Interesting, however Harper has his mind made up the pipeline will move forward in the best interest of all canada.When will people wakeup the company has NO control when the Crap leaves the port not their problem so they can promise the world but it means little.Refine it in Canada stop sending out our raw product.

I do not want it to go through. What can I do to voice my opinion or stop this? I honestly don’t know.

My position exactly steph, “Refine it in Canada stop sending out our raw product.”

If it’s not economically viable to do that today, leave it in the ground for the next generation. Who says we have to consume all of the nations NONRENEWABLE resources right now?

I oppose tax increases by the city, but it still happens. I oppose the winter road conditions, but it stil happens. I oppose the disappearance of the HST in BC, but it is still going to happen. I oppose this pipeline, but it still is going to happen.

Mulcair has come out publicly and stated that oil should be pumped to eastern Canada rather than west to China. Why should Canadians in the Maritimes,Quebec, and Ontario be buying oil from OPEC at Brent oil prices ($108 yesterday), while Albertan oil sell close to WTI at $85 in the US.

There is an alternative to Harper and Northern Gateway. Vote NDP. Keep Canadian oil in Canada.Keep jobs in Canada.

I believe you’re right, He spoke. And it really wouldn’t matter whether Harper’s Conservatives are in power Federally or some other Party.

In that instance, the only ‘change’ might be the route the pipeline will follow. It would still be built, and the product will still be exported to its intended market.

And the reason? “We need the ‘money’.” And all the dough-heads that oppose it for ‘environmental reasons’ will never question THAT.

They’re just like the muddle headed ‘socialists’ ~ all for the government taking everyone else’s property “for the common good”, but when it comes to the government taking THEIR property ~ well, suddenly the tune changes and they’re further to the ‘right’ than Attila the Hen, that dear old protector of private property, Maggie Thatcher.

And so it will be with this. As soon as it’s made clear to them WHY we (supposedly) “need the money” and what might (supposedly) happen to us if we fail to get it, what constitutes the ‘environment’ suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.

Best we face reality.

So what… people are against development. They probably would also be against most the the infrastucture we rely on today.

I disagree and can’t see this pipeline going through at all. The majority of Canadians and British Columbians oppose it. The strong opposition will take its toll on Harper and the next BC election.

There is no money in Northern Gateway for BC. Harper serves corporate oil masters in Alberta and China. Be a proud Canadian and vote NDP.

Instead of selling BC gas to the Alberta Tar Sands at $3.50/mcf, sell it for $17/mcf in Asia. NDP and First Nations are totally on board for projects that make economic sense. Anyone who supports Harper and Gateway is a fool or a traitor, in my opinion.

on the Global news this morning it was said:
One spill will completely negate any positive financial benefit of this pipeline.

Now I thought we were in a democracy. Is that not where the citizens are provided an opportunity to express their collective choice? With as much as 90% saying no, how can this possibly go forward.

Oh weebo, where for art though?

Cheese

I don’t think this Federal Government realizes the gravity of this whole situation. Something like this could turn sour in a lot of people’s bellies. Civil wars have been started over less. I don’t think people are going to just sit back like good little Canadian’s and do nothing. This Harper Government has a lot of people questioning just what are they up to. Selling out resource’s, foreigners coming in and taking jobs. This is detrimental, we have Political s that are not listening to it’s citizen’s. Push, push, push people into a corner when your taking food and fresh water away, my guess would be to fight. Especially when B.C. has nothing to gain, but everything to lose. ~*~ I agree Smiddy, strong opposition will take it’s toll on the next election.

After defeating the Enbridge pipeline and tanker business I sure hope folks start a cause to ban tanker traffic off our east coast. After all, what makes the West coast more importsnt than the east coast? No more tankers down the St. Lawrence River due to the risk of a spill. Imagaine a terrible oil spill on the Grand Banks where the cod use to be! Dreadful. All those poor seals and such. Get busy on our east coast too, I say. And stop that dreadful oil drilling off the coast of Newfoudland. We have a moritorium on drilling here. DogNewfies know what a moritorium is? I guess they need the money. I know BC doesn’t. Who needs to work? We are getting foreiners to come in and do that. And a cheque from Ottawa for ach ofus born here. Let’s make tree hugging a full time occupation. Who wants to work?

No need for Weebo, get out and vote. Harper got in last time with less than 1 in 4 eligible voters supporting him. Apathy is a bigger enemy than Harper ever could be.

