I think it is time to seriously question the patriotism of the Conservative party. Northern Gateway ultimately plans to export 850,000 barrels/day of oil to Asia in order to get world price for Alberta oil. Yet that is almost exactly what Eastern Canada is importing daily, and already paying world price to do so.
Steven Harper has no concept of the greater good for Canada, just the short term benefit of Alberta. Petro Canada was a (Canadian) state owned company that the Conservatives couldn’t wait to get rid of. CNOOC (Chinese State owned oil company)has apparently been warmly received in Calgary as it takes over Nexen.
Enbridge once said that it would not try to force its way through BC, that if it could not persuade BC residents of the virtues of Northern Gateway,it would leave. Well, we are now aware that the majority of BC residents are against this project,yet Enbridge persists. I would think that the driving force behind them comes from Ottawa, and perhaps can even be traced back to China.

Heck, I’m a white guy and I’ll gladly stand hand in hand with the native bands on this one. Enbridge really needs to go away.

Enbridge, get out of B.C.!!!

And you thought people got excited over the HST.

Still no announcement on where Enbridge’s PG office is going to be, maybe they have second thoughts? I’d hate to be the guy/gal at the front desk when it does open.

A couple of days ago, David Anderson, who served as federal environment minister for five years, also called on Enbridge to withdraw its applications and to simply fade away from B.C.

I encourage Harper to use the steam roller hard ball approach and destroy his beloved majority status! It might be the only way we will ever get more democratic respectful government back again!

When this project was first debated, I was in support of it, but I was wrong.

My understanding of it has changed. I just can’t support it the way it is today.

Maybe if we weren’t shipping bitumen, maybe if it was refined in Prince George, maybe if it was a double hulled pipe.

Unfortunately, non of these maybes are going to happen and I’m not sure that I would support the project even if we got something out of it and the risks were better mitigated.

Like Mercenary, hand in hand!! with the native population. As fishermen out of Kitimat, we know the area; it would be a CRIME

Giving Harper a majority was a grave mistake. In a minority position he had to atleast take other political parties into consideration.
Christy has about put the last nail in her coffin with her approach of selling the enviroment for cash. Any political points she has gained with her hard ball approach will soon disappear once people realize she and her liberal cohorts are willing to accept potential enviromental disaster in return for cash.

Don’t be so quick to call it over. It is a long way to go from writing a few editorials and some anonymous posts on blog sites to getting off your oil-soaked computer and doing something about it.

Even the ‘universally hated’ HST only drew 100 people to a local rally recently. It’s easy to make all kinds of implied threats, but following through is another matter entirely.

I would agree that the pipeline project is likely going to be killed. However I do not believe shipping the bitument to China is finished.
Harper went to China a couple of months ago and basically assured them the product would be coming. I believe CN is waiting in the wings to move the bitumen to port for shipping. Yes, transporting it to the coast by rail will be slower, but Harper made the deal with China and he can’t afford toback out now. Think of the ramifications that would have for trade between the two countries.
I think that bitumen will be going to the Chinese, one way or the other.

Johnnybelt what implied threats are you referring to? That people oppose Gateway don’t turn them into ecoterrorists! You and Joe Oliver should stay off whatever sauce you are drinking!

One democrat- do the math. To replace Northern Gateway capacity, CN would have to run 14,000 tanker cars/day. That is one tanker car of oil every six seconds. Can’t and won’t happen.

The thing is, the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for the costs of the Joint Review Panel unless the project is approved, then the proponent picks up the tab. No doubt Stephen Harper will cry foul about how all these ‘radicals’ cost the taxpayers millions by shutting the project down. What a joker.

The CN plan was a twin railway herbster so don’t count them out yet.

“Even the ‘universally hated’ HST only drew 100 people to a local rally recently. It’s easy to make all kinds of implied threats, but following through is another matter entirely.”

There was a HST rally recently JB? Wasn’t the HST voted out by the people of B.C.? What was the recent rally for to vote it out again?

I haven’t seen any threats JB but I have seen promises that the pipeline will be strongly apposed even if they do force it down our throats. Does anybody remember Mac Blo logging blockaids? That was only for a few trees. I’m sure they will find a few Spotted Owls along the proposed pipeline route.

One democrat- “do the math. To replace Northern Gateway capacity, CN would have to run 14,000 tanker cars/day. That is one tanker car of oil every six seconds. Can’t and won’t happen.”

525,000 barrels a day.159 litres per barrel.Equals 83,475,000 litres per day.

Rail tank cars carry 130,597 litres.
That equals about 640 rail cars per day.

CN trains regularly leave Prince George westbound with 200 plus cars per train.

