Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Fuzz]

Round and round we go....

The Canadian government-owned Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion faces its latest legal hurdle in a federal court this week as indigenous groups appeal the pipeline's expansion, arguing the government did not adequately consult them before approving it.


A three-day hearing begins on Monday at Canada's Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver, which agreed to hear concerns from the Coldwater Indian band, the Squamish Nation, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and others that the government's second consultation with them on the project this year was "window-dressing, box-ticking and nice-sounding words."


The legal challenge is the latest setback for Trans Mountain, whose previous owners first proposed the expansion in 2013, as well as two pipeline projects proposed separately by TC Energy Corp and Enbridge Inc that would provide badly needed transport for Alberta's oil.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...397202?cmp=rss

[GGG]

I wouldn’t characterize this as a setback yet.

If the government loses it’s a setback. This is an expected part of the process. A few good things here are the number of groups is down from last time

[peter12]

It's just another episode in the endless series of appeals that will never end until the government spends some political capital to push back against these three communities.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's just another episode in the endless series of appeals that will never end until the government spends some political capital to push back against these three communities.

I also believe that JT failed when he never had the gov't appeal the initial verdict of the courts ruling meaningful consultation never took place.

Even if the gov't would have failed in their appeal, I think an appeal was necessary in order to get a ruling on exactly what "meaningful consultation" actually means and what is a "meaningful timeline" for such consultation.

[CaptainCrunch]

The opposition to transX hasn't even unloaded the big guns yet, they're waiting for the start of putting pipelines into BC.


The West Coast Environmental Law Office is starting to stir, they're demanding updated coasts on the expansion, and they've talked about law suits that they're sitting on.


We'll also see the protests and squatters start to happen on the BC side of things daring the government to send in the old water cannons and RCMP.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by redforever

I also believe that JT failed when he never had the gov't appeal the initial verdict of the courts ruling meaningful consultation never took place.

Even if the gov't would have failed in their appeal, I think an appeal was necessary in order to get a ruling on exactly what "meaningful consultation" actually means and what is a "meaningful timeline" for such consultation.

Meaningful consultation is clearly a joke at this stage of the game.

[CaptainCrunch]

Meaningful consultation for some means that its the right of absolute refusal.


They expect nothing less.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by peter12

Meaningful consultation is clearly a joke at this stage of the game.

Problem is that consultation gives a false sense of "decision making" to those that quite often shouldn't have any say or facetime whatsoever. Then feelings are hurt, and snowflakes melted. Given our downward national spiral (most job losses in a decade, when USA has least unemployment in a decade), it's obvious at least some action-oriented decisions and progress be made. we've already missed virtually the whole LNG segment, what's next?

[peter12]

Trust me, I did this for KMC for 5 years.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by captaincrunch

the opposition to transx hasn't even unloaded the big guns yet, they're waiting for the start of putting pipelines into bc.


The west coast environmental law office is starting to stir, they're demanding updated coasts on the expansion, and they've talked about law suits that they're sitting on.


We'll also see the protests and squatters start to happen on the bc side of things daring the government to send in the old water cannons and rcmp.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1204577811773771785

Construction at Westbridge terminal has started. Is there something more specific they're waiting for? Genuine question.

[Weitz]

Hard to protest work going on in already developed yards/terminals. The issues will begin when they start digging in BC.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Hard to protest work going on in already developed yards/terminals. The issues will begin when they start digging in BC.

I would argue it's hard to protest work going on along existing pipeline corridors as well, but here we are

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I would argue it's hard to protest work going on along existing pipeline corridors as well, but here we are

I mean sure if you didn’t know what you were talking about.

[GGG]

Once pipe starts going in the ground though the protesters eventually lose. The courts is the only real risk here. It will cost more but there isn’t a private company to scare away.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I mean sure if you didn’t know what you were talking about.

That's really becoming a thing on this site. I asked a question to gain knowledge, not challenge knowledge, yet out comes "you're dumb, the answer is obvious" type of feedback. Thanks for that. Helpful.

I'd lob you over my resume to demonstrate my knowledge of project work but, I wasn't looking to enter a dick measuring contest on the execution of a pipeline expansion project.

Anyway, you're not helpful and unless you choose to be, I'm done with you.

CaptainCrunch, construction has started on Westbridge terminal. And, yes, that is an existing site, but they are breaking new ground and executing quite a bit of in-water scope. To me, that would be one of the first areas of concern for those protesting this project. What segment of the project are the lawyers waiting for to start before they bring out their big guns? Again, a genuine question.

[Weitz]

You made a snarky comment implying something that didn't make sense. So I gave you a snarky reply.

There are a host of reasons that work being completed at the terminals is different than that of actually laying the new pipe and why the actual pipe laying is going to garner a significantly higher level of protest. Lets not forget there have been protests at the Burnaby facility.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You made a snarky comment implying something that didn't make sense. So I gave you a snarky reply.

There are a host of reasons that work being completed at the terminals is different than that of actually laying the new pipe and why the actual pipe laying is going to garner a significantly higher level of protest. Lets not forget there have been protests at the Burnaby facility.

Okay, fine, I'm not done with you . Nothing snarky about any reply...that's what the big smile was for. To alleviate any concerns about being snarky. A lot of people think emoji's are silly. I find them useful in establishing the intended tone of a statement or question.

Absolutely, the terminal work and pipeline work generate different concerns. In my opinion, the host of reasons @ the terminal would generate more concern. Hence the question. CC suggested the protesters are waiting for a certain segment of the work to begin prior to unveiling their coup de gras. If not the work which could directly affect marine life, then why the pipelines? I'm genuinely curious.



Edit; "Anyway, you're not helpful and unless you choose to be, I'm done with you."....that was a snarky reply. I take it back.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Okay, fine, I'm not done with you . Nothing snarky about any reply...that's what the big smile was for. To alleviate any concerns about being snarky. A lot of people think emoji's are silly. I find them useful in establishing the intended tone of a statement or question.

That's fair and It is early so I did jump the gun!

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Absolutely, the terminal work and pipeline work generate different concerns. In my opinion, the host of reasons @ the terminal would generate more concern. Hence the question. CC suggested the protesters are waiting for a certain segment of the work to begin prior to unveiling their coup de gras. If not the work which could directly affect marine life, then why the pipelines? I'm genuinely curious.



Edit; "Anyway, you're not helpful and unless you choose to be, I'm done with you."....that was a snarky reply. I take it back.

I just think the location and general design of the terminal work doesn't lead to a very good protest. They wore out their welcome with the City of Burnaby pretty quickly.

Now, when they are building the pipeline on actual traditional lands that are undeveloped, with multiple access routes, in the middle of no where thats when the big protests will strike IMO.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Now, when they are building the pipeline on actual traditional lands that are undeveloped, with multiple access routes, in the middle of no where thats when the big protests will strike IMO.

I think, on my part, it's experience based ignorance. I'm an Albertan and see how land based "nature" functions around construction well, daily. The ocean/coast just seems more delicate to me. That's why I don't understand why the intensity of legal action and protesting would accelerate once the BC pipeline work begins as opposed to the coastal scope.

[Boblobla]

You two should just #### and get it over with...