Topic
CONTEST: Share your local faves, win $2,500 in prizes! What!?
Stepping out of energy talks looks bold, but she's chosen a bad path for BC and Canada.
Cartoon by Greg Perry.
We must fashion together our story of transition. Coolly, rationally and with good will. Here's what The Tyee and Tyee Solutions Society will be contributing.
Premier won't take position on Northern Gateway but calls NDP concerns 'goofy' and 'gobbledygook.'
The heated disagreement between B.C.'s Premier Christy Clark and Alberta's Premier Alison Redford over Northern Gateway is surprising. They seemed like such good friends not too long ago. Although Clark would not say publicly where she stood on Northern Gateway, she and Redford wanted to help oil producers rapidly extract and export Alberta's oil sands heavy crude to Asia.
With an election less than a year away, growing opposition to the project, a loss of popularity in the polls and clear support for the opposition NDP's position that if elected they will stop Northern Gateway, Clark remained tight-lipped about the project.
A self-proclaimed pro-pipeliner, Clark said she'd await the National Energy Board decision in late 2013 before informing British Columbians of her considered position. It didn't matter that the Harper government was clear this project was to go ahead -- and just to make sure it had the final say, forced through changes to the National Energy Board Act.
It didn't matter that B.C. had given up its sovereign right to undertake environmental review on the issue by signing an Equivalency Agreement in 2010 to accept the federal process. It didn't matter that B.C.'s public interest was unprotected. The thoughtful consideration charade was to be played out.
But then, reality struck. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board came out with its scathing report on Enbridge's complicity in turning the Kalamazoo River oil spill from what should have been a small leak to a catastrophic pollution event. The board found that Enbridge management behaved like Keystone Kops as they unsuccessfully identified and responded to the worst inland crude oil spill in U.S. history.
With clean-up taking more than two years and costs exceeding $800 million, the knowledge that this is the same company that wants to operate a 1,200 kilometre twin pipeline through the pristine Great Bear Region was too much for British Columbians to accept.
Finally Clark tabled a pipeline-for-a-price position paper. The technical paper tells us fiscal benefits from heavy oil pipelines must be in proportion to the risk incurred, but don't tell us what sharing would be appropriate. Relying on Enbridge's economic case to tell us there is $81 billion in government revenues over 30 years on the table, Clark laments that B.C.'s measly eight per cent is not enough. Assuming Enbridge's numbers make any sense, and doing the math, we've been informed $216 million a year is not enough.
Redford responded that sharing Alberta's royalties was a non-starter. And although Clark was talking about revenues and Redford about royalties, the fight was on.
Clark's false narrative
There is a false narrative being advanced. Demands to share government revenues which include income, sales, property, corporate and other taxes -- from crude oil pipelines in order to compensate for their inevitable environmental cost means the best we can hope for is a zero sum game. That doesn't make any sense -- it's like saying you can punch me in the face as long as you pay for the dental work.
Clark's setting herself up as the hard negotiator when there's nothing to negotiate. British Columbians don't want heavy crude oil piped through the province or shipped in oil tankers. It's not a question of whether the economic benefit outweighs the environmental cost -- that's a false dichotomy. There is no economic benefit for B.C., and the study Clark points to, under scrutiny, comes out looking like nothing more than false promises.
Exporting western Canadian crude to northeast Asia, the report contends, will not only allow oil producers to charge more on oil destined for export, but these higher prices will be applied to every barrel produced and sold in Canada, every year for 30 years. None of the negative impact of higher prices on the Canadian economy are included in the development of the benefits case.
The purpose of Northern Gateway is to ship unprocessed oil sands bitumen, diluted with toxic, imported, condensate in order to move it through a pipeline. Exporting bitumen instead of upgrading it in Canada means exporting value-added potential, real economic growth and job opportunities. None of these Canadian economic costs are addressed in the benefits case.
The report also tells us that when Northern Gateway is operational, crude oil supplied to Ontario and the U.S. Midwest will be siphoned off to Asian markets. Canada imports almost half its crude oil needs from volatile and uncertain foreign markets -- many of the same markets China is trying to protect itself from by sourcing our crude. Northern Gateway means increasing Canada's dependency on higher priced foreign imports.
Enbridge is able to predict with apparent certainty the price of crude oil every year for 30 years when we know the oil sector has difficulty predicting the price of oil for 30 days. The consultants invoke a 30 year crude oil supply forecast based on the "best case" growth forecast scenario developed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
The analysis also relies on the empirically false assumption that the Canadian dollar will fall to 85 cents U.S. by 2016 and remain fixed at that level for 30 years while forecasting oil prices will rise to $150 U.S. per barrel. This completely contradicts the factual correlation between oil prices and the value of our dollar during the past decade -- ours has become a petro-dollar. This erroneous exchange rate falsely inflates the benefits and exaggerates the capability of the oil industry to make good on the "best case" growth forecast used to predict supply.
And all this without any indication as to how sensitive the results are to changes in important variables such as price, supply and the exchange rate. No executive committee or board of directors would base their investment decision on such a biased outlook or distorted picture.
Walk out or sell out?
By Friday tensions climaxed when Clark walked out of the premiers' meeting in Halifax. She let it be known that until her position on Northern Gateway is addressed, she would not participate in any discussion of Canada's energy strategy.
But Northern Gateway is the poster boy for Canada's energy strategy. It's the lynchpin in an energy policy determined by multinational oil companies invested in the project's review process like Suncor, Total, Nexen, MEG Energy and Cenovus and National Oil Companies of foreign governments such as Sinopec, Chinese National Offshore Oil Company and PetroChina. Their mission? To build and own a pipeline and get unprocessed raw crude to Asia where it can be upgraded and refined into petroleum products to drive the Asian economy.
By exporting the value-added growth inherent in processing bitumen -- along with the jobs, environmental standards and energy security -- what's really at stake is Canada's right to design and implement a meaningful energy strategy that will support the long term economic and social goals of this country.