Unless my info is wrong and they plan on moving 11,499,107 barrels a day.

rafe@rafeonline.com

Company to start clearing pipeline route this summer
___________________________________________

The above headline was taken from Rafe Maire’s website this am. Makes one wonder how dead this project is. It might just be to test the waters to see what sort of oposition the project will have.
Cheers

coastb is correct.

Do the Math.

On a trainset to Valdez Alaska, we will need only 10,000 railcars to deliver 1 Million bpd at 4.5 turnaround time.

3-4 trainsets only per day @ 240 railcar trainsets. Our double track will take way more.

Safer, faster and 2 days closer to Asia.
To a port already setup to handle 2.2 M bpd.

CN Rail gave up on Prince Rupert once they learned that FN’s will never sanction an oil supertanker port constructed in PR or anywhere along our BC Coast.

Te Alaskans are willing to take the burden off our coast. They know a supertanker spill will occur.

There is an alterNATIVE. Stay Tuned.

and Ben.. you are right , the game is over.

herb: “Johnnybelt what implied threats are you referring to?”

From Ben’s article: “If Enbridge has had any doubts about the project it might want to transcribe the comments of BC Grand Chief Stewart Phillips who made it painfully obvious that if Enbridge attempts to go ahead it will be met with about everything the First Nations can throw at them.”

As for people proposing rail transport… don’t trains derail? Why do people think there’s no risk with train transport? The pipeline may or may not go through in its current form, but train transport will never happen.

There is a risk in most things we do everyday! If one was to count all the risks they’d face in a day, they wouldn’t get out of bed, but then again, there is a risk of bed sores. Rail tankers are double hulled and engineered with interior bulkheads that work as compartments, so that in a rare event of a puncture only a portion of the product is lost. Also oil trains are manned and monitored throughout it’s journey so the response time is much quicker if something should go wrong. A leaking Oil Pipe line might leak for hours before being detected by anyone and the leak could occur in a remote area making it difficult to respond quickly. So weigh the risks.

As someone who has loaded railcars for a living.. the math is interesting.. to load the average railcar through a 4 inch pipe takes about 70 minutes. That is a loading material close to the density of water.. now if you add in the viscosity of crude..
Even at 30 minutes a car you would need ab out 14 loading stations going non stop 24/7 and that is not including preload and post load prep time..and moving the cars.. doesnt sound to realistic..but when the pockets are so deep..maybe it is ??

Far from over, as long as there’s demand there will be a supply!

econ says “as long as there’s demand there will be a supply”

Nope.

Read Jeff Rubin’s “The End of Growth” to understand why. A must-read for anyone seriously interested in the Enbridge or other pipeline projects, and our economic future.

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Growth-Jeff-Rubin/dp/030736089X

Sorry, my math was off, but the end result is still the same. Rail will not replace Northern Gateway. Enbridge eventually wants to pump 825,000 barrels/day through Northern Gateway. 525,000/day is only part 1.

My info shows tanker cars can hold 113,526 litres, so 1190 railtankers per day. So two railtankers (one empty one full) every minute or so 24/7. Furthermore 150 tankers per train would be most likely, so 16 trains/day . Now add on loading and unloading inefficiencies. Seems highly unlikely. But maybe if they build the 1200km of track to Valdez, that might be an option.

I would like to see a proper, consistent, measure of a “barrel” used in the news. Oil price is based on a “barrel” of oil. That barrel is 33 gallons. Now whether that is US gallons or Imperial gallons is a question. Its probably US gallons. When they quote X number of barrels spilled I presume they use the 55 gallon US as a measure. But if it is spilled in Canada, do they use the 45 gallon Imperial as a measure? I guess litres is the best way to measure oil, unless the number of gallons is mentioned and whether it is US gallons or Imperial gallons.

This pipeline is raising two very important questions. One is whether a first nation or first nations have any legal right to veto such a development and second is whether a province or the people from a province can legally veto this development. The simple short answer is they do not have this legal right.

The financial implications of this project are as enormous to Canada as what the potential environmental risk is being “seen as” to BC and BC first nations. Being that economic numbers are easier to represent than that of unknown risks of spills that it becomes a question of something quite certain as the financial benefits to Canada and Alberta versus something of speculations or fears or concerns or whatever BC asserts to the contrary. Quantifiable economic benefits versus unquantifiable environmental costs based only on speculations of risk frequency and magnitude.

The socio-economic factors involved with this project will be weighed as it effects/applies to Canada rather than what it means to just BC or any first nation.

This is the federal process which is supposed to arrive at the decision of which is for the greater good of Canada, whatever that is or represented to be by those who are the proponents or those who are in governments which are supposed to oversee all this.

