the thousands of jobs

Perhaps Harper is referring to the sheer number of military patrols and flyovers that will be needed to keep the pipeline(s) from being "terrorized"............

Typo?

" to Kitimat, thence abroad to China and the U.S. by tankers up to 300 per day." Do you not mean "per year"?

thanks Lorne

We'll track down the correct figure.

These 'in your face'

These 'in your face' scenarios with Trans Canada's KXL and Enbridge's Northern Gateway, kinda brings to mind the 'don't shoot the messenger' response.

After all, TCP and Enbridge are just paid facilitators (albeit well paid) for the really bad guys, who thus far seem to be flying under the radar.

We keep hearing about 'Sinopec' as if they are the main villain, but their involvement is largely incidental compared to the real culprits here. (Sinopec is not spending any more in the tar pits than they are everywhere else in the world where oil is or may become available to them).

The 'guys' pulling the strings in the boardrooms of TCP and Enbridge, and the 'backrooms' in Ottawa, Calgary and Victoria, are the same guys you fork over your hard earned cash to on a regular basis.

The only reason they want to expedite the development of these pipelines is to get higher prices for their gunk offshore, than they do here in North America.

When these pipelines are operational, we will be giving them a lot more of our hard earned cash on a regular basis. Much more than any 'benefit' we may derive from letting them get to the coasts.

Everyone who has lived through a rape by the oil companies, should know by now that large increases in our fuel costs create great hardship on the majority of us and high inflation quickly follows.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Politicians take their 'appointments' and their platinum plated pensions and finger us in their rear view mirrors.

The old CEO's go to pasture in the backrooms of the next generation of provincial premiers to prep them for the next rapacious onslaught, while the same old, same old oil companies continue to hide under the skirts of the messengers who we would really like to shoot, but we really should be aiming much lower.

If we sold our oil to China,

If we sold our oil to China, does that mean that we could ask payment in Yuans, Euros or some other currency besides American Dollars? Naw, the great American Empire wouldn't allow that to happen.

Yep

Yet another good article Rafe.

I haven't heard much from the provincial NDP on the subject of the pipeline, lets get going guys.

As for Elizabeth May she should come up with something better than that tepid letter or she will preside over the end of her party.

Her seat is one of the few in which a green can get elected and, I don't know if she's noticed, but just about everyone in her Gulf Island riding is opposed to the tankers

RickW

you neglected to mention the thousands of jobs that spin from Harper’s plan to build more prisons. This will result in an increase in flow of more than blue-collar dollars. There’ll be a need for more judges, lawyers, prison guards, support services etc., etc. The increase in capital expenditures to the military will be minimal.

The critical deterrent to pipeline construction, as Rafe claims, is “public will”. History tells us that the cross-country hearings presently taking place are little more than lip service: Proponents believe the project will proceed regardless. We’ve seen this on a smaller scale in the fish farm/wild salmon battle where governments put trade and commerce ahead of the environment, and suppress the science that tells us fish farms are dangerous and a threat to wild salmon survival.

If that turns out to be the case in the pipeline battle, and governments continue to ignore the science … leaks and environmental calamity are a certainty … it will be interesting to see how much public will, and what kind of opposition will find expression.

First Nations, and everyone else opposed to the pipeline, will have to do more than claim they are committed. Does this mean moving beyond civil disobedience?

correct Van Isle

In year 2000 Saddam Hussein made a decision to trade oil in Euros instead of the usual OPEC agreement to trade in US dollars….. early in that year if I recall correctly…perhaps February 2000….

He made a 2 billion profit in 14 days. Now of course the US could not let the OPEC nations catch on to this idea so he was invaded on the claim of WMD’s…this is why all the oil wells were set ablaze….

If all the OPEC nations switched to trading their oil in Euros, America would have to buy up all the paper money produced since they went off the gold standard to buy the Arab oil in the first place.

Since 71 or whenever that happened America has printed money to pay for Arab oil; it is like a cheque that never comes back to the bank for cashing because the Arab guy spends the American dollars living in Arabia….so that paper never returns to the bank…..but if oil was traded in Euros….