As long as the debate focuses on how much it will cost for B.C. to sell out to let Big Oil determine our economic and energy security destiny, the real issues behind the push for Northern Gateway and the federal government's complicity will not be addressed. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
59
Login or register to post comments
wvdk
46 weeks ago
not the money
I attended a recent Northern Gateway joint review panel hearing and was moved by the testimony of a woman I know. She spoke of growing up in post war Germany being taught to be ashamed of her country's actions, fulfilling her dream of immigrating to Northern BC and having great pride in her adopted country, only to now feel shame for Canada because of the arrogant, ignorant actions of our purported leaders. I feel the same way. All my life I never imagined it would come to this.
North of Hope
46 weeks ago
They tried to negotiate
Great Article. Now we are all beginning to realize how the teachers felt when they tried to negotiate a contract with her and her government.
NicS
46 weeks ago
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is a game changer
The first big enviro assessment by the Fed's new watered down and irrelevant version of the act. If we stop this pipeline we stop Christy Clark and the BC Liberals, we stop Steven Harper and Conservative Party, we stop the Tar Sands, Alison Redford and the Alberta Conservative party and we stop the Chinese unquenchable Chinese Gov't thirst for energy at our environment's expense.
Many groups have focused their resources on stopping this pipeline. The Wilderness Committee, the Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics and BC's Official Opposition, Adrian Dix's BCNDP.
Bailey
46 weeks ago
More likely
Here's a more probable best case. We stop the pipeline, that stops Harper and Clark. Northern Alberta gets to refine the foul goo near the same river they're mining it by, and the company ships diesel in a cheaper pipeline instead.
Then the huge cloud of toxic smog starts killing workers and sccoolchildren for a thousand miles around. Enbridge and three government departments deny that:
a. the smog is toxic
b. it comes from the refinery
c. it matters that people die if companies stand to profit
d. people have any right to talk about it.
pwlg
46 weeks ago
show me the money...part 1
Ms. Clark's behaviour at the Premier's meeting was as obnoxious as the scene from the movie Jerry McGuire. Imagine her in the hallway outside the Premier's meeting shouting at the top of her lungs, "Show Me The Money", when she should have been talking about what really is in the best interest of Canada and how the Enbridge proposal is clearly not.
She could have mentioned that the trade deficit with China continues to grow year after year, more than $30 billion annually, when our ability to produce and manufacture goods shrinks.
She could have talked about Canada's trade balance and how without the US as a close trading partner Canada's trade deficit would equal that of a poor developing country.
She could have talked about how exporting oil overseas for greater profit for the oil companies would impact Canada's economy adversely?
She could have asked why Canada imports 50% of our oil energy needs and why Canada doesn't supply it's own energy needs with its own oil.
Instead of letting Enbridge and the Harper Dominionists frame the discussion with stuff like, "it's a path to our future", she could have attempted to shift the discussion about a national energy strategy and ask the Premier's to begin a nation wide discourse with their residents in their own provinces into what Canadians want as an energy strategy. Perhaps Canadians have suggestions about how an energy strategy could benefit all Canadians rather than oil company shareholders.
pwlg
46 weeks ago
show me the money...part 2
It seems Christy Clark wasn't the only one wanting more money from Chinese investments in Canadian oil resources. (China's Sinopec is a major player in the Enbridge proposed Northern Gateway pipeline).
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today, July 30th, obtained a court order to seize the assets of individuals and companies in China-Hong Kong for allegedly illegal trading involving stockpiling shares in Calgary based Nexen prior to the announcement of China's CNooc (national oil and gas company) wanting to buy Nexen.
Bloomberg reports:
"Almost all of the purchases of Nexen stock occurred during the seven trading days before the acquisition was announced, and the accounts used for the transactions had little or no history of buying Nexen shares."
One of the people whose assets are being seized is a major shareholder of one company based in Hong Kong, Well Advantage. Well Advantage "engages in significant business activities with Cnooc."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-29/sec-freezes-trader-assets-in-probe-of-cnooc-s-nexen-purchase.html
One would hope Canada's Ontario Security Commission is on top of this to see if any others gained an advantage through insider trading on Nexen shares.
The BC government's investment arm, bcIMC, as of March 31, 2011 had $48 million invested in China's Cnooc and $120 million in Nexen.
Grumpy
46 weeks ago
Right on the money
As always pwlg is right on the money. The so called National Energy Plan is nothing more than a get rich quick scheme by the political elites at the expense of Canada and Canada's future.
The NEP is nothing more than a government sellout of Canada on a scale so vast it would make Quisling blush.
Jeffrey J.
46 weeks ago
Excellent Article
It is great to see Ms. Allan write about this terrible project. It reaffirms that more and more thoughtful people are finally questioning the status quo business model. A continuous growth economy has failed. It is based on a violation of the law of physics. And it is also destroying the environment, which logically follows from the process.
When Ms. Allan describes Clark's statements as a 'false narrative', it couldn't more true. More importantly, the entire 'conflict' is a charade. Premiers no longer determine provincial economic policy. Corporations do. Governments are now hand-maidens. Even sovereignty is a thing of the past. Sadly.
The 'spat' between Clark and Redford will then suddenly be 'resolved' with a 'new' energy policy. More or less exactly like the old energy policy. Which is drill, baby, drill. And pump. And spill. Lots of political theatre with little substance.
Great coverage.
Skywalker
46 weeks ago
Couldn't agree more.
Great article by Robyn Allan and good comments. I also agree that pwlg is dead on. We are all being treated like suckers. That it comes from such dimwits as Christy is even more insulting.
Talon
46 weeks ago
Count me in!
A very informative article by Ms. Allan (as always) and notable comments from pwlg (as always). Thanks Tyee for your realistic view of the world.
seth
46 weeks ago
Electricity not Oil - Canada's National Energy Strategy
A national energy strategy is about electricity not f'ing oil which is a small and shrinking part of Canada's overall energy production. If we are to combat warming the only growth can be in zero net GHG energy ie renewables with storage or nuclear. The energy in Canada's uranium exports alone is orders of magnitude higher than that in our fossil fuel exports.
The stupid pipeline debate is over with TransCanada Pipe proposing to switch its already almost and soon to be empty mainline gas pipe to oil since Ontario and points east are now running on nuclear and US shale gas.