All politics aside and all individuals and interest groups aside there is a process which all projects such as this pipeline are subjected to be reviewed on their technical merits or deficiencies in regards to environmental risk or mitigation measures which Canada then approves or rejects. It is supposed to be essentially that cost-benefit and risk assessment process which provides the approval or rejection with the list of reasons for the rejection.
Like the Keystone rejection, it can be just a matter of rerouting the line as the mitigation measures being resubmitted for another review and approval.

Even though I disagree with the exporting of as much as possible this oil and as quick as possible, there is still the reality of those who hold the rights to develop this resource, their rights to sell their product to who and where they choose. Canada does not have a restriction in place that prevents its oil resources from being exported nor does Alberta.

Alberta, with their provincial rights to have the rapid developments they want and to sell the rights to develop the oilsands cannot proceed if the oil was not allowed to be exported. The question now is whether Canada can actually prevent those who already bought those rights to be allowed to export it.

BC offshore oil and gas development has been under a moratorium to prevent such a scenario as what is taking place in Alberta’s oilsands being sold without due consideration for the risks associated with where to sell the oil from it, which involves the pipelines to the BC coast and so on. Nevertheless the mistakes have been made and in my estimation if the review process determines that this pipeline is acceptable environmentally and is deemed a positive economic development to Canada then no one can reject or overturn this approval legally. It would be no different than a town council quashing your investment in your house by them determining your house not permitted to be sold because of the potential risk of a new and thought possible to be a bad owner and the possible backlash of the neighbourhood.

A little food for thought when one digs their heels in and basing their positions on statements such as “the environment is not for sale” or “it is too risky to the environment”. Remember the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that was to be built in the 70s and develop Canada’s natural gas from the delta and offshore? Remember at that time it was the natives (before the term “first nations” was used) who adamantly opposed that being built? Remember that Trudeau and friends and Berger discovered the political capitulation was easier than proceeding to the environmental review and working through the facts of what that would mean to everyone involved. THEN in the 90s it became a complete reversal as first nations (and because they too have politics) that it became a more important thing to advocate for development of this pipeline than it did to prevent it on the basis of the environmental concerns. Obviously things have changed as new realities emerged as now it is desperately wanted to happen by the same first nations who originally opposed it, but now it is no longer needed or economically viable to build this pipeline. That lesson could be said that by prematurely digging your heels in that everyone might end up falling on their backsides.

just a thought here, but whatif alberta decided to stop shipping oil from the oilsands through the kinder morgan pipe line to burnaby?
wonder what they would do in lotusland?

Good post, foresight.

You make some valid points forsigth. I for one, wrong, right or indefferent think this pipline will probably be built.

Premier Redford did point out that kf Alberta was to share the resourses from thr pipeline with BC it would mean a change in Canada’s constitution as to the sharing agreement in place.

The fact that Harper loves this project and even at the cost of a seat or two in Parliament he couldnt care less. He dosent much believe in democracy.
Cheers

Everyone has seen that oilspills can cost over $40 billion to clean up. Just look at BP and the Gulf of Mexico. Yet Northern Gateway has proposed a mere $1.2 billion of insurance. This is absurd. We don’t allow drivers on the road without adequate insurance, why would we allow Enbridge to proceed? It is plain that they are trying to limit their liability, that is why Northern Gateway is a limited partnership, with no assets to go after. But even if you could sue Enbridge, the NAV of the entire company is a mere $10 billion. They cannot handle a catastrophic oil spill. They want the profit without assuming the risk. That is not a business case, that is corporate welfare.

Comparing the environmental risks of natural gas pipelines with the environmental risks of oil/bitumen pipelines and declaring/suggesting that if one accepts the risks of the natural gas pipeline therefore one should accept those of an oil/bitumen pipeline borders on snake oil salesmanship.

Natural gas, being lighter than air will rise up, away from lakes and rivers and ocean waters. The other stuff will drop onto the ground, into the water and pollute the hell out of everything it comes in contact with, killing wildlife and ruining the environment often for decades.

Bitumen/oil and natural gas = same thing?

No wonder JohnnyBelt is applauding wildly!

Bitumen/oil and natural gas = same thing?
Who is saying that?

herbster the gulf oil spill and a pipeline break are two different entities entirely. The Gulf spill was a wellhead issue in deep water and the money spent was mainly in stopping the flow not clean up. The oil was mostly taken care of by the microbes in the water that feed on the natural oil seeps in the Gulf.

woodchipper: “Bitumen/oil and natural gas = same thing?
Who is saying that?”

Nobody. As usual, PrinceGeorge’s posts are making little sense.

Who is saying that?

Can’t argue with the facts. One is a gas, the other is a liquid. Often they can’t keep either one or the other INSIDE a pipeline for any length of time.