If that ever happened Americans would realize they have more debt per capita than the Philippines.

Two lower -profit suggestions.

1. In the short-term, pipeline and oil companies should be encouraged to build a pipeline to eastern Canada . This would increase energy self-sufficiency and could actually REDUCE tanker traffic.
2. One problem with Keystone XL is that the raw bitumen would be processed in 30 year old plants that are that much more polluting. Maybe the postponement of Keystone can be used to promote processing in cleaner refineries in ALberta?

Of course these are lower profit scenarios. But they are much more environmentally sound.

What's in a name

It seems that supporters of the sludge mining and the pipelines refer to them as "oil sands", and opponents refer to them as the "tar sands"
(I remember that as a kid I heard them called the Alberta Tar Pits.)

The latest version of a name comes from the powerful right-wing propaganda merchant, heard on 14 radio stations every week-day across the Country as well as on Fox News Canada - Charles Adler. He just calls them "The Sands", as if he would like to stick his feet in there and wiggle his toes.

Pipeline Travesty

Thank you so much Rafe!

I was accused recently of being a granola eater.
What is wrong with granola anyway?

Tell me why we can't build more refineries in Canada, refine the bitumen and send it east so we can stop or greatly reduce oil importation.

Is it because Foreign oil doesn't want to invest in Canada and Canada, despite its great subsidies to the oil patch, won't either?

You are also right about the violence that will ensue if and when Mr Harper decides to go ahead with the pipeline (Enbridge Gateway) regardless of the current review panel's decision.

One troubling point is that the review panel is moving eastward where (in Alberta) it will get positive reviews for the pipeline and this may stick in their minds more when they make their recommendation.

I have also heard that China at the present time does not have refineries, like Texas, which can refine our raw bitumen. Does this mean the tankers will first go south to Texas and then to China (through the Panama Canal twice)?

Greg (Lake Cowichan)

P.S. And it is not just people of the First
Nations that will be at the blockades.
Ordinary BCers and Canadians will also
man the barricades. I will be one!

Oppose Gateway

I oppose the very idea of tanker traffic in Douglas Channel and its environs. As a retired person I have lots of time so spend a couple hours a day posting comments on stories on this subject on various news organizations' websites.

I try to keep my comments factual and quietly rational. No name-calling or personal attacks, they just defeat the purpose of my comments, which is to present a rational objection to Gateway.

If anyone else has the time and inclination, I would suggest they can help win this battle by doing what I'm doing.

Keep up the good work, Rafe. If I gave my complete name you might remember me as a reporter in Kamloops when you were an MLA and Cabinet Minister.

If that gunk goes to China,

If that gunk goes to China, the payment will be in Canadian dollars we send them to buy the country up from under our feet.

With our own money!!!!! Brilliant!!!!!!

Only "conservatives" and economists could have come up with such great wealth creating policy. "The real estate market is booming in Vancouver, because of Chinese investments"

The Exxon Valdez hit the rocks, and the oil has never been cleaned up since then, because the captain was drunk.

The huge cruise ship hit the rocks off Italy, because the captain was showing off to a young girl, based on the age old fact that a standing cock has no conscience.

The Titanic hit the iceberg because the captain wanted to break the records and the ship didn't have enough lifeboats because the owners demanded "efficiency" .

The list is endless.

Of course, no such could happen with the tankers in the fjord off Kitimat, because Harper was assured by the Lord that He wouldn't permit it.

Just as the nazis won the war for Christianity under the "Leader with the cross on his chest".

Ed Deak.

Lose-lose

The assumption in Mair's piece is that these corrupt Harper fools will endeavour to destroy the environment for no gain, pecuniary or otherwise. One way or another. Need proof? Compare your gas prices to California. And 90% of the US imports come from Canada. Want more? We spent $65B on jets that can't fly and submarines that can't float or submerge. You want stupid? Spell Conservative.
But there is another way. Plenty, in fact. Why not put a refinery up in Northern Alberta where the sour gas is? In that way, we at least get to buy Chevrolets for selling out our landscape and heritage.
Really, it is time for a BIG change. Anyone reading the Tyee should never, ever vote for the mainstream parties. Ever! As Einstein said (kinda), "Solution cannot be achieved from the same mindset that caused the problem." Time for wholesale change.