Any debate on a National Energy Strategy would inevitably show nuclear power as Canada's energy future. We can transition off petrol using nuke based liquid synfuels like diesel at less than 30% the cost. A national nuclear strategy with the 150 new nukes needed to end Canada's production of the filthy fossil stink would coordinate nuke factory based module construction across the county cutting costs of existing nuke technology to less than 3 cents a kwh creating a massive export industry. So expensive is our dependancy on fossils that the rate of return to the nation on nuclear investment is over 40% per annum. Thousands of citizens who succumb and tens of thousands who are sickened by fossil air pollution annually would remain healthy,
With the US nuclear industry crippled by inefficient private power and insane regulation, highly efficient Canadian public power companies could rim the border with Canadian built reactors making $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates.
The $billions now being wasted on nutball carbon capture schemes would be directed to new nuke tech like the University of Ottawa's David LeBlanc's invention of the Denatured Molten Salt Reactor - DMSR. A variation of the DMSR called the LFTR or thorium reactor is often mentioned in the media
This machine based on the successful test Molten Salt Reactor which ran for 10 years at Oak Ridge runs at atmospheric pressure in an extremely simple rail car transportable factory built structure. LeBlanc's expert engineering analysis claims the machine would be a quarter the cost of building and running Candu's - less than a penny a kwh. If successful it would be would be be a another $trillion dollar boom and massive job producer for Canada.
While Christy's ploy is no doubt great politics for her back home, the fact is that her government has no clue about its own energy future, proposing wacky scams to generate power at 12 to 17 cents a kwh with GHG spewing environmentally destructive gas plant and a dam.
It is understood that because Big Oil owns Canada's politicians and media, the much needed debate on a National Energy Strategy, becomes a debate on oil. The idea that the media and politicians would do their job, instead of following the orders of their main benefactor is Canada's faint hope clause.
cyberclark
46 weeks ago
The Pipeline deal has long been signed!
The financial agreements are already in place! Christie made a flying trip to Edmonton to see Redford then, arrived back home with this big story.
Ron Liepert thanked Saskatchewan for joining BC and Alberta in the Pipeline at the same time said it would be a profit sharing project.
This is election theater all about Electing the Liberals in BC still again.
The details would have been worked out in the PENWR club all sealed ready to sign and announce to the public.
http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/2010/12/canada-is-under-seige- from-within.html
The final act will be Redford capitulating allowing BC some coin. (which they already have)
update:
The final act of this charade was when Redford, with this information allover the net, said the deal could go ahead without BC's approval. They have dug themselves in deep!
Sask Resident
46 weeks ago
Errors throughout the article
The author should have done more research before writing his opinion piece. The refinery in Burnaby pays more for Alberta oil than those in Sarnia, Edmonton and Cushing, OK. The Canadian refineries in Atlantic Canada and Montreal pay near to Brent prices, about $15/bbl more than WTI. Cushing, because of the land locked supply from Alberta and southern Sask, pays less for their crude than almost everyone in North America, even less than refinery row in Edmonton. As Gateway, Seaway, Keystone and Line 9 pipelines come into play, the excess, land locked oil will lessen and prices will rise for the American refineries in Cushing but fall for Montreal. As the Brent and WTI price differential drops, everyone but the US refineries in Cushing should see lower feedstock prices while Alberta and Sask should receive a few dollars more per barrel.
Perry
46 weeks ago
Who are the real environmental radicals?
A newly declassified intelligence report compiled by the Mounties with input from the Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Defence Department, Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada, and reviewed by many other agencies, states:
"The Canadian law enforcement and security intelligence community have noted a growing radicalized environmentalist faction within Canadian society that is opposed to Canada's energy sector policies"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/29/pol-radical-environmentalism-growing-intelligence-report-warns.html
The RCMP and CSIS do not serve to protect the citizenry, they are in service to the real radical environmental extremists, the corporate and political elites who are willingly destroying the environment for temporary financial gain.
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
and don't forget:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/rcmp-ease-canadians-idea-u-agents-canada-201905380.html
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
some additional reading:
http://policedeviance.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/the-incitement-of-crime-agents-provocateurs/
gsarahs
46 weeks ago
Indefensible on so many levels!
Too bad our political elite can't be bothered to look at the enlightened philosophy of the Norwegians, who are actually ensuring that their oil industry benefits Norwegians, not just the oil industry shareholders. The Northern Gateway pipeline and the selling of unrefined bitumin makes absolutely no sense on so many levels, and that has been my position since I first learned about it. Politics both on the provincial and the federal levels, has become a farce that makes you wonder who is running the show and for whom is it supposed to benefit? Not Canadians, that's for sure.
NickS
46 weeks ago
Good summing up!
"By exporting the value-added growth inherent in processing bitumen -- along with the jobs, environmental standards and energy security -- what's really at stake is Canada's right to design and implement a meaningful energy strategy that will support the long term economic and social goals of this country."
Our resources should be used for our benefit, and Ms Allen makes a good case for it. The fix is in and Clark is just grandstanding.
gsarahs
46 weeks ago
Indefensible on so many levels!
Too bad our political elite can't be bothered to look at the enlightened philosophy of the Norwegians, who are actually ensuring that their oil industry benefits Norwegians, not just the oil industry shareholders. The Northern Gateway pipeline and the selling of unrefined bitumin makes absolutely no sense on so many levels, and that has been my position since I first learned about it. Politics both on the provincial and the federal levels, has become a farce that makes you wonder who is running the show and for whom is it supposed to benefit? Not Canadians, that's for sure.
wvdk
46 weeks ago
error throughout your post
Sask resident, your post is all about the money. Despite what Clark says, (she's as good as gone anyway) it's not about the money for BC residents. It's a moral issue. One of the defining moral issues of our time. If Canadians East of the Rockies try to force this through there will be massive civil unrest, a large tear in the nation's fabric. As per Perry's post, the RCMP will have an impossible job on their hands trying to continuously monitor and police the entire BC portion of the line, should it ever be built.
gsarahs
46 weeks ago
Indefensible on so many levels!
