AB vs BC - Kinder Morgan Dispute

[CaptainCrunch]

Because there's a hypocrisy to the Environmental movement that can't be ignored.

They're pretty much clear cutting in BC.

But man - That's not carbon in the atmosphere man.

How about dumping raw sewage and chemicals into the ocean

But man the oil companies aren't doing that man.

[cavalera403]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I’m actually pretty surprised this, and few other forestation allowances recently haven’t been more publicly decried.

This one in particular has a lot of the fly fishing community up in arms because native cut throat trout and bull trout are species at risk and this will negatively impact them directly with increased sediments being washed into the stream beds.

[4X4]

The deforestation points being raised have me asking a couple of questions.

1. If we were to consider the natural existence of trees in BC to be a norm, what is the net value of their deforestation on the overall carbon situation? In other words, if they are cutting down trees that would have been absorbing carbon, are they harming the environment in any way measurable? If we're not allowed to harvest our natural resource to the detriment of the global environment, are they?

2. Alberta also has a lot of trees. What is our carbon +/-? I'm not talking about the export of oil. Oil will be burned whether we pipe it to the coast and ship it to China or not. I'm wondering if the amount of CO2 emissions from cars and furnaces and farting in Alberta are more or less than what our forests absorb. Frankly, I have no idea. It could be drastically in either direction, and I wouldn't be surprised.

I hate this situation. I don't want to argue on an "us vs. them" basis, but Alberta needs to point out hypocrisy. BC cuts down trees. Trees that have helped balance the environment for thousands of years. Why do they do that? Because they know that lumber is essential to construction. And if they don't sell their lumber, everyone will just buy it from someone who will. Hmm. Sounds familiar.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Does that make her caucus the Motley Crew?

Oh gawd. I can envision this.

Now someone has to photoshop Rachels head onto Vince Neil's body and Joe Ceci onto Tommy Lee.

Sarah Hoffman is Nikki Sixx, with Brian Mason as Mick Mars.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because there's a hypocrisy to the Environmental movement that can't be ignored.

They're pretty much clear cutting in BC.

But man - That's not carbon in the atmosphere man.

How about dumping raw sewage and chemicals into the ocean

But man the oil companies aren't doing that man.

maybe the thought process is to poison the ocean and cut down as many trees as possible so that after the pipeline is built and the inevitable 'spill' happens it will have a far less of an impact on the environment... since, well, there won't be much left to impact?

see... the dumping of sewage and clear cutting is just forward thinking!

[killer_carlson]

From the Globe and Mail

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle38037368/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The deforestation points being raised have me asking a couple of questions.

1. If we were to consider the natural existence of trees in BC to be a norm, what is the net value of their deforestation on the overall carbon situation? In other words, if they are cutting down trees that would have been absorbing carbon, are they harming the environment in any way measurable? If we're not allowed to harvest our natural resource to the detriment of the global environment, are they?

2. Alberta also has a lot of trees. What is our carbon +/-? I'm not talking about the export of oil. Oil will be burned whether we pipe it to the coast and ship it to China or not. I'm wondering if the amount of CO2 emissions from cars and furnaces and farting in Alberta are more or less than what our forests absorb. Frankly, I have no idea. It could be drastically in either direction, and I wouldn't be surprised.

I hate this situation. I don't want to argue on an "us vs. them" basis, but Alberta needs to point out hypocrisy. BC cuts down trees. Trees that have helped balance the environment for thousands of years. Why do they do that? Because they know that lumber is essential to construction. And if they don't sell their lumber, everyone will just buy it from someone who will. Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Well without getting into this argument, Canada as a whole is a net negative (according to what I've read) because we have so much forest. Basically though, "that doesn't count" and we have to contribute our 'fair share" to reduction efforts regardless.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

From the Globe and Mail

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle38037368/

Well that was a refreshing independent take from Tzporah’s ghost writer.

I am totally worried now.

[DiracSpike]

I read that article yesterday and it certainly is a negative outlook. It really illustrates the point that time is on the anti-development faction's side here, protestors and politicians can obstruct obstruct obstruct until the end of time but every day is precious for Kinder Morgan. That's why I'm looking for some specific actions and timelines from the Liberal government.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I read that article yesterday and it certainly is a negative outlook. It really illustrates the point that time is on the anti-development faction's side here, protestors and politicians can obstruct obstruct obstruct until the end of time but every day is precious for Kinder Morgan. That's why I'm looking for some specific actions and timelines from the Liberal government.

Give the man some time...i mean its only been a month since Horgan threw down. He has assured all that "it will get built".

The lip service he provides is unlike any other.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well without getting into this argument, Canada as a whole is a net negative (according to what I've read) because we have so much forest. Basically though, "that doesn't count" and we have to contribute our 'fair share" to reduction efforts regardless.