If you care about BC and Canada, get out and vote.

Harbinger- great point! If we shipped Alberta oil east, we would not need tankers off any of our coasts. I guess you will be voting for Mulcair!

It cracks me up to see people in Victoria who seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to pump raw sewage into the ocean turning rabid when they talk about the pipeline. It cracks me up when I see pictures of the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch yet people who still use plastic foam at the mouth when they talk about the pipeline. It cracks me up when I see people idling their vehicles -pumping all sorts of crap into the air- at the Tim Horton’s drive through yet they’ll keep spouting off about how evil Harper and the pipeline are.

It’s so easy to oppose something that is miles away from your backyard isn’t it? Unfortunately it’s equally as easy to turn your back on the problems that you create.

Do you really want to stop the pipeline? Stop shopping at WalMart for starters. Decrease the unnecessary demand for plastic products.

I wish we would tear up all our paved roads —- all that oil leaching into the soil, wearing down and running into the ditches and finally into the rivers endangering the salmon.

It would be so much better if we were roaming over the land by foot dressed in animal skins —- whoops, I forgot, for a minute, that we wouldn’t have those animal coverings because animal rights people wouldn’t allow that. we would have to be naked and hunt each other . Then before you know it someone would want to ban that too. Geez, what are we to do?

People are sheep axman and will feed and use what ever is put in front. Corporations are in control. If all they make is oil sucking products then that is what we have oil sucking products. You have missed the point, on July 23rd the Liberal Government said “Clark has admitted that B.C. will take 100-per-cent of the risks from tankers and most of the pipeline risk. For her to turn around the next day and start bargaining for royalties — that’s knowingly trying to sell all British Columbians out,”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nations+outraged+Clark+Enbridge+pipeline+sales+pitch/7006385/story.html#ixzz2ErUYUU8B

I wish we would tear up all our paved roads —- all that oil leaching into the soil, wearing down and running into the ditches and finally into the rivers endangering the salmon.

It would be so much better if we were roaming over the land by foot dressed in animal skins —- whoops, I forgot, for a minute, that we wouldn’t have those animal coverings because animal rights people wouldn’t allow that. we would have to be naked and hunt each other . Then before you know it someone would want to ban that too. Geez, what are we to do?

Sorry about that double posting — I don’t know how that happened. Just another reason to go back a few hundred or thousand years

Rufus, if we agree that paved roads are a good thing, do we then have to buy into Harpers Gateway disaster project? Is this really the only choice we have in life? If this represents your universe, I’m glad I’m not you!

“Posted by: Paul on December 12 2012 10:10 AM

…You have missed the point….”

————————-

I haven’t missed any point. People are hypocrites. Any one who lives in Victoria and flushes a toilet shouldn’t be criticizing Enbridge and their pipeline record. People who constantly shop at places like WalMart have no right criticizing the Chinese and their want for our oil resources.

If you don’t want the pipeline then eliminate the demand. People want all the benefits of our global economy yet they’ll squawk non-stop about the costs.

Herbster, tell us again how we should vote… Kind of reminds me of that quote from Of Mice and Men – “tell me about the rabbits, George”

;)

Vote as you please, but vote. If every Canadian voted, we will be rid of Harper!

Axman, if we like paved roads and flush our toilets, then we have to accept Harpers Gateway disaster? Please explain your logic???

Bang on axman. People only need to look at themselves for why the Northern Gateway project will go though. These are the same hypocrites who are ‘against’ the pipeline. An inconvenient truth to be sure.

Exactly, axman, I live here in Vancouver and I would wear out the alphabet and english language if I were to list all the wasteful and inefficient products in every home that exist at the expense of the natural environment.
My neighbours naively think using their multiple recycling bins at the back of our houses gets them off the hook.

To suggest that individuals have no control over what they buy or use is just simply not true —- we are not at all puppets of corporations when it comes to our purchases. If we are that pathetic maybe there should be a means test before we are allowed to vote

Posted by: herbster on December 12 2012 10:34 AM
Axman, if we like paved roads and flush our toilets, then we have to accept Harpers Gateway disaster? Please explain your logic???

————————-

I said no such thing.

Who is against Harpers Gateway disaster? A majority of BC residents it seems. This is why it will not go through. Anti-pipeline? No,LNG pipelines are just fine thank you.