Too bad our political elite can't be bothered to look at the enlightened philosophy of the Norwegians, who are actually ensuring that their oil industry benefits Norwegians, not just the oil industry shareholders. The Northern Gateway pipeline and the selling of unrefined bitumin makes absolutely no sense on so many levels, and that has been my position since I first learned about it. Politics both on the provincial and the federal levels, has become a farce that makes you wonder who is running the show and for whom is it supposed to benefit? Not Canadians, that's for sure.
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
quite impossible,
that's why the foreign troops.
John How
46 weeks ago
the Clark/Harper Axis
Meanwhile: a reality check (cheque?). The Harper Senate [Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources division] just concluded a three year investigation of the energy sector. {BC's rep was Dick Neufeld--former Campbell Energy Czar}
The Report "NOW OR NEVER...Canada must
Act Urgently to Seize its Place in the NEW ENERGY WORLD ORDER" starts with a Vision.
Have you noticed how the Harper regime relies heavily on Visions and other modes of Perceived Truth, rather than on plain old Scientific knowledge?
And the Vision is "Canada will be the most energy productive nation in the world with the highest level of environmental performance". So much for Sober Second Thoughts.
Could somebody please cut Chrissie a cheque for her commission...thirty pieces of silver?
gsarahs
46 weeks ago
Sorry about that but it didn't show up!
My mistake!
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
gsarahs:
look at "all" in comments please.
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
heh!
happened to me too :)
John How
46 weeks ago
the Clark/Harper Axis
Meanwhile: a reality check (cheque?). The Harper Senate [Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources division] just concluded a three year investigation of the energy sector. {BC's rep was Dick Neufeld--former Campbell Energy Czar}
The Report "NOW OR NEVER...Canada must
Act Urgently to Seize its Place in the NEW ENERGY WORLD ORDER" starts with a Vision.
Have you noticed how the Harper regime relies heavily on Visions and other modes of Perceived Truth, rather than on plain old Scientific knowledge?
And the Vision is "Canada will be the most energy productive nation in the world with the highest level of environmental performance". So much for Sober Second Thoughts.
Could somebody please cut Chrissie a cheque for her commission...thirty pieces of silver?
Sally Bowles
46 weeks ago
Excellent Analysis, Robyn.
One minor point: Alberta's tar sands supplies keep being touted as the key to the National Energy supply, yet nothing is made of the reserves in the province of Quebec, which are substantial enough to produce for all of North America's needs for many years, assuming that we continue on the current trajectory of economic and population growth, which I don't see as being feasible. This is a key source of resentment in the province of Alberta towards equalization payments.
I particularly liked the way that you looked at the elephant in the room, which is capitalism. A taxation on company sales revenues is not the same as a royalty payment, by any means, but a National Energy Program which skirts the fact that we're selling off our nonrenewable resources and then buying the refined product back at a substantial increase in price is a lose/lose for all our citizens, including the ones living in Alberta, especially those who intend to keep living there. It's the shareholders and upper management of these corporations which win, and they have no obligation to our nation.
Setting that aside, this entire strategy is predicated on the premise that we can afford to continue using fossil fuels, and that makes it a house of cards. It isn't that the supplies are limited. It's that they are too hot for our planet to handle. It cannot continue, and it won't continue indefinitely. We're playing a dangerous game of chicken with nature.
I won't go in the same direction as George Monbiot and start advocating for nuclear power, but we need real energy solutions, pretty much now.
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
I'll gladly give Chrissy her
thirty pieces of silver. So long as she follows through with the oak tree.
Jim Rosgen
46 weeks ago
Christy Clark's Walkout
In my opinion this entire affair is a carefully orchestrated play by Harper et al. It has been his consistent approach since entering politics to misdirect attention from that which is important to that which makes front page headlines.
As we are aware, Ms. Clark's current advisors are direct from the PMO. What is happening here, I believe in conjunction with the Alberta and federal governments, is a blatant attempt to move the rhetoric away from "if the pipeline should be built" to "who gets how much".
WE must ensure this discussion does not get moved to what Harper obviously would like to see, and stays on the risks rather than the rewards.
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
it's not a discussion Jim
Harper is fighting a war. Start thinking it's a discussion with give and take and both sides listening and you will completely miss him sneaking up behind you with a dagger in his hand. Harper is about scorched earth, no prisoners...
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
NickS
46 weeks ago
This isn't a province to province issue anyway.
It is really between the company doing the pipeline and the BC Provincial Gov't, so Christie going after Alberta is a gigantic diversion. Legally, once the oil is out of the ground, Alberta looses jurisdiction.
Clark has given Enbridge a tap on the wrist and gone after Alberta. What does that mean?
Fritz
46 weeks ago
Revenue & Royalty Empty Talk
As Ms Allan pointed out before and continues to do so, these "projections" are all over the map and point out at the very best it is just guesswork and it is foolish to destroy our sovereignty for guaranteed spills on pie in the sky benefits.
Today
"...Clark tabled a pipeline-for-a-price position paper. The technical paper tells us...
"The analysis...relies on the empirically false assumption that the Canadian DOLLAR WILL FALL to 85 cents U.S. by 2016 and remain fixed at that level for 30 years while forecasting oil prices will rise to $150 U.S. per barrel..."
http://www.robynallan.com/
April 2012
"Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) predicts that by 2030 the value of the Canadian dollar will be $1.23 US and by 2044 it will take two US dollars to buy one Canadian dollar—yes, a 50 cent US dollar. This is because CERI anticipates a significant rise in oil prices over the period, reaching $200 per barrel US, in real dollars, by 2044. When the price of oil goes UP, SO DOES the value of OUR petro-DOLLAR."
Today
"Redford responded that sharing Alberta's royalties was a non-starter."
'non-starter?' EXACTLY...what "royalties"?
13 Apr 2011
"The royalty rate collected on oil sands projects before "payout" is currently one per cent,.."
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/04/13/HarpersBigQuestion/
April 5/12
'"Albertans have never received more than 20 per cent of the rent in the tar sands, and since 1997 have averaged only nine per cent," says the Parkland report.'
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/05/Low-Oil-Sands-Royalties/
Today
"...although Clark was talking about revenues..."