According to this article in the NY Times, an acre of mature forest will sequester 30,000 pounds of CO2, or approximately 13.7 tonnes annually.

According to this Wiki article, 42 per cent of Canada is forested, accounting for a full 10 per cent of the world's forested land.

Canada is roughly 9.985 million square km, or 2.466 billion acres, meaning Canada has roughly 1.035 billion acres of forested land.

That means Canada's forests absorb roughly 14.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

According to the Environment and Climate Change Canada page, Canada emits a total of 722 million tonnes of CO2.

So, we're roughly 100% to the good...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I read that article yesterday and it certainly is a negative outlook. It really illustrates the point that time is on the anti-development faction's side here, protestors and politicians can obstruct obstruct obstruct until the end of time but every day is precious for Kinder Morgan. That's why I'm looking for some specific actions and timelines from the Liberal government.

there are a lot of ifs to that article

If Trudeau is paying lip service and isn't going to go beyond that and set time lines and penalties

If BC succeeds in dragging this out to 2019 and beyond

If Kinder Morgan throws up their hands, and invests their money in a friendlier jurisdiction

And if Alberta does become fully landlocked economically with the death of pipelines to the east and the west.

Then I think that there has to be a serious discussion over what Confederation means.

And if the above happens, you will see a lot of anger and resentment in this province.

I said it before, Canada has ceased being a country and has become a loose collection of self interested aholes.

[burn_this_city]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ne-woes-deepen

[CaptainCrunch]

So basically this is all about Trudeau regretting stepping in front of the pipeline approval and vowing to never have to do it again.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government also announced earlier this month a plan to revamp the national energy regulator with a goal of giving the industry a speedier, more efficient approval process. But the plan also may include adding new types of projects that require federal approval and allows more input for some stakeholder groups, sparking industry fears it won’t become any easier.
Legal Challenges

The proposed legislation appears to effectively prevent any major new project from reaching any form of positive recommendation, the research team at GMP FirstEnergy, a major investment bank to the energy sector, said in a note. “A lack of hard timelines and a regulatory process that has been subject to dithering and near endless legal challenges will become the major stumbling block for domestic and international investor confidence in the Canadian energy sector.”

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

there are a lot of ifs to that article

If Trudeau is paying lip service and isn't going to go beyond that and set time lines and penalties

If BC succeeds in dragging this out to 2019 and beyond

If Kinder Morgan throws up their hands, and invests their money in a friendlier jurisdiction

Wente's point is that it doesn't really matter what Trudeau does - there is a large enough population of people in B.C. for whom pipeline expansion is essentially a religious issue, that the government would have to use force to push it through. And no federal government will take it that far. This is no longer about trade, the constitution, etc. It's about sacred beliefs. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And if Alberta does become fully landlocked economically with the death of pipelines to the east and the west.

Then I think that there has to be a serious discussion over what Confederation means.

And if the above happens, you will see a lot of anger and resentment in this province.

I said it before, Canada has ceased being a country and has become a loose collection of self interested aholes.

Prepare yourself, because that's the likely outcome.

[Regorium]

It's not a surprising article at all.

I've went to a couple finance seminars recently with speakers from other countries and basically the main message is "Get all your money out of Canada right now."

Not all of it is the horrific regulatory regime for energy, but it's on every investor's mind.

[Yoho]

/\ Lets do it.

“freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose”

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Wente's point is that it doesn't really matter what Trudeau does - there is a large enough population of people in B.C. for whom pipeline expansion is essentially a religious issue, that the government would have to use force to push it through. And no federal government will take it that far. This is no longer about trade, the constitution, etc. It's about sacred beliefs. And you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.



Prepare yourself, because that's the likely outcome.

Oh I don't need to prepare myself, I can see where this is going a mile away.

If this is still being debated by the next provincial election, you will see a UCP party that's basically fought this election on the pipeline, and Alberta getting screwed.

You'll see a UCP government that will be forced to take the rhetoric to an extreme.

If we see that the pipeline still isn't being built by the end of the first year of a UCP government you will see really angry people that want more, and want a harder stance and have a overly romantic view of the Alberta Government takin on the feds during the NEP. and you'll see the rise of a separatist segment of the population.

You have to wonder what Notley's next step is really going to be, threaten softwood? Seafood? Poultry. That's not as cut and dried as using the ALGC to cut off BC wine. to go after those things she really does have to break the Provincial Free Trade Deals.

Does she take it to an extreme nuclear level by threatening to step out of that agreement?

If you're an academic studying Canadian Poli-Sci this could be something to really watch.

[Yoho]

Notley done either way. Why not go down swinging?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

[...] the government would have to use force to push it through. And no federal government will take it that far.

If the government will not use force, then it is effectively sanctioning anarchy.