Author Topic: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline  (Read 2688 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4782
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #210 on: September 08, 2018, 01:40:32 pm »
It may be ready to spring a leak, but it certainly won't be the first one. Over its history it has already dumped about 40,000 barrels. Luckily NIMBY.

Wait, this happened?  And the world didn't end??

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #211 on: September 08, 2018, 01:52:35 pm »
Wait, this happened?  And the world didn't end??

 -k

Wait, if the next one happens in your backyard I'm sure we'll see you change your tune pretty quick.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4782
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #212 on: September 08, 2018, 01:56:40 pm »
Well, I guess you're right.  They should definitely close it down for maintenance.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #213 on: September 08, 2018, 02:27:40 pm »
Well, I guess you're right.  They should definitely close it down for maintenance.

 -k

And don't get me wrong, I think this expansion program will happen once they revamp the process and I wont be camping out trying to defy KM. To do so would make me a hypocrite as a fair number of my paychecks have flowed from the exploration and production of old dinosaur bones. However I do also believe in the existence of global warming and so some of the profits from those bones should go to weening ourselves off them and looking more toward the sky instead of what's under our feet.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4782
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #214 on: September 08, 2018, 11:21:43 pm »
And don't get me wrong, I think this expansion program will happen once they revamp the process and I wont be camping out trying to defy KM. To do so would make me a hypocrite as a fair number of my paychecks have flowed from the exploration and production of old dinosaur bones. However I do also believe in the existence of global warming and so some of the profits from those bones should go to weening ourselves off them and looking more toward the sky instead of what's under our feet.

I'm 100% in favor of developing renewable energy.   It's happening bit by bit, but fossil fuels will play a very large role in our economy for a very long time to come. Not just the part about selling fossil fuels to obtain money, but also the part about how fossil fuels play a large role in most of our key industries. Forestry, mining, agriculture, fishing, transportation, construction, and tourism (and all the related industries that depend on them) need fossil fuel, and will continue to need fossil fuel for a very long time.  We are a very long way from being able to do away with fossil fuel in those industries, and in poorer countries that don't have the money to replace their existing equipment with new greener technologies, they're farther yet. We need fossil fuel.

I have this strange sense that many in BC, especially in the big city, are somewhat disconnected from that reality.  I get the impression that many seem to think that since they work in front of a computer and they take the Skytrain to work, the city is just fine without gasoline and diesel fuel.  I still can't get over what the squid wrote earlier:

What shuts down in BC if the pipeline does?  A few tankers a day donít come through?   A few maintenance jobs along the corridor are lost?  THe pipeline is no big deal to BC...  itís a HUGE deal to Alberta.

 ...yeah, no big deal. Just a few tankers, a few maintenance jobs, and the fuel that makes all of British Columbia's most important industries possible.  No big deal.

I wonder how many people in this province have taken the time to think about the impact of that fuel on their current standard of living, about things like what happens to the price of food if the price of transporting it to the grocery store goes through the roof, or how many people lose their jobs if the cost of getting the logs out of the mountain to the sawmill becomes uneconomical, or getting the ore out of the mine becomes uneconomical, or if diesel shortages restricted ship and train traffic at the Port of Vancouver, and so-on. I suspect an awful lot of people haven't given it a moment of thought.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #215 on: September 10, 2018, 05:35:45 pm »
I have to agree with Andrew Coyne on this one....

Quote
And yet the most promising response remains the one he first appeared to favour: follow the course the court prescribed.

For as much as the decision was a victory for the Aboriginal and environmental groups who had filed suit challenging the cabinetís 2016 decision to approve the project, and the National Energy Board report on which it was based, it was mostly a victory for the rule of law.

As such it may prove to be a victory for the pipeline itself, the gravest threat to which remains not the processes set out in law for accommodating the concerns of those it would potentially affect, but the willingness of some of those opposed to defy the law to derail its progress.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-court-ruling-was-a-win-for-rule-of-law-and-therefore-a-win-for-trans-mountain

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #216 on: July 03, 2019, 12:12:36 am »
and now... with the recent new/improved approval given by the Liberal government cabinet...

prior to the "court quash" of the initial National Energy Board (NEB) approval: 43 First Nations and other Indigenous groups supported TMX; only 12 opposed it as a part of the 'Tsleil-Waututh Federal Court of Appeal' challenge over insufficient consultation in the NEB's decision to twin the pipeline.

unlikely scenario: in accepting TMX expansion, previously opposed Indigenous groups agree to a negotiated settlement that would pay them "compensation" monies/benefits

more likely scenario: Liberal government legislation to codify easements on First Nations land leads to court challenge over Indigenous rights enshrined under Section 35 of the Constitution.

most likely scenario: a legal test case of veto authority claims made by several First Nation leaders after this latest Liberal government approval was given

and the latest development introduces a possibility of an Indigenous-led group purchasing a majority stake in the TMX pipeline

Quote
July 2nd - An Indigenous-led group plans to offer to buy a majority stake in the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from the federal government this week or next...

The group, called Project Reconciliation, aims to submit the $6.9 billion offer as early as Friday, managing director Stephen Mason told Reuters, and start negotiations with Ottawa two weeks later.

Project Reconciliation was founded by Delbert Wapass, a former chief of the Thunderchild First Nation in Saskatchewan, and has invited Indigenous participation from B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan. Its office is in Calgary.

The group said the investment will alleviate First Nations poverty, a watershed for Indigenous people who have historically watched Canada's resources enrich others.
.
.
Project Reconciliation hopes to buy 51 per cent of the pipeline this year for $2.3 billion and roughly half the expansion project for $4.6 billion. It would finance the deal through bank loans underwritten by commitments from oil shippers.