Does it frustrate conservatives that people can be in favour of progress and technology and yet deny Harpers Gateway disaster? Too bad, expand your narrow world view.

More bad science. To be statistically significant, they would have polled like about 8 people between here and kitimat, and 1000 people in metro Vancouver/Victoria. Now who in Prince George cares what those idiots think. The Pacific Pilotage guys say this is safe route to use, but now we have a whole bunch of tree huggers and non-taxpayers who are now experts on ocean navigation?

Birdman, our streets are safe to drive, yet we have to insure our vehicles, because accidents do happen. At $9.6 billion to clean up a major spill off Prince Rupert, who will pay? Enbridge has indicated it will carry $1.2 billion of liability. Who will pay the balance? (you don’t have to guess- it will be the taxpayer).

Every time I read and hear the opinions about this pipeline I picture people watching a rigged wrestling match yelling at who they and the crowd that surrounds them want to win. The voicing of an opinion with the hype of the crowd seems more important than looking at it for what it is and each phase of a scripted plan.

The oil and pipeline companies have a plan that suits them, the federal government has a plan that suits them and our province has its agenda and all three are subject to how the public responds to what they tell us. This is like a poker game where each is trying to leverage what they want from this and they will give us the signals that work to accomplish their agendas and they will not offer to expose their weaknesses to what can actually be bargained with.

The fact is that there are pros and cons to this mega project as PROPOSED and it is important to remember that it is a PROPOSAL that can and is expected to be NEGOTIATED.

It is expected to be negotiated between the oil industry and Canada, Alberta and BC and it is expected to be negotiated between the public in each of these jurisdictions to their respective governments. We have no say in what Alberta does but we do have a say in whether the feds and the BC government gain the support for the decisions they make and how that translates into the benefits we expect and the risks we are willing to take.

So far we have been offered some money and the promise of environmental protection measures that are told to us as good as it gets. Many people have responded saying that any risk is too great to even consider any further. They don’t want it and there is no convincing them to consider the options of making it safer environmentally or more economically beneficial.
A lesser amount of people are vocally supporting the project as it is proposed as a job creator and an economic benefit with adequate environmental protection and an overall good deal for the country and the province. They are willing to accept what was offered and are not thinking of what more could be gained by negotiating for improvements to environmental protection or better financial benefits.
Then there are the many people who are evaluating the information and some have responded by saying that they are not yet convinced the environment is adequately protected in their minds or the financial benefits are not seen as enough to warrant the risk OR the financial benefits are simply not enough. These are the people who are thinking there are possible negotiations underway even if they don’t realise it.

The evaluation of the trade offs, pros and cons of this project is important but even more important is the evaluation of these trade offs of this project as compared to the other trade offs of other types of developments (if and whatever they might be) and other economic realities with their own set of environmental consequences.

It is very important that people realise we are in the drivers seat if we are smart enough to focus on what we want, ask for what we want and need as people from this rather than assume we are powerless to NEGOTIATE with a pipeline company and our governments.

There is more money than what we are being offered and there is more measures that can be put in place to ensure preventions and clean up and there are many ways not being discussed as to how we should receive these benefits. We need to take charge of the negotiation by asking for what we want rather than just stating what we don’t want.

Posted by: herbster on December 12 2012 10:51 AM

Does it frustrate conservatives that people can be in favour of progress and technology and yet deny Harpers Gateway disaster? Too bad, expand your narrow world view.

————————————

I consider myself a liberal and it frustrates the hell out of me when people refuse to acknowledge that they can’t have all they want without paying some sort of price.

The same old “if you are against the pipeline you HAVE to revert back to the stoneage” …..yawn…same old misinformed rhetoric from the anti-environment corporate zombie monkeys. How come none of you guys every state WHY we have to send it to China? WHY does it have to go through pristine wilderness? WHY does it have to endanger one of the last wild coasts on earth? WHY can’t it be refined in alberta and shipped as a refined product? You know why? Because that would take following rules, laws and redtape and just shipping it raw (who cares what anyone thinks) is simply easier and makes for a much better bottom line for (as birdman puts it) non-taxpaying shareholders.

But: “…..yawn…same old misinformed rhetoric from the anti-environment corporate zombie monkeys.”

Maybe you can explain why the same old name-calling from the anti-pipeline side isn’t rhetoric itself?

Again, if you don’t want pipelines, stop demanding the product. It really is that simple.