March 19, 2012
"...the Alberta government will FORGO some $55 billion in potential REVENUE over the next three years as a result of overly generous royalty cuts..."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/parklandinstitute/2012/03/alberta-government-set-forego-55-billion-royalties-over-nex
It is noteworthy and unsettling it is the Christy Clark types who run for public office and not the Robyn Allan types partly because the Clark types obtain the election funding from the corporations and the corporate MSM coverage.
Fritz
46 weeks ago
Addendum: Source
Re: April 2012 ...(CERI) predicts that by 2020 http://www.robynallan.com/2012/03/
Perry
46 weeks ago
wvdk said: "As per Perry's
wvdk said: "As per Perry's post, the RCMP will have an impossible job on their hands trying to continuously monitor and police the entire BC portion of the line, should it ever be built."
Maybe that is why Harper is providing huge increases for the budgets of police and prosecutors even though the crime rate has been steadily falling for decades. Those increases are ostensibly for drug war activities, but as any critical thinker knows, the drug war, that is the prohibition of certain drugs but not others, is a massive fraud perpetrated against citizens by corrupt governments, a fraud initiated by corporate interests.
Despite incontrovertible scientific evidence over several decades that current drug policies and laws cause society more harm in several ways than those prohibited drugs themselves, and despite all the evidence that the approach Harper is taking is completely counter-productive if the goal is to eliminate the use of certain drugs, Harper is enacting laws and policies that will continue and increase the unconstitutional criminalization of citizens who cause no harm to themselves, to others or to society.
If the crime rate is falling, why do we need more police? Demagogic politicians like Harper need criminals to instill fear in citizens and so do the police, so with true crime falling it only makes sense that they need to keep criminalizing innocent citizens with unjust drug laws, and now by demonizing environmentalists as radicals and extremists.
The propagandists are trying to frighten non-thinking citizens by creating the fear of criminal activity where none exists. The true criminals and traitors are in public office.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/25/drug-money/
Sally Bowles
46 weeks ago
Former Environment Minister John Anderson on CBC this afternoon.
Anderson went straight after Enbridge and their toxic corporate culture and toxic record of oil spills. I mean, really! The worst on-land disaster in US history? Followed up by the spill on the Red Deer River? And now, south of the border in Kalamazoo? All within the last few months. These idiots shouldn't be allowed to build a tinker toy farmhouse, let alone a bitumen pipeline!
If they must build a pipeline, at least award the project to a company with a decent record. Of course, that would mean it would cost more to monitor, which means giving more people jobs, which means training them and paying them salaries, which would cut into all those billions reaped. God forbid anyone should be able to get a job in this country.
oldcrank
46 weeks ago
BC issues please.
Too many commentators are simply repeating their hate of the BC Liberals and not addressing the issues.
pwlg for example has a long list of complaints - all irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My basic argument with his list - yes, there are many reasons for opposing the pipeline. The fact that Clark did not use them all does not mean the arguments she did use are invalid, or that her argument is invalid.
If you select from the list of arguments those that most directly affect BC, you would not include any of those in pwlg's list. Yes, eastern Canada imports oil at the global price. Not a BC specific issue.
I welcome the active participation of the provincial government in the debate. The original position - that it could wait until the environmental review was done - made no sense. Why wait until you cannot change the outcome to start intervening?
The provincial government should take Robyn Allen's arguments into account. It should critically analyze the Enbridge report and state its reservations about the economics and safety concerns it has.
Bashing the provincial government now that it has stepped up and admitted it has a responsibility in this is not productive. In fact, it smacks of the US GOP political agenda - do anything you can to unseat the other party, even if it hurts economically and politically.
A constructive opposition will have much less trouble convincing non-partisan voters.
oldcrank
46 weeks ago
Robyn Allen should update her arguments
Robyn Allen appears to be recycling her attack on the enbridge report rather than taking a fresh look at the issue from a BC perspective.
Yes, the Enbridge report in support of the pipeline is full of holes. Yes, Allen has shown that before.
Now what we need is a way forward.
What should the province do to help citizens understand the costs and benefits (assuming there are any) of this plan?
In what areas is existing analysis least complete?
Have we done all the geological studies we need? Is the route prone to slides, quakes, ...? Is there another route?
Have we done all the engineering studies we need? How corrosive is liquefied bitumen? What is the expected half-life of various grades of pipe when carrying it? What is the expected half-life of the pumps along the route? How do we ensure that safety protocols promised are actually in place for the life time of the pipe? How do we test that the systems used actually work as predicted?
Allen says there is no upside, no economic spin offs possible. In this she must be wrong. She cannot predict the outcome of these negotiations.
If those negotiations produce no economic benefits, then the deal is off.
Pipelines can be safe, even if Enbridge appears to be single handedly destroying the pipeline safety record. A safe pipeline could be built. It would cost a lot more to build, it would cost a lot more to run, it would cost a lot more to replace equipment before failure. In the past, Enbridge appeared unwilling to spend the money to prevent pipeline failures. That track record must be taken into account.
However, that does not mean a pipeline is not possible. The questions for the review:
How to make it possible?
How to ensure the continuing high level of concern for safety?
How to reduce the possibility of failure to the extent possible?
Can we put measures in place that make it much harder for Enbridge to screw up again?
If the answer is no, then the pipeline cannot be allowed to proceed.
Of course, that leaves other bigger questions to be answered.
Would we (Canada, the world) be better to leave the tar in the sands?
Would Canada, assuming the tar is to be mined, be better off to use it within Canada first, exporting only the surplus?
What level of bitumen mining is in Canada's economic interest?
While admitting there are many additional issues, there are BC specific issues. Clark is right to address those first.
oldcrank
46 weeks ago
Corporate culture at Enbridge
Sally Bowles starts to get to the point.
Exxon made a lot of promises before it started to ship crude out of Alaska. By the time the Exxon Valdez hit that reef Exxon had welched on all their promises.
Either they did not do what they said they would do - iceberg radar, staffing levels - or did not repair essential navigational equipment - on board radar.
Promises are cheap.
Along comes a CEO who makes his bonus by cutting costs and all the safety gear is gone.