The federal government would retain 49 per cent.


Once expansion is complete, it intends to invest $200 million of annual proceeds into an Indigenous sovereign wealth fund.

notwithstanding Indigenous groups partnering won't necessarily stop other groups challenging TMX, and accepting to the most positive outcome for the peoples of participating Indigenous groups, would (most) Canadians accept majority control of TMX being in the hands of Indigenous groups?

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #217 on: July 03, 2019, 12:18:18 am »
notwithstanding Indigenous groups partnering won't necessarily stop other groups challenging TMX, and accepting to the most positive outcome for the peoples of participating Indigenous groups, would (most) Canadians accept majority control of TMX being in the hands of Indigenous groups?

Good question.  I'd say why not, i see little harm.  I'd rather they own it than the government own it.  If these groups spend billions to buy it, they'd be foolish to try to squash it and destroy or devalue their investment.  They'd be more likely to want the pipeline to go through if they had majority ownership in it i'd say.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #218 on: July 03, 2019, 10:26:39 am »
Good question.  I'd say why not, i see little harm.  I'd rather they own it than the government own it.  If these groups spend billions to buy it, they'd be foolish to try to squash it and destroy or devalue their investment.  They'd be more likely to want the pipeline to go through if they had majority ownership in it i'd say.

certainly some First Nations bands have proved to be successful business owners/developers; however, given such historical acrimony, aren't there any strategic risk factors to consider in having Indigenous groups with majority ownership of TMX? Apparently assorted groups have been meeting since January... attempting to work out something acceptable between themselves. The current 'Indian Resource Council (IRC)' backed proposal seeks a 51% Indigenous groups/49% government ownership split; notwithstanding some groups within it that pushed for 100% ownership.

It is said the majority of the 134 First Nations represented by the IRC are interested in buying TMX; it's chief executive, Stephen Buffalo, emphasizes:
Quote
We all want a safe and proper environment; the environment is so key. But we can continue to still do some economic development and have that balance. And that's what we need to strive for ó to find that balance.

would Canadians, overall, accept First Nations finding that balance between the environment and resource development? In any case, I await responses from some of the key Provincial Premiers - as much as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been all over touting a partnership with First Nations groups, what will he say about ownership control... and then there's weakSauce Scheer (waiting to be told what to say by his handlers!).
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 10:29:33 am by waldo »

Offline eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #219 on: July 06, 2019, 11:13:35 pm »
Aliens will one day wonder in amazement how it was in spite of everything they knew that Earthlings still insisted on burning the most CO2 laden oil they could find.

It's a testament to the unrelenting power of willful stupidity.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8313
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #220 on: July 07, 2019, 10:08:06 am »
Aliens will one day wonder in amazement how it was in spite of everything they knew that Earthlings still insisted on burning the most CO2 laden oil they could find.

It's a testament to the unrelenting power of willful stupidity.

Interestingly we are not the worst and flaring done by many light oil producers is actually more emission intensive than using NG to extract bitumen.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4427014/oil-industry-greenhouse-gas-emissions-canada-science/
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4782
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #221 on: July 07, 2019, 11:24:47 am »
certainly some First Nations bands have proved to be successful business owners/developers; however, given such historical acrimony, aren't there any strategic risk factors to consider in having Indigenous groups with majority ownership of TMX? Apparently assorted groups have been meeting since January... attempting to work out something acceptable between themselves. The current 'Indian Resource Council (IRC)' backed proposal seeks a 51% Indigenous groups/49% government ownership split; notwithstanding some groups within it that pushed for 100% ownership.

It is said the majority of the 134 First Nations represented by the IRC are interested in buying TMX; it's chief executive, Stephen Buffalo, emphasizes:
would Canadians, overall, accept First Nations finding that balance between the environment and resource development? In any case, I await responses from some of the key Provincial Premiers - as much as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been all over touting a partnership with First Nations groups, what will he say about ownership control... and then there's weakSauce Scheer (waiting to be told what to say by his handlers!).

I think it would be great if First Nations had significant ownership and derived significant revenue from the pipeline (though Trudeau has also pledged that revenue from the pipeline would be used to fund green energy development, so there's competing priorities there. Hopefully they can find a balance that meets both objectives.)

But the idea of First Nations having control of the pipeline makes me a little uneasy.  One could anticipate them making arbitrary decisions about what can or can't be shipped, or perhaps using it as leverage in making demands of the government. "The pipeline is closed until these land claims are resolved."

This is an extremely vital piece of infrastructure for consumers in BC as well as for industry in Alberta and Saskatechewan.  Now that it's in the hands of the government, it should stay there.  It should be managed as a key piece of government infrastructure, because it is one. And some portion of the increased capacity should be used to reduce scarcity of refined fuel products here in BC. I think running the pipeline as a crown corporation, with native groups as major shareholders, is the best way to balance the needs of industry and consumers.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8313
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #222 on: July 07, 2019, 12:41:00 pm »
The existing court cases over whether Alberta can shut off the tap will have a bearing on what private owners could do. If the line is considered an essential service, government could force it to stay open and legislate what it has to carry.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba

Offline eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Courts quash Trans Mountain pipeline
« Reply #224 on: July 07, 2019, 10:48:34 pm »
Interestingly we are not the worst and flaring done by many light oil producers is actually more emission intensive than using NG to extract bitumen.
Interestingly, Tar Sands oil is still the most CO2 laden oil on the market.

This is like the squabble I'm embroiled in with a neighbour over a noisy rooster. She keeps talking about her stupid chickens.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 10:54:27 pm by eyeball »