The shipment of dillbit (an abrasive sandy substance that will wear out a pipeline more readily in one area than another) is idiotic and beyond belief in stupidity. A leak or rupture is going to happen. Enbridge just doesn’t know where or when. If that tary substance gets into our water or siol it is impossable to clean up. Say no to enbridge’s pipeline and vote NDP.

“The same old “if you are against the pipeline you HAVE to revert back to the stoneage” …..yawn…same old misinformed rhetoric from the anti-environment corporate zombie monkeys.”

Why do some people feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks when addressing people who hold contrary views?

“How come none of you guys every state WHY we have to send it to China?”

No one is saying it has to go to China; China just happens to be the country that wants it and is willing to pay for it.

“WHY does it have to go through pristine wilderness?”

For starters:

pris·tine
adj.
1.
a. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
b. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
2. Of, relating to, or typical of the earliest time or condition; primitive or original.

There is nothing “pristine” about the proposed route; we’ve pillaged the hell out of it in the past century. Second, if you look at a map you’ll note that the China is closer if you head west from Alberta. If we’re going to be stuck with a pipeline it’s probably wise to make it as short as possible.

“WHY does it have to endanger one of the last wild coasts on earth?”

With the proper regulations and enforcement in place there is no reason for anything to be endangered. Personally, if we’re going to be saddled with this pipeline I’d like to see the government implement a better strategy to ensure that the coast is protected.

“WHY can’t it be refined in alberta and shipped as a refined product?”

It’s not that it can’t be refined in Alberta it’s just that no one wants to spend the money necessary to build and run a refinery.

“You know why? Because that would take following rules, laws and redtape and just shipping it raw (who cares what anyone thinks) is simply easier and makes for a much better bottom line for (as birdman puts it) non-taxpaying shareholders.”

I disagree. As I said above, it would take a lot of money and no one appears to be willing to spend that kind of money.

Johnnybelt,
nothing against pipelines.
No to Gateway.
Get it?

“people are against development”

Some people are against some development.

Not all the people are against all developmet.

develop = To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment.

So what is “fulfillment” in a development? That depends on who is looking at it. Business, government, people ……

We, – including the three paries named above as well as others – rarely, if ever, get the full picture of what “fulfillment” looks like.

This seems to be seen only through the environmental and associated safety lens.

If this were a country like Norway, it would be a considerably more wholistic (complete) lens, including what is soicially and economically the best for the people and their country.

None, or very little of that here. Everyone is having their own “conversation”. Totally useless and the government wants to keep it that way as do the companies involved.

And your all narrow minded to think that the Corporation’s are not in control, just ask any politician. Name one politician that isn’t in the pocket of any said Corporation!

For the future of my children and their children I vote NO to Enbridge!

Were number 1,for a reason.
Pipeline..lets see now we will need 10-15 more cops in town,who needs or wants these crackhead pipelines here.yeah they got money to spend in all the wrong places..I,ve been there and seen it NASTY !!
If they do try to push this thru look out there will be blood in the woods…screw Enbridge….

Wait a second, Albertans don’t want to spend the money to build and run a refinery, but BC is expected to take on the risk of a spill for minimal remuneration?
Why not buy land in the everglades while we’re at it.
And while I agree that cutting down on consumerism and waste is desirable, and I do not shop at Walmart for these reasons, it is never so simple so as to come down to a binary choice. The argument that it’s either this or that and “it’s just that simple” is snake oil.

my view on the following questions and opinions

1. Why do some people feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks when addressing people who hold contrary views?

Because they are not capable of arguing the issues.

2. No one is saying it has to go to China; China just happens to be the country that wants it and is willing to pay for it.

Well …. let me remind you we are working in the real world …. whoever pays for it has control, unless the government will make a contrary law and pay out if it needs to …. China has a significant share in the companies in place in the oil sands as well as in the promotion of the pipeline, or do I have that wrong?

3. “WHY does it have to go through pristine wilderness?”

I think that is the first time I have seen the word “pristine” enter into it. Did you add it, axman?

BTW, when there is a definition of a word and it has several phrases or notions included in the definition, it is not a matter of ALL needing to exist in any one instance. The word “or” is sadly missing in such definitions for those who do not understand that format.

I would think that it is relatively fair to say that when taken to the extreme there is very little in today’s world which has not been touched by man. The word is better used on a sliding scale. The word “pristine” is not finite when used in the extremely pure sense.