Pipelines

Thank you Rafe for yet another thought-provoking article.

Opponents have many reasons, a lot of them valid, to disagree with this project. Yet the stark reality is that this project may well proceed. Given that strong possiblilty, would it not be best to formulate constructive criticisms as well? That action in itself would certainly not preclude concomitant opposition.

Project proponents are not dumb people: they have thought out strategies well in advance. Perhaps one of their principle strategies is to divert opposition efforts into well-defined niches (e.g.: pipeline leaks, tanker accidents) while withholding mitigating arguments until future hearings. Methinks opponents best arm themselves with defensible logistics (e.g.: "double hull" pipelines, instant anti-leak "shut-off" systems, extending the pipeline to Prince Rupert instead of allowing supertankers in narrow dangerous inlets) just in case the project proceeds. Such tactics need not be publicized in advance, similar to those possibly employed by pipeline proponents.

In conclusion, many strong arguments have already been made in oppostion to the project. Also, many alternative suggestions have been proposed (e.g.: build a pipeline to eastern Canada instead, thus lessening world-wide tanker traffic).Yet, the project may well proceed: do not simply be diverted towards well-defined opposition niches; as well, come up with defensible logistics to mitigate damages in case the project proceeds

Not gonna happen.....

and stop calling me a "foreign, radical idealogist" Harper! I'm not even an environmentalist.

we will

learn all about the iron fist in the velvet glove...and that glove is already more hole-y than righteous...Harpy isn't going to allow a bunch of peasants and peons to get in the way of his big dream, he'll do whatever he thinks he has to do to impose his brand of christ0-fascist dominance on the rest of us.

We should not only refuse the proposed new pipelines, we should be demanding better safeguards on the existing set-up which sees Kinder-Morgan laughing all the way to the bank.

Salmon are already under severe threat from fish feedlot enterprises; they, and we, don't need the coastline blackened.

Ed Deak you are, as usual, spot on!

CoastalHermit

"We spent $65B on jets that can't fly "

You can come out now. Which jets are you referring to? If it's the F35, that contract has not yet been signed.

Conservative action needed

We need to refine the oil from tar sands in Alberta and keep jobs and taxes in Canada.

Then we can pipe a less toxic product to East Canada to reduce are imports before exporting to the Saudi’s refineries in Texas or to China.

We need to shift oil subsidises to proper environmental and social monitoring so that we know are true costs.

If we are not able save a good percentage of the royalties for the future leave it in the ground. It will only become more valuable!

90% of the US imports come from Canada?

Canada exports slightly more oil to the US than the two million bbl/d Canada uses.

Export oil comes from a combination of Tar sands production of approx 1.3 million bbl/d (with 3 million bbl/d forecast by 2020) and conventional oil production of approx 1.35 Mbbl/d.

Canada uses about 2 million bbl/d and the US consumption is about 20 million bbl/d.

No matter how hard you try to juggle numbers, Canada only provides about 20% of US imports.

Unless the US goes on a serious hydrocarbon energy diet, production numbers are not going to increase to the point where Canada can accommodate total US consumption. Tar sands production is not resource limited, output is restricted by production capabilities: adequate water supplies and cheap energy are the limiting factors.

Tube the pipeline all three

Ok, so let's get this straight Rafe - they can get in tons of pipeline joints, trenchers, pipe laying machines, crews, welders, diggers, camps, but can't get in a crew to attack a spill? Utter nonsense. BC has the "last remaining rainforest in the world"???? Take a trip! Tanker spills in BC waters are a "certainty" - how many in the last 100 years in BC since they started pre WWI - ZERO. They are a risk, but not a certainty. Claiming that they cannot do anything with spilled oil - especially the easier to hadle "molasses" compared to thinner conventional crude - it pure BS. Rafe, this sort of hyperbole and nonsense does not enhance the debate.

pipelines and jobs

Pipelines: Smart Growth deals with and aging infrastructure in our cities/towns/villages by infill and thus paying to upgrade the infrastructure. The oil corporations argue that we already have hundreds of thousands of kilometres of pipelines and they are aging. If the corporations want to use this tar sands product the logical thing would be to use the existing infrastructure and upgrade it. There may be some short connectors, but we do NOT need new pipelines, new tanker routes! Up-grading the current pipeline foot-print would provide jobs.