This is a critical issue in the Northern Gateway.
How do we make sure promised safety equipment is installed? How do we ensure it is maintained? How do we ensure required maintenance is actually done?
We cannot trust the company on this.
We must have iron clad government oversight that cannot be reduced while bitumen flows.
There must be independent oversight of the operation with auditors not corrupted by corporate power.
If that is not possible then no deal can be signed.
NickS
46 weeks ago
Oversight on the pipeline does not address tanker spills
It hardly matters how many jobs are created by getting a better than Enbridge company building the pipeline. The deal breaker is the certain ruination of portions of the coastline.
It is also really funny that they should try to project the C$ vs US$ thirty years from now, when nobody expects the US$ to survive the next two years.
anne cameron
46 weeks ago
after
all these years the Exxon Valdez clean-up has cost MORE than the Enbridge b.s. is supposed to bring to B.C. And the mess isn't cleaned up yet.
Crispy Clark is pimping our coastline, trying to pretend it isn't whoring to take money in exchange for our environment.
It's hard to believe anyone in her position can be so dim witted. Even harder to believe there are people who are even MORE dim witted than she is...the ones who voted for her and her band of merry scalawags.
Process the crap in Alberta, save the cost of the pipeline, the tankers, and the inevitable plurality of clean-ups...
and for cryin' in the night, lets get rid of that pack of dimbulbs in Victoria!!
Skywalker
46 weeks ago
I think most people understand the issues.
It seems to me that the article above is about Christy Clark's handling of the pipeline issue. It details her actions and explains why they were/are wrong and motivated by political self-interest and why the debate should not be about what the price we are willing to take for the environment.
Most people have been giving the pros and cons a lot of thought over the past year so I am really puzzled by old crank now suggesting that we start at the very beginning and do it all over again. Most of us have been through all that and that is why we were aware of Christy's phoney fight with the Feds and Alberta even before Robyn Allan wrote the above article.
paisley
46 weeks ago
Anne
Changing dim bulb politicians is not going to change much because the real problem is the corrupt bureaucracy in Victoria. I have little faith that the NDP can fix it because they seem oblivious to it these days and besides the last time they tried to remove these boils from the body politic the media was all over them about patronage appointments and they scurried back into their corner.
JayDee
46 weeks ago
THE PIPELINE
Thank you all so very much for your polarizng viewpoints. I am not nearly as well informed as many of you seem to be but I do have an opinion. The pieline should not be allowed. Oil tankers should not be allowed in our coastal waters. Great!! Now what do we do ?
Conductor274
46 weeks ago
Dickering over the price
There's an old story about a man who asks a women if she'll sleep with him for $100,00 and needing the money she says yes. He then asks her if she'll sleep with him for $100 and she relies "What kind of women do you think I am?" To which he relies "We've already established that. Now we're just dickering over the price."
That applies to Christy Clark, Alison Redford and Stephen Harper. Political prostitutes all of them.
Kulshan
46 weeks ago
It's about efficent energy not crony errands for elites in OIL
I agree w/ Seth
Electricity not Oil - Canada's National Energy Strategy.
It's really about Canadian energy elites in the oil patch. Canadian mainstream media just does not report on any investigations.
Where is the BC Securities Commission?
Are they really protecting the province's finances alloted to resource extraction since there's no national securities regulator.
So is anyone minding the 'Energy Store'?
Even a U.S. NY senator get to weigh-in on the CNOOC/NEXEN deal. http://bit.ly/ODu1Ad
Really, who's in control here Clark,Redford, D-NY senator, Oil industry-who?
Certainly not Canadians since mainstream media feeds only mindless pablum to the faceless hoards of Canada.
morechatter
46 weeks ago
Valu added growth for who?
Bitumen is bad for the environment.
Bitumen is being transported to China by tanker.
Tanker traffic will increase as billions of barrels of bitumen does environmential damage to BC waters.
Pipelines are coming through.
What else could have stimulated a purchase of 65 billion barrels of bitumen by China's largest oil company? Unless it is more grandstanding by Alberta but there is no doubt that billions of barrels of bitumen will be transported across BC waters, like it or not.
anne cameron
46 weeks ago
humbling
I was reading an article from The Guardian about Mitt Romney's latest insulting gaffes in Israel and was enjoying the very Vancouver Island reaction of basking in the stupidity of American politicians...and just when I was feeling particularly Salmonbelly about it all I thought of Crispy and her transparent ploy and my bubble popped...guess "only in America" isn't true when it comes to politicians and blatant stupidity...
damn! Another good game shot to hell by reality...
The problem with voting is it doesn't seem to matter which party gets elected, the rotten system wins every time!
Hakuin
46 weeks ago
Voting matters
Thinking it didn't matter put der Harpenfuhrer in charge. Failing to vote could even bring back Drunko's shade. Vote while it still works. If they take that away from us THEN it is time to pick up the gun.
Jeffrey J.
46 weeks ago
Call to Action: Caravan to Depart August 4
For those interested in supporting First Nations, there is a direct opportunity to do so:
http://forestaction.wikidot.com/caravan
"Call to action: Indigenous people are asking for solidarity to stop the bulldozing of the pipeline route across Northern BC to Kitimat this fall. Pacific Trail Pipeline company has provincial approval to clear hundreds of kilometers of forests, streams, and wetlands for their gas pipeline and the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. Clans in the Wet'suwet'en First Nation say NO. They are calling for support at Unis'tot'en Camp in the path of the pipelines."
"We're answering the call by organizing a caravan starting August 4 from Vancouver & Victoria to the Morice River, Northern BC. We will participate in traditional protocols, learn new skills, and enjoy evenings around the campfire with like-minded folks. The caravan returns to the city August 12."
refedmel
46 weeks ago
seth 2 days ago Electricity not Oil
Nice to see that Seth`s logical thinking negates the BC neanderthal approach to the pipeline, "down with progress". Nuclear has always been the best choice of 'clean power', but the hysteria over nuclear, again best described as the no-mind neanderthals, once again relegates logic to silly arguments with no basis in science.
