should be held accountable to helping to maintain and better it.

Gone are the days of cheap gasoline anyway as the demand for oil is so much higher than the supply, so if people really want to save at the pump, its time to get rid of the SUV and get a prius.

Wasn't that long ago I saw a guy making some ignorant comments to a gas attendant at a petro-canada station about the price of fuel (I think the price of gas was around $1.14 a litre at the time) while at the same time he was paying $2 for a 1L bottle of water from France and not thinking twice about it...

[CaptainCrunch]

The New Democrats do not want to put a permanent halt to oil-sands development but say the federal government and Alberta should take a timeout to determine how the oil can be extracted with the smallest amount of damage to the environment and to develop a plan to deal with climate change.

To me, that has nothing to do with the pipeline or the environmental risk to soil or water in Nebraska

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me, that has nothing to do with the pipeline or the environmental risk to soil or water in Nebraska

That's not the quote that Zuluking was quoting. We're talking about two different quotes here.

And I agree - a time out would be ludicrous and costly.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's not the quote that Zuluking was quoting. We're talking about two different quotes here.

And I agree - a time out would be ludicrous and costly.

I'll quote it again: “But, if you look at the State Department statement, it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”

Please explain how this is only within the context of Keystone. She is actually trying to draw the entire oilsands industry into the context. She is saying that they need to be look at "where this oil is coming from..."

Why is this do difficult for you to grasp? She says that it is about "the whole big picture." Her words, not mine. Her quote, not an inference from the article. And when you add CC's quote to the mix, you're getting a pretty good picture of where the NDP wants to go with this.

Doesn't all that spinning start to make you dizzy?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Please explain how this is only within the context of Keystone. She is actually trying to draw the entire oilsands industry into the context. She is saying that they need to be look at "where this oil is coming from..."

Let me show you:

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been to Washington a couple of times to argue that the pipeline
presents no real environmental risk. He has also travelled to Europe to protest the EU decision to label Canadian oil as dirty.
The U.S. State department has concluded that the Keystone project should be studied for its environmental and social impacts, delaying the decision to approve the pipeline – which could have been politically problematic for Barack Obama – until after next year’s presidential election.

The main complaint from the American critics of the pipeline is that it was to have been constructed through environmentally sensitive lands. TransCanada said Monday that is was prepared to reroute it.

But Ms. Leslie says the potential contamination of soil and water was not the only consideration.

“Some folks have pushed back (on the pipeline), rightly so maybe, that this decision (about the pipeline) wasn’t about greenhouse gases,” she said. “But, if you look at the State Department statement (about the pipeline), it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil (from the pipeline) is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s (the pipeline) going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”

Big picture meaning all impact points of the pipeline project.

Clear enough?

[Aegypticus]

The pipeline was delayed solely because of concerns expressed by Americans, correct? Why is the NDP only now going down to voice their view on the pipeline? I'm finding it hard to interpret these actions as anything but purely selfish in nature. If they wanted to make their viewpoint heard in the States, why didn't they do it before the door was opened by delays? I can't come to any other conclusion than that the NDP is doing this only for their own political gain, and is in the process supporting the interests of some Americans at the expense of the interests of some Canadians. I wouldn't think this if they did this before the pipeline was delayed by the US government. The timing is just way too suspect.

At least Harper should have some ammo to fire back at the NDP if they ever accuse him of being in bed with American politicians.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Let me show you:

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been to Washington a couple of times to argue that the pipeline
presents no real environmental risk. He has also travelled to Europe to protest the EU decision to label Canadian oil as dirty.
The U.S. State department has concluded that the Keystone project should be studied for its environmental and social impacts, delaying the decision to approve the pipeline – which could have been politically problematic for Barack Obama – until after next year’s presidential election.

The main complaint from the American critics of the pipeline is that it was to have been constructed through environmentally sensitive lands. TransCanada said Monday that is was prepared to reroute it.

But Ms. Leslie says the potential contamination of soil and water was not the only consideration.