Jobs: We are creating all these jobs, but, for whom? Our government informs us that baby-boomers are retiring and we are facing a labour shortage. I would also question the type of jobs that are being created. Kind of a rape and pillage the planet type job. The fossil fuels will last forever.

Am I the only Canadian who sees a complete disconnect?

a not-so-little detail

A little fact I learned yesterday at a panel discussion sponsored by Nathan Cullen...bitumen, when leaked into the ocean, will not float, where, perhaps it could be skimmed off. It will sink to the bottom of the ocean. Try to retrieve that!

follow the money

I've been trying to follow all the money that Harper says we should be following, only I can't find it. Perhaps someone could explain it to me.

"Harper will use the carrot and the stick.

For the former, he'll tell us about the billions of dollars we'll get and the thousands of jobs we'll get.
"

I'm trying to figure out how a new pipeline gets us billions of dollars. The tar sands are running full-out. There's no more oil to pump, right? Ergo, no additional dollars will be sent to government from the largesse of the tar companies.

The provincial royalty program is fixed - the provincial government only gets a certain amount per barrel, no matter how much the tar companies sell that barrel to China or the US for. Ergo, no additional dollars will be sent to government from the largesse of the tar companies. No significant windfall tax royalty such as Norway, Russia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Philippines, and many other countries have levied.

The federal royalty program is.... what federal royalty program? Natural resources are a provincial responsibility and only provinces can tax them. So unless there's a refined fuel that the feds can tax as a "manufactured product", I don't think the feds get any tax money from the tar companies. This may be the single biggest reason why refining takes place outside Canada, with the cost of labour to staff and operate refineries safely and cleanly in a 1st world country running a close second. Ergo, no additional dollars will be sent to federal government from the largesse of the tar companies.

On that note, the feds have sent billions of dollars of tax money in research credits to the tar companies to promote tar sands development - perhaps that will finally come to an end now? After all, the tar companies in Canada are earning 18.4% ROE (return on equity) which is far in excess of other resources companies - in fact, far in excess of all other companies except software development.

No, I've been following the numbers, and they don't add up for Canadians. They only add up for the tar companies, who pay dividends to shareholders world-wide on 35% of net earnings, and squirrel the rest away who knows where (I admit some is reinvested, but you can see by most annual reports that reinvestments are pretty insiginificant at 10-18% of net, while retained earnings and allowances for future taxes can be as much as 45% of net earnings.)

Yes, I'm tickled pink some US or European pensioner is getting a buck or two out of dividends from our tar sands, but I'd be a lot more tickled pink if we could get some tax dollars flowing our way first.

That's what doesn't add up for BC in this - barring a bit of HST/PST and fuel tax during the pipeline construction period, BC gets absolutely no tax dollars from this scheme. None. There's nothing at all in it for BC.

And Harper is dancing faster and faster to avoid answer the question "Why not?"

problem with economic impact studies and job estimates

Impact studies are only as good as the information put into them. As the old computer programming lingo went, GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out). Impact studies use multipliers to achieve whatever figure those who pay for them want.

In the case of the Keystone XL job estimates, the study used the term "person years" which confuses the issue as it usually doubles, triples or even quadruples the actual number of jobs depending on the time period one selects for the project.

TransCanada estimated 20,000 direct jobs from the 3500 Km pipeline proposal. However, their estimate was actually 20,000 job years. A 3 year project then would only have less than 7,000 actual jobs.

The 7,000 direct job figure estimate pans out with the US State Department estimate of 5,000-6,000 actual jobs. However, the Cornell University Global Labor Institute put the direct job estimate figure for the proposed Keystone XL at only 2,500-4,500.