Worse yet, they can’t give any guarantee when and for how long it will happen.

Hey Foresight…and johnnybelt too,

FNs will take this to court, solely based on the infringement of their rights and title…this NEB JRP process has lack of consultation written all over it, regarding FNs, the federal government and Enbridge can not and should not have relied on this process for consultation or how to approach FNs for a really lousy business arrangement. It is possible that if the right approach was taken, the project may have had a different look to it, possibly…too little, too late for that now…

Do I understand this correctly? The Chinese own the Tarsands oil, they will own a large part of the pipelines, and they will bring in State-owned construction companies, complete with Chinese equipment and materials, as well as Chinese (low-paid) workers. BC will get one billion dollars over 25 years. If my math is correct, that works out to 40 million dollars per year, approximately the amount of a lottery winning! And they wonder why we don’t want to risk 30,000 environment-dependent jobs in fisheries and tourism. All this risk to sell off a finite resource which we should be using judiciously while we transition to renewable energy sources!
I, for one, will stand with anyone opposing the Enbridge proposal.

gm you do not get this correctly. The chinese don’t own the oilsands or the pipeline. They will not be doing the construction with low paid labour. BC will get much more than 1 billion dollars. Not sure what your sources are. Likely many of the biased anti oilsand entities that make shit up and is eaten up by like minded uninformed fear mongers.

Seamutt, BP spent $8 billion up until the wellhead was sealed. The $32 billion spent since then has gone to clean up,lawsuits and fines.

dow, the chinese will have over 20% of the oilsands once Nexen is taken over. They have an effective veto over the refining of Suncors production.

CERI, which released its report Tuesday, is funded by the federal Department of Natural Resources, the Alberta Department of Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an industry lobby group…Gateway, on the other hand, will add $73-billion to Alberta’s coffers, $4-billion in Ontario, and $1-billion in B.C.

Read it and weep
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/proposed-pipelines-all-risk-little-reward-for-bc/article4451041/

That pipe’s gonna get built no matter what you chumps want cause the feds need that revenue to stay afloat in this odd ball economy.

Steven Harper doesn’t have the cojones to take on Adrian. Gateway is toast.

Adrian is all cojones, so the fight would be a wonderful spectacle!

Albertans are as passionate about their need for pipelines as those here opposing it. Alberta should put a fence around its border and separate, it would be tough on everyone until economies change, especially BC, but there is no consideration from anyone about the best interests of the other side.

“Think of the ramifications that would have for trade between the two countries” .. ya we may have less chinese students taking up all our classroom space and not have as much of that cheap chinese junk overflowing on every store shelf in town…what a terrible loss of trade. We sell our resources at firesale prices to our govt overlords and they in return sell us back crap that doesnt hardly last removing it from its packaging. China buys our stuff ONLY if they get it at rediculously cheap prices and when they have enough of a stockpile they close thiere doors. Not a very good trading party to bend over for in my opinion.

I agree, alberta should separate, then see them try to get thier oil to market. Maybe then they will have to pay a fair price to use another provinces resources that has to assume all the risk.

PVal wrote: “As someone who has loaded railcars for a living.. the math is interesting.. to load the average railcar through a 4 inch pipe takes about 70 minutes”

If liquid is shipped by rail tankers on an ongoing basis, the laoding facility as well as the tankers are designed for the rate required. There are systems which use up to 12 inch pipes and use gang facilities in which numerous tankers are loaded simultaneously.

http://www.aridtech.com/Railcar_Loading_Systems_General_Brochure.pdf

Why rail is moving more crude these days.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/why-rail-is-moving-more-crude-these-days/article4200236

“In the United States, for example, oil production in the Montana and South Dakota Bakken play has increased so quickly that pipelines simply can’t be built fast enough to keep up. The result: Of 425,000 barrels of daily Bakken production, roughly a quarter is now moving on tracks”

Should Alberta separate they would still get oil to the marketplace, everything would be on the negotiating table, no constitutional hold ups for royalties etc. But BC would have to play as well, how much does BC rely on rail across the country, or the Trans Canada? Simply taking northern routes over Alberta or bypassing through the States would be a HUGE problem. The BC economy would grind to an instant halt as would the remainder of Canada without rail transport to BC ports. The wild card would be the US, how important is Alberta oil to their long term energy security interests.

Yes silverback it is practically a guarantee that FNs will take this to court and I do not blame them for doing so.

Whether they can win a decision that acts as a right to veto or anything else from the court process is another story.

Ironically, it may likely be that even though most of BC and most first nations oppose this pipeline that perhaps the lines drawn in the sands by the first nations will become the game changer for redefining what consultation actually means as well as fleshing out the truth of its more recent cousin; the concept of accommodating first nations also being required.