“Some folks have pushed back (on the pipeline), rightly so maybe, that this decision (about the pipeline) wasn’t about greenhouse gases,” she said. “But, if you look at the State Department statement (about the pipeline), it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil (from the pipeline) is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s (the pipeline) going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”

Big picture meaning all impact points of the pipeline project.

Clear enough?

Adding "the pipeline" to her statement is both inaccurate and incomprehensible in places. The top half is about the pipeline based on its references, but the bottom half is definitely about the broader picture, "the whole big picture." What states does oil go through in the pipeline? None. She is trying to draw the mining / pumping and upgrading of bitumen into the discussion - the states that it goes through. And where is the oil coming from? Not the pipeline. It is put into the pipeline. It comes from the evil tar sands of Alberta - the source.

I can agree with you the the big picture means all impact points and the one she cares about is the source, the oil sands themselves. Keystone is an excuse.

[killer_carlson]

Wildrose candidate in the riding against Brian Mason is pressing Mason to distance himself from the federal NDPs.

Mason can't be happy about this stunt by his federal counterparts. I hope the WRP keeps the pressure on Mason until he does.

[wookster]

^^I think when it says "what states does it go through" it means which states (ex: Nebraska) the pipeline is going to pass through when built.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by wookster

^^I think when it says "what states does it go through" it means which states (ex: Nebraska) the pipeline is going to pass through when built.

Good point - although Nebraska seems to be the sole sticking point. Although her comment is in reference to climate change. How does which states a pipeline go through have an impact on climate change? What does a pipeline have to do with climate change?

Re-reading it again, I also find the comment "what it can do" very strange. What "what" can do?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The NDP wouldn't be doing their job as opposition party if they weren't doing this. I think this is probably a normal occurrence and is getting abnormal media attention, but it stings especially for Albertan conservative and PC supporters.

You know this has been bugging me a bit while I sit here and work on a powerpoint for a meeting on thursday.

I would be upset about this if it was a Alberta based Conservative MP in opposition if he went to the states to encourage them not to buy goods built in Ontario factories because of their air pollution. I'm sure the rest of the country would be up in arms over it.

I would guess by your last statement that you would go war over something like that cursing Alberta Conservatives and PC supporters.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would guess by your last statement that you would go war over something like that cursing Alberta Conservatives and PC supporters.

Well anything negatively impact the oil industry from a government standpoint is not going to sit well with Albertans, who are mostly PC supporters anyways. Conversely, I would hope the PC's wouldn't lobby against the Ontario automobile industry either, because that's damaging as well (even though the two industries are apples and oranges).

[wookster]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Good point - although Nebraska seems to be the sole sticking point. Although her comment is in reference to climate change. How does which states a pipeline go through have an impact on climate change? What does a pipeline have to do with climate change?

Re-reading it again, I also find the comment "what it can do" very strange. What "what" can do?

Yeah I agree, I believe that Nebraska is the main sticking point also. I find her whole statement to be quite ambiguous and I think she is talking about more than just the pipeline as well. When she points out the part about investigating "where it is coming from"...well we all know where its coming from and going to so....

[Jacks]

Politics should end at the border. If the opposition has a problem with the Oilsands they should furiously debate it within Canada, if the people agree they will vote accordingly. None of our politicians should be going to other countries with the sole purpose of embarrasing our country.

[Tinordi]

Does that include our diplomats lobbying other governments to get rid of High Carbon Intensity Crude Oil regulations?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Does that include our diplomats lobbying other governments to get rid of High Carbon Intensity Crude Oil regulations?

The diplomats are agents of the Gov't of Canada and therefore represent the country, not a political party with a political agenda.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Politics should end at the border. If the opposition has a problem with the Oilsands they should furiously debate it within Canada, if the people agree they will vote accordingly. None of our politicians should be going to other countries with the sole purpose of embarrasing our country.

So you would support Harper not going to Europe to contest the "dirty" oil label?

What about approaching the newly-created TPP as an Asian alternative for Albertan oil?

Politics will never end at the border, no matter which way you slice it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Yes. The party with 40% is the Government of Canada. The one with 30% is not.

The NDP representatives are not agents of the Gov't of Canada according to your definition of government.