Let's put all this bumpf in perspective.

In 2011 in the US there were 1.9 million new private sector jobs created.

If readers think the retail sector of the US economy added most of these jobs they would be incorrect. Most of the 2011 new job growth in the US came from Construction and Manufacturing. Retail jobs actually went down from the year previously as did government jobs.

Oil and Gas extraction are never large employment sectors in the US where only 20,000 of the 1.9 million new jobs came from this sector or 1%!

Despite the rhetoric of the Republican Presidential Candidates and the Republican law makers in Washington, the jobs associated with the Keystone XL line should garner the least of their attention.

But who cares as long as the Noise Machine, including their media backers, and their farm team the Canadian Reform-Conservatives keep their focus on vapours rather than reality.

realisticman

Once again you only tell a portion of the story. In fact, Canada signed an MOU agreement which will cost Canadian's a minimum of $550 million if Canada chooses to pull out of the agreement. The $550 million is Canada's (Harper's Reform-Conservative Coalition) contribution for the development of the F35.

By the time the plane is operational both China and Russia will have developed systems to detect the so called "stealth" fighter. In fact, China has already developed a mobile system of detection and response (anti-aircraft missles) which other countries have purchased including Iran.

The US and Nato will not have the same advantage they had with Ghadafi and his fixed radar installations if they choose to attack Iran.

Jobs

Rafe

Actually there will lots of jobs created in the creation of this pipeline. There will be security jobs, police jobs and prison jobs. Not to mention the jobs to the people who have to transport the people to the prisons. Then once the ruptures happen, there will be jobs for the clean up and jobs for people in PR for the oil pipeline and government companies to misinform people about the destruction. Common Rafe, we have to look at the big picture.

John Hunter

It is stated that less than 50% of an oil spill is ever recovered. Some 20% of a light crude evaporates but I doubt much of the thick bitumen would evaporate but the condensate used to thin it will and the condensate is made up of the worst byproducts, all carcinogens, from refining. However, the thick ooze will either cover the sea floor or wash up along beaches and persist for decades if not centuries.

A study was conducted by the US NOAA Fisheries Division in Alaska to determine how much oil after 25 years still remains from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound.

A total of 9000 holes were drilled and samples taken from areas that were heavily oiled from the spill.

"The results were not expected - beaches that looked clean, contained pools of oil below the surface. The pools were not under the entire beach, but rather in patches that seemed to be centered in the biologically rich lower intertidal zone."

The study also found that herring, sea otters and harlequin ducks had not recovered even after 23 years.

The findings of this study precipitated an investigation and both US federal and Alaskan state governments made a "reopener claim" against Exxon Mobil to pay for further cleaning and damage to wildlife.

R/M old man....(and the F-35)

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/16/with-fighter-jet-costs-the-skys-the-limit/

And now: Resource Wars in the Woods!

To pump or not to pump; that is the question. Whether it is nobler to... well you get the idea.

Basically, I don't like geologists or oilmen. I have known a few, and they were all zeros. As for letting tar sands oil be pumped through "my" province; I could, but I would rather not.

I have lived in Alberta for 15 years, Ontario for 5 years and BC for 18 years. If anyone wants to see what the tar sands are doing to Northern Alberta, fly up there and rent a chopper for an hour. Just make sure they have barf bags on board because it will sicken you.

Albertans have whored themselves and their province to produce the world's dirtiest oil; they should keep it.

RE: PWLG Comment

PWLG - no idea where you get your info from re condensate but it is 100% wrong. It is not the "worst byproducts...from refining". It's actually the reverse. Condensate is an unrefined virgin product, a byproduct (but very valuable) of natural gas processing. It is subject to processing only to separate it from other slightly lighter products of raw "wet" natural gas like pentanes, butanes, etc. It is less harmful than the gasoline in your car. Toxic, of course, as is table salt in overdose and your gasoline or diesel fuel. Google it and get the facts. Who fed you this info?

billions of dollars and thousands of jobs

Presenting a harmful practice as an economic good can make it appear worthy.

Willful Blindness (Margaret Heffernan)