What I would expect from the government of Canada is that the term “consultation” will be brought back to mean just what that word means; “a process by which the public’s input on matters affecting them is sought” which is a completely different meaning than what the courts have had liberty to decide without the direction of parliament and without the responsibility to pay for these immeasurable “accommodations”.

Regardless of whether someone or a group or first nations rejects the building of this pipeline the reality is that there is more too this as the federal government is responsible and accountable to many more things than just making some/most or even all people in BC happy.

It is easy for a court to rule that consultation also requires accommodating the wishes or demands of a First Nation but the reality is that this country cannot afford the money or delays or the undermining of its ability to govern this country. It isn’t popular to say this but we are in midstream as a nation, a nation made up with many parts and we (which includes everyone) do not have the ability to accommodate everything wanted or to the degree expected.

Those who believe in the impossible dream of being accommodated as per their demands (which have formed from the many years of deception or gutless governments not willing to tell the truth) will be disappointed as it becomes more and more evident that our collective boat (with everyone in it) will sink because of the double barrel drain of our collective wealth from both the stalemate of economic development while our debt will skyrocket from the costs of attempting to accommodating these demands. Nobody is going to be happy with this painful process of realizing that the basis for their expectations are actually a long list of empty political appeasements and as each of these contests of jurisdiction occurs that we all come closer to forcing the truth be made known to all.

Hey gus: Thx for pointing out that PVal is constrained by BAU and not thinking “bigger” and smarter.
and the link to the rail loading pdf file.
Herbster is also wrong about rail being less safe than high pressure ticking time Bomb 2400 psi pipelines that are 20 years or older….
I prefer to call a our pipeline on Wheels a segmented 9 foot diameter always visible, with guaranteed hard shut-off valves every 85 feet or so, a zero pressure above ground pipeline travelling at an average of 28 mph. to cover the Ft Mac to Delta Junction-TAPS injection point in 2 days. (Or about 3-4 times faster & efficient than oil jammed down a pipeline)

Cheetos wrote:
Rail tankers are double hulled and engineered with interior bulkheads that work as compartments, so that in a rare event of a puncture only a portion of the product is lost. Also oil trains are manned and monitored throughout it’s journey so the response time is much quicker if something should go wrong. A leaking Oil Pipe line might leak for hours before being detected by anyone and the leak could occur in a remote area making it difficult to respond quickly. So weigh the risks.

Exactly right.

As one pundit from Edm Sun said, with respect to the pipeline control room staff, during the 17 hour period that they continued to push more oil out the broken pipe…

It’s as if CN or CP Rail sent 2 more fully loaded trains down the track after a derailment…to see if that would “fix things” because the locomotive engineer on the first train derailment failed to report the “problem”…

Thanks Ben, great article!

Foresight I don’t agree with your take on this. It is not about making some/most or all people in BC happy, nor would I consider it a contest of jurisdictions.

Our Federal government has a responsibility to protect all Citizens from harm, regardless of where they live in Canada. With Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline there is well documented potential of social and environmental harm that will surely result when a spill happens. This coupled with their very poor record of assuming responsibility for spills and very little insurance or assurance for environmental clean up makes this project a catastrophe waiting to happen and in no way would I deem it to be an economic project of national interest.

I am writing as a Canadian- No economic development should be advanced at the detriment of social or environmental well being. How can the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline be classified as being in the Nation’s best interests when it comes with the knowledge of potential environmental catastrophe, and consequential social harm? Enbridge does not operate on a triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental well-being. That alone should be enough to cancel the pipeline project.

I have joined our First Nations, and all people across Canada, who not only dream, but act to collectively stop the development of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Let’s be perfectly honest here folks. What started off as a relatively “localized” voice of opposition to this project, has blossomed into a much larger effort. Opponents are no longer “NIMBY’s”. They now span cultures, economic classes and even political stripes. It’s actually eerily similar to the way that opposition to the HST in BC evolved, except this has the potential to become much greater because the issue is not confined to BC. Make no mistake about it, this has the potential to grow into something that carries national and even international weight. Given the way that information flows these days, that could also happen in an extremely quick manner. Complicating matters is the fact that this is not necessarily just about a pipeline. It’s about environmental protection on a massive scale, it’s about the rights of First Nations groups (which have already affirmed by our court system), its about the manner in which we utilize our resources and its about the trading relationships with are forming with international partners. This has the potential to be a lightning rod for a myriad of issues that all intersect at this one point.

In my opinion, this is the real problem for the Feds. If there are efforts to ram this through, things could get out of control really quickly on all fronts. For a government that has shown an uncanny ability to control things, this would be an almost impossible problem to try and contain.