The 'No Can Do' bunch that are driving the agenda will see Canada lose its opportunity for preeminence in energy....without energy this country is already ripe for a big fall and the buzzards are circling....BC looks tasty and the ROC is not far behind.
One last comment, most of those anti oil 'radicals' are not, they are well financed by very wealthy corporations that in reality would love to get their hands on Canadian energy of all types.....the "useful idiots" in the green patch are just naive tools for the real powers.
Frank Lee
45 weeks ago
Nix Dix
Gee, I wonder if Robyn Allan is bucking for a job with the next BC government.
Canada needs a national energy policy , and Premier Redford deserves high marks for initiating discussion about one.
That includes getting energy to Asian markets. Let's do it!
crh
45 weeks ago
Harper no show
Leaderless in Canada, Harper will not enter the fray over the pipeline directly, preferring to play coy. A national energy strategy requires a national discussion, not something Harper is used to doing. It also does not include a pre-determined outcome, like Frank Lee would like. Do we even need Asian markets? Why?
Craig_Hubley
45 weeks ago
six missing points (first three)
This article fails utterly on at least six important issues that deserve a line each:
1. Downside risk even just measured in terms of insurance, policing and military support to attack the First Nations on their own unceded lands is huge. Perry says "RCMP and CSIS do not serve to protect the citizenry, they are in service to the real radical environmental extremists, the corporate and political elites who are willingly destroying the environment for temporary financial gain." Imagine racist and religous supremacist officers rising in rank as better people depart in disgust. Imagine policing, military and security service focused on surveillance, oppression, frameup and coverup (consider airport tasers, the framing of Weibo Ludwig). Police credibility & cooperation is at risk, raising many other costs.
2. An attack on First Nations on their own unceded lands - what we should all be calling this - is outside Clark's mandate to negotiate. She must instead repeat the Yinka Dene position and her own intent to respect their absolute veto on a dirty oil pipeline and tanker project. Maybe she hopes to save Pacific Trails, a less noxious gas pipeline project also to Kitimat, but it will not go through if Northern Gateway is not decisively crushed as they are on the same route - one would open the door for the other unless bitumen and bitumen derivatives were banned from inner waters.
So the person setting "conditions", albeit "minimum" ones, seems to say that for a price she will take on the job of oppressing and attacking First Nations and asserting some BC "sovereignty" as a conqueror by military force. Certainly it will cost something to replace all officers who resign.
3. Neither First Nations nor Quebec ever signed the 1981 "constitution". Yet UK, FR & other UN Security Council permanent veto holders signed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP). First Nations retain rights of appeal to the UK government, Law Lords or Her Majesty (as pre-1981 law applies) or The Hague's International Court of Justice or a WTO panel (as UN DRIP or other UN agreements apply). Dirty oil flowing into the Pacific affects US, China, Russia - the entire UN Security Council permanent membership has legitimate reason to speak or intervene. Especially as the 1981 "constitution" uses obsolete "resource" language, doesn't apply to First Nations, address global liability or global commons or risks. Sans Kyoto, there's no recourse to other standing treaties on a matter of carbon or climate. As some Canadian military units are formally headed by members of Her Majesty's family and a Scottish separation referendum is in 2014. Does "British" as in "British Columbia" mean "attacks natives on their own lands"? Won't the Scottish nationalists say that? Will Her Majesty let her family head units ordered in for a thousand Okas? Will Charles, whose uncle was assassinated by the IRA in the 1970s?
Craig_Hubley
45 weeks ago
six missing points (last three)
4. Canada could cease to exist if this project is imposed on the Yinka Dene. If some 1981 spreadsheet loglc can be imposed on them, such can also be imposed on Quebec. PQ/BQ gains final proof that Confederation remains a repressive racist colonial dirty-mining-&-coverup exercise.
Even Charest could order Quebec military units to stand down in BC and Alberta rather than risk a renewed confrontation with the Cree or Inuit in Quebec Hydro territory, or appear to sanction any imposition of the 1981 constitution by force. Quebec might decide to remain in the Commonwealth if Her Majesty intervened, or the royals did even just by resigning rogue units obeying illegal orders from a not-really-elected Harper Cabinet.
5. Published "benefits" of the proposal are beyond ridiculous. Oil presently trades at abuot four times the price per unit energy of natural gas. Given how easy it is to substitute most oil uses with natural gas - even gas-to-liquid to make finished diesel and kerosene - no such price differential can be sustained.
6. High-carbon oil exported to carbon uncontrolled countries by rich (G7) countries like Canada threatens world peace. Desmond Tutu and several other Nobel Peace Prize laureates say so. Gwynne Dyer lists conflicts aggravated by climate. If rich countries export coal or bitumen how does one control Chinese or Indian use of coal, Venezuelan exploitation of Orinoco's tar sands, or Russia digging up undisturbed Siberian coal beds? These countries are all much poorer than Canada and certainly than Alberta. It doesn't bother with clean methods (like microbial gas conversion, in situ electricity generation) or focusing on value-added products like plastics. Instead Tar Sands became "Oil Sands" (an industry, not a place) wasting natural gas and fresh water to fuel the big burn. Alberta silenced doctors investigating cancers and refused to monitor river water. Such behaviour will be emulated elsewhere to the degree "Canada" has influence.
Diplomatic collapse of carbon talks when dirty oil can reach a hundred Pacific rim countries exactly what the Harper "government" wants. That's a tipping point that shifts us from negotiations to preparing for war. Carbon victim countries that suffer worst from ocean acidification (loss of coral reefs), rising seas (go look at Greenland) or storms will make lists of legitimate military targets: persons, ports and pipelines actually causing the disruption of oceans and atmosphere. This includes the entire EU as the Gulf Stream would be seriously disrupted by a major Greenland melt, likely plunging that region into icy poverty as the heat stuck in the Caribbean boils Central America. Local ocean and water risks aside, this is where Northern Gateway leads.
Craig_Hubley
45 weeks ago
Are right-wing Canadians morally equivalent to Nazis?
wvdk writes of a woman "growing up in post war Germany being taught to be ashamed of her country's actions, fulfilling her dream of immigrating to Northern BC and having great pride in her adopted country, only to now feel shame for Canada because of the arrogant, ignorant actions of our purported leaders. I feel the same way. All my life I never imagined it would come to this." I feel similarly, but we have reason to feel worse than Germans, wvdk.