Ramming it through would almost certainly result in significant political fallout for them. It could also create serious optics issues for the government from an international perspective. It could damage Provincial relations in an irreparable manner and we also cannot discount the fact that various forms of social unrest could certainly occur. We’ve seen situations turn very ugly in Canada before when things get “forced” and I think the potential is most certainly there in this case as well, perhaps on a larger scale than we’ve ever seen.

At this point in time, I think the oil spill scenario may actually be one of the lesser concerns facing the Feds. This has turned into an issue much bigger than a pipeline moving oil and that is why I think the chances of it going ahead are fading. All of those other issues make the proposition far too difficult to risk manage with any degree of certainty. Time will tell, but I can’t any favourable resolution to this situation which includes a pipeline spanning the width of BC in that area of the Province.

in response to “resource post”
There is an old saying that says “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and as those who are non native choose to “join the first nations to stop the pipeline” you need to ask why a non native Canadian would need to join a native Canadian in this stopping of a pipeline? Would a/some/all non native Canadians stand against the pipeline if first nations supported it being built? If a Canadian seen that a first nation opposed what that Canadian wanted to occur would that non native Canadian just stand in protest with the first nation people anyways? These questions point to the fact that even though there are likely a far larger number of non natives in BC who oppose this pipeline than there are of all natives in this province that it is seen or regarded as the native people who have the say or the rights to veto this whereas non natives are just Canadians that don’t. That is a debate that just gets uglier the farther you go with it.

Aside from the convenience with aligning with first nations when it suits your purposes is the question of how can a country operate in this manner and make thousands of socio- economic-environmental decisions? and then have these decisions simply vetoed by first nations?

The Enbridge debate is nothing new, it is just a much bigger deal than is typically caught up in the gears of our complicated and usually polarised predicaments of economy versus environment. It is my opinion that should first nations say no to this pipeline under any circumstances that this is the deal that is big enough to force the decisions (in parliament or in the courts or both) to be made that will redefine the rights of native people as the same as any other Canadian’s rights are with the exceptions to the basic treaty measures such as hunting and fishing privileges and the like. Think about the realities of the federal government having to or being seen to give the rights of this country’s major decisions to a first nation that could be no more than a few hundred individuals whereas no such power or authority is handed to an entire province with millions of individuals. Take that a step further and say 30 million individuals that have a debt of about 600 billion have no say to their economy whereas as little as a few hundred can veto something because they say that there is a “risk”. I would suggest that what is at risk should first nations dig their heels in to trying to veto this is that it will likely be the contest that sees their existing rights diminished. Right or wrong that will be ugly.

It is also my opinion that what is said by NMG is absolutely correct in that this is the deal that is big enough to shake every part of our country’s structure and with that will come some very big consequences. It is a deal big enough with consequences so drastic that people should think very carefully of how they support or oppose this pipeline.

Canada and Alberta have obligations in law to the the oil companies who have paid for their rights and they have the legal rights to the legal processes which this country has put in place and we are all therefore legally obligated to complete the socio-economic-environmental review process. Right or wrong the decisions have been made and that ugly ship has sailed with all its legal rights with it.

Political survival will dictate that whatever comes of that process of which is known to have such opposed forces to it will undoubtedly provide for additional measures and opportunities to meet the middle of all this, from both sides. It doesn’t matter that I do not want to see this pipeline or we don’t or the first nations don’t and there are situations where a compromise is the only way through a very difficult situation that is beyond our control.

What isn’t out of our control is what we want from this pipeline and that includes not just monetary benefits but the highest possible environmental protection measures possible. If that includes each and every oil company posting a multi-billion dollar bond to clean up and compensate BC for a spill then that is what we need to demand. If Enbridge is a company that isn’t capable of looking after this pipeline then we can demand that a better operator be put in their place and the oil companies will oblige if that is their only option.

Interesting comments, but the cut the length.

Foresight what I read into your comments is that you are threatening the Natives with their rights, provinces with provincial sovereignty, and the very fabric of Canada’s constitutional democracy. Its the argument a gangster would make when demanding protection money.

You sir need to go back to your history books and read up on the evolution of the Canadian constitution. Start with Belfours declaration on his interpretation of colonial rights (provincial) and how that influenced the formation of the Westminster Act of 1932… formulated almost specifically for a future Gateway Pipeline scenario and upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1981. It was designed to limit the powers of the federal government to alter or change the Canadian constitution without the full and complete consent of all its partner provinces… an affirmation of legal confederation in regards to constitutional changes and a recognition of provincial sovereign rights to crown assets.

The idea was that the Canadian provinces were diverse with responsible government legal title of their own, and that the federal government dominated by one or more provinces should never have the right to unilaterally impose its constitutional changes on the provinces to suit the needs of the majority. For the federal government to ram through the Gateway project against the likes of an opposing BC ndp government we would surely have huge constitutional issues that would arise.

Had Christy Clark allowed herself to fall into the Alberta ‘national energy plan’ then it is possible Harper could claim to have the provincial consent to proceed with a federal mandate to force BC… as luck would have it greed spared us this debacle. IMO the fact other provinces were willing to go along with Alberta is telling to BC as to our place in Canada and the lack of respect other provinces have for our collective rights.

Without universal consent of the provinces Harper has no constitutional grounds to force anything on BC. Should he try he would be ripping up the fabric of our constitution, and be rouge on our democracy… the gloves would be off… it could very well lead to the end of Canada as it relates to BC.

Foresights whole argument implies that the constitution is irrelevant, and that Eastern Canadian majority rules in a proxy class war between foreign oil companies and concerned Canadians.

Foresight what I read into your comments is that you are threatening the Natives with their rights, provinces with provincial sovereignty, and the very fabric of Canada’s constitutional democracy. Its the argument a gangster would make when demanding protection money.

You sir need to go back to your history books and read up on the evolution of the Canadian constitution. Start with Belfours declaration on his interpretation of colonial rights (provincial) and how that influenced the formation of the Westminster Act of 1932… formulated almost specifically for a future Gateway Pipeline scenario and upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1981. It was designed to limit the powers of the federal government to alter or change the Canadian constitution without the full and complete consent of all its partner provinces… an affirmation of legal confederation in regards to constitutional changes and a recognition of provincial sovereign rights to crown assets.

The idea was that the Canadian provinces were diverse with responsible government legal title of their own, and that the federal government dominated by one or more provinces should never have the right to unilaterally impose its constitutional changes on the provinces to suit the needs of the majority. For the federal government to ram through the Gateway project against the likes of an opposing BC ndp government we would surely have huge constitutional issues that would arise.

Had Christy Clark allowed herself to fall into the Alberta ‘national energy plan’ then it is possible Harper could claim to have the provincial consent to proceed with a federal mandate to force BC… as luck would have it greed spared us this debacle. IMO the fact other provinces were willing to go along with Alberta is telling to BC as to our place in Canada and the lack of respect other provinces have for our collective rights.

Without universal consent of the provinces Harper has no constitutional grounds to force anything on BC. Should he try he would be ripping up the fabric of our constitution, and be rouge on our democracy… the gloves would be off… it could very well lead to the end of Canada as it relates to BC.

Foresights whole argument implies that the constitution is irrelevant, and that Eastern Canadian majority rules in a proxy class war between foreign oil companies and concerned Canadians.

Damn computer crashed when I posted….

I’ll continue on though and rewrite it, save it, and repost again….

Facts are that not one proponent on this message board knows a damn bit about who the real corporate shareholders of Gateway Pipelines really are.

We know Petro China paid the $100 million to Enbridge to act as their advocate and agent in getting the pipeline approved. We can surmise that Enbridge will also get a minority stake in Gateway Pipelines if it ever did go ahead.

But the fact remains that not Johnny Belt, nor Foresight, or Steelie Pete, or even Dow7500 have the slightest clue who the corporate shareholders for Gateway are. How can they assess a project without knowing who will own it, and who will operate it, and to whom the corporate capital will accrue… they can’t because they don’t have the facts, are arguing blind when putting their faith in the unknown, and simply put are pissing in the wind with partisan ideology, public intimidation, and hypothetical innuendo as to the integrity of the project.

Gateway should go no where when they are a hidden entity of unknown foreign ownership pushing an agenda that threatens Canada’s very constitutional fabric as collateral damage. At minimum that is what ever patriot of this country should demand, otherwise the hidden Gateway hoodlums can pack up and go elsewhere.

Furthermore… if it is not apparent yet, it will be soon to most all Canadians.

The Steven Harper government is one built on a form of modern day political ponzi schemes, where language and propaganda are used to twist the truth for select 1%’er special interests… the more power they get and the further along the mandate they go, the further the gap builds between how it is they portray themselves to voters, and that of which they actually represent. Like all ponzi schemes they will eventually implode from an upside down pyramid of their own lies, misrepresentations, and outright obviation of information to voters.

That pipe’s gonna get built no matter what you chumps want cause the feds need that revenue to stay afloat in this odd ball economy.

You are allowed to think that way steeliepete … but there is no need to get snarky or upity about it.

In fact, you have said nothing on this topic at this time that would even show that you have any understanding of the several issues at play here or even take the time to express them.