Pre-World-War-One Germany had progressive labour, social and industrial policies that led the world. Despite not having a lot of 'natural resources' relative to population, Germany got these by trade. In a world carved up by empires Germany ran its African possessions on a more egalitarian basis with often their best and most educated people, quite different from racist thugs the US, French and (sometimes) British sent to suppress natives. The Germans arguably were the least colonialist of the colonial empires, as they had very good lateral relations with Muslim Ottomans (who were arguably the worst colonialists so a point can be made for brutality by proxy). Germany actually armed black soldiers serving in their East Africa forces in World War I (which the French and British were both afraid to do, for good reasons).
From 1914 to 1948, due to bad leadership of a type we in Canada are now very familiar with (unable to listen even to slightly improve a policy or avoid a disaster, committed to racist militaristic ideals, controlled by a military-industrial complex) those same most-civilized Germans suffered war, Communist revolution, counter-revolutions and military coups, hyperinflation (rendering the middle class totally destitute and handing foreigners control of most of the country's assets), forced reparations and the loss of industrial lands.
There were thus many reasons people turned to Hitler, who had what Canadians call a "minority government" with never more than 50% tested voter support. His non-controversial public works building, exercise and outdoor programs and national self-assertion were popular, though of course always all had an undercurrent of xenophobia and hate (is Harper different in this regard with his "you people" or "here for US" ads?). Nazi monetary policies were pragmatic and some goals (gaining back land "lost" after WWI) were widely supported, some considered reasonable by a good many educated non-Germans. Nazis modified some policies, such as the extermination of mentally challenged children, due to public & church outcry. Does Harper and his Cabinet respond similarly, or sneer and manipulate and smear, when a policy (like warrantless surveillance) offends?
Craig_Hubley
45 weeks ago
Harper himself smears
Harper himself smears opponents as accomplices or moral equivalents of Hitler so let's really compare:
Adolf Hitler is arguably more pathetic than demonic. A brutal childhood, wounded badly in WWI, beaten nearly to death in a barracks after that, failed at an art career, caught syphilis (reportedly), no work prospects and then (urged by aristocrats eager to shift the blame for the lost war to anyone but themselves) he gets a gig as a loud puppet manipulating a desperate public to do the bidding of behind the scenes industry & military figures who thought him a good way to hold off the Communist hordes. Reviling him personally as a unique demon was a good Cold War tactic to keep his former allies onside, but it's bad history.
When the "Final Solution" was designed at Wannsee, Hitler wasn't even there. It was bureaucrats more like those of Harper or Enbridge or Romeey, shuffling papers to conclude they "had to" kill ten or more million people. Simple spreadsheet logic.
It takes many people ignoring their moral instincts to come to this. It takes a whole culture of evil.
After 1948 the pre-1914 Germany was in six parts (Austria, Czech Sudatenland, Danzig corrider, East Prussie becoming Kaliningrad, Alsace becoming Lorraine) plus two still called "Germany" later decisively split by the Berlin Wall in 1962. This had become a country too toxic to stay united.
How is Canada, a priveleged peaceful safe place of vast natural and human capital, which has never had any of these military or social disruptions or any great ideological divide between warring parties in the streets, to justify its actions and inactions? How could it avoid similar collapse?
No personal sad history of Mr. Harper and no such oppression of Western (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan) elites or fear for their own lives, could explain a Canadian Wannsee (or "national energy strategy" that does the same on a larger scale, gassing more victims with a less lethal gas to the same average result).
For those who think "culture of evil" overstated, I point to uninvestigated aboriginal missing women or natives dropped in killing temperatures in the snow by police or systematic hiding of cancer data in the Tar Sands, a "highway of death" in Alberta that kills the very people dirty oil grows wealthy from. Western Canada's elites live in a deep moral sewer with far less historical experience or pain to justify their racist, sociopathic, evil policies.
Midswan
45 weeks ago
Clark's Pipeline Stand
The bitumen that this pipeline is being built to transport, and the processes that are carried out, causing a pollution trail extending clear through to the Arctic Ocean via the McKenzie watershed, are in their own right obscene and should be stopped. Now, it seems that most Canadians have accepted that travesty, and are being railroaded into accepting another- a dangerous pipeline run by a company whose track record is abysmal. Are we going to ride the "oil horse" right into a reality from which we can not escape? When do we stop--when every square meter of the planet is polluted beyond recognition, the air unbreathable and the water undrinkable, and 1 in very 2 Canadians being afflicted with cancer, asthma, or something equally debilitating.
But Christy Clark reflected the bottom line of the majority of "heads-in-the-sand" Canadians (you know--the ones who say in the winter: "If this Global Warming thing is real, why is it so damn cold out") when she put the whole acceptability of the pipeline plan into a flawed dollars-and-cents reality with her comments concerning money from Alberta.
She would make a great Conservative; perhaps Ottawa is where she will go when she is voted out of B.C. politics in the next election.
Yes, many will opt for the money that is supposed to come from all these developments. Many Canadians, reeling under their consumer debt, find little choice but to sign on as slaves in the destruction of our environment, and welcome the spin-off income from whatever wealth reaches the working classes as a result, but, WHO will pay in the future for the desecration of our lands?
Perhaps we had better ask our children.
Like our National Debt, the costs of Environmental degradation and restoration are passed along to future generations. Like the logging industry that has exported many jobs through the shipping of unmilled logs and unplaned lumber, this pipeline is being setup to export the refining jobs to Asia.
Either way--refining here or there--the whole plan is a "no win", and there is not enough wealth generated to make the risks worthwhile, unless one is of the point of view that "the economy trumps all", the mandate to which our spendthrift government in Ottawa seems firmly committed.
An excellent article, Robyn!
Hakuin
45 weeks ago
"Are right-wing Canadians morally equivalent to Nazis?" No.
They are worse. They have no excuse since history books detailing what they support by voting for Harper are freely availble.