Why bother posting? You invest nothing. You are just putting your bet on the table. And even that is hollow since there is no real money behind it.

foresight wrote: “you need to ask why a non native Canadian would need to join a native Canadian in this stopping of a pipeline?”

Maybe some people need to ask that, I certainly do not. This is not a time to ask such a fundamental question. This is a time to align with others who think the same way and have unique strengths in order to make a difference.

Everyone has different collateral in a legal battle. The aboriginals have theirs; the Albertans have different collateral; Canadians who side with the Conservatives have theirs; BC has theirs; and finally the assembly of all Canadians, no matter from what group they come, have theirs. Sometimes all those groups are on the same page. They do not have to form any great alliances, they simply act in unison in the same fashion as if a foreign power is entering our territory.

So, keep the focus on the real objective at this time, realize the multiple flanks on which the battle has to be fought, and work with those groups who are in the best position to fight on each one of those flanks.

The fight as I see it is against a province that thinks they can support foreign investors, who give them royalties to enhance their provincial economy beyond all riches of any other Canadian province, by demanding that they can compromise the sovereignty of another province without reasonable compensation. That battle has already been fought by Quebec with respect to Labrador’s hydro electricity being transmitted to markets outside of Labrador. I see no essential difference here, except that the environmental concerns are several orders of magnitude greater.

The message from BC is now clear.
1.We need a national energy policy
2.The pipeline cannot be build across our territory unless it is shown that the safety of our waters and land is not compromised.
3.That should item 2 be found to be workable, that there be a significant sharing of the economic advantage provided to the companies and to Albertans as a result of using this route to the world markets.

I think the message from the First Nations is in keeping with at least 2 and 3.

I am surprised that I would have to explain this to Eagleone, but it is not I who threatens anything concerning the rights of first nations or anything else.
What I was trying to say and this in response to what gus also misses is the fact that by non natives using the first nations or being seen as using them as the vehicle to stop this pipeline is actually a likely bad thing for the first nations. The first nations become the center of the fight (rather than one part of the fight) of which the pressure which is applied will force a result to their detriment overall. That is just my observation and it speaks to even our premier who played a similar card in her list of 5 reasons. We have common goals but we need to fight as the separate groups we are rather than on the backs of only one group.

You are right eagle, I don’t know who owns Endbridge and I’m not sure it matters at this point. It is a complete distraction at this point to isolate that company as the villain when it will likely be operated no differently than any other pipeline company who are publicly owned, who answer to their profit demanding shareholders and who will fire the board and managers if they don’t produce these profits. On the other hand should spills occur and cost the pipeline company then that too would be cause to get rid of management, regardless of which company.

What is really the issue is that we as Canadians do not have confidence or trust in our governments motives or abilities to regulate and monitor all this for our national interests. If our governments do not safeguard our interests as the regulators are supposed to then does it matter which pipeline company does this?

Regardless of which pipeline company is seen as good or bad it would make sense to me that the oil companies themselves who use this line are made accountable to the operation of it and anything that goes wrong with it as it is a chain of custody or their product within it.

“We have common goals but we need to fight as the separate groups we are rather than on the backs of only one group.”

It is called divide and conquer. In the negotiation field, something to be avoided unless you are on the other side and use it as a tool to dilute the strength of the other side.

Look into the notion of allies, partners, etc …… not the common meanigless words used these days, but honest partners and allies.

It is interesting to me that we have Sustainable Forest Management standards which are monitored through public bodies and standard setting organizations which audit the harvesting process so that the end users of the products can assure their customers that the magaziones and newspapers are printed on paper which comes from forests which are managed to community standards.

Where are the standard setting bodies for mineral extraction processes, including oil, which can report back to their customers?

I know, I know, China does not give a chit ….. but we should!!!

Herbster. For starters the chinese don’t own Nexen yet. Nexen, reguarless of who owns it has no veto what so ever on Suncor refining.
where do you get this crap?

Nexen is not 20% of oilsand production. Again, where do you get this?

Canada and North America need all the newly constructed pipelines industry can economically justify and build. Present day construction will be built to the latest engineering standards and regulations, will have the latest steel technology in the pipe itself, will have the best corrosion protection available on the outside of the pipe, will have the best technology for the cathodic protection corrosion mitigation system, and will have the latest input/output flow monitoring leak detection system available. New pipe lines will be the beginning of a 40 to 50 year life span, most of which will be trouble free.

I tend to think it is essential and the most basic information to know who the corporate shareholders of Gateway Pipeline Incorporated will be. They are the ones evading liability for the pipeline by incorporating the subsidiary (thus shifting liability to tax payers in BC)… so a list of their foreign ownership and how that pertains to environmental loyalty in their maintenance and operation of the pipeline is essential information to properly assess the hypothetical project principals.