4. With the proper regulations and enforcement in place there is no reason for anything to be endangered

So name me a case where we have both of those in the real world? You are living in a dream world even if you think that has been achieved anywhere. Just a word of warning, if you can identify such a situation I will likely be able to respond with “so far … wait a while longer”.

5. “WHY can’t it be refined in alberta and shipped as a refined product?”

But someone did propose to build one in BC just a short while ago. It is likely a matter of not enough interest. And, we must not forget. There are upgrade refineries in Alberta, so I am not sure why we can’t increase the capacity there by building more. Is there a study of that option available for the unwashed public to read?

“A distortion between what Canada pays to import oil and what it gets paid to export oil is costing the Canadian economy $2.5-billion each month, estimates one economist.

“Despite being an important crude oil producer, Canada still has to import more than 40% of the oil it consumes because of an inadequate pipeline network,” said Charles St-Arnaud, economist with Nomura Securties International.

Mr. Nomura said that as a result of the oil price distortion, the Canadian economy is losing out on revenue of roughly $30-billion a year, or 1.6% of GDP. The current spread between what Canada gets for its exported oil and what it pays for imported oil is roughly $50 a barrel. Historically, the spread has been closer to $10-15, says Mr. St-Arnaud.

Only Harper is crazy enough to push for a pipeline to Kitimat, when Canada is losing $30 billion/year by importing foreign oil. Be a proud Canadian, and support a pipeline to Eastern Canada!

Just say no to Gateway!

BTW, India has built a mega plant just recently at about half the cost it would have taken to build it in the USA or Canada. It does, however, not have upgrading capacity as far as I know, but can produce just about any end use product one wants. I understand that the US supported this plant since they were not able to build one that cheap.

So, have we gotten to the point now where all the oil in whatever form is going to be shipped to only those few places which have cheap labour to build and maintain such plants?

Where will the next cheap plant be built. Madagascar?

We have existing refineries in Eastern Canada that can use more than the capacity of Harpers’ Gateway disaster. They are paying Brent price for the crude they refine, while Alberta is selling their oil in the US for 30% less. That costs the Canadian economy $30 billion/year.

Scrap Harpers Gateway disaster, build a pipeline to Eastern Canada, benefit all of Canada. Only Mulcair is smart enough to see this. So vote NDP!

Posted by: gus on December 12 2012 12:36 PM

But someone did propose to build one in BC just a short while ago. It is likely a matter of not enough interest. And, we must not forget. There are upgrade refineries in Alberta, so I am not sure why we can’t increase the capacity there by building more. Is there a study of that option available for the unwashed public to read?

———————–

That’s the million dollar question in my opinion. Perhaps the profits are so much greater in shipping the raw product to China versus refining it here?

Maybe we need a massive 3P initiative…

herb: “Johnnybelt,
nothing against pipelines.
No to Gateway.
Get it?”

You don’t get a vote. Get it?

Everybody gets a vote, last time I looked Canada is still a democracy. Unfortunate for you Harperites though!

“Perhaps the profits are so much greater in shipping the raw product to China versus refining it here?”

Again, from whose point of view?

I think that it is not only a matter of profits, but having a crystal ball of what oil prices will do over the next 20 year or so.

Prices may actually drop as new oil comes into production. However, the new oil seems to be more difficult to get to, some of it seems to have higher sulfur than the old Texas crude.

It might be a matter of long term cash flow to continue to develop the fields …. Governments may wish to conserve some while that is not in the interests of many companies. The money left in the ground may suffer the same fate as the money left under the mattress instead of invested in something reasonably stable. Both tend to be risky these days.

I suspect it is a bird in the hand way of doing business.

First the f35, now Gateway. Must be hard to be a Conservative and hold your head high these days!

“It cracks me up to see people in Victoria who seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to pump raw sewage into the ocean turning rabid when they talk about the pipeline. It cracks me up when I see pictures of the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch yet people who still use plastic foam at the mouth when they talk about the pipeline. It cracks me up when I see people idling their vehicles -pumping all sorts of crap into the air- at the Tim Horton’s drive through yet they’ll keep spouting off about how evil Harper and the pipeline are”

It cracks me up when people supplement their argument by attempting to create relationships between items and events that are completely unrelated, thereby making them look really foolish in the process.

Did you folks know the pipeline will be built out of bamboo and the oil will be shipped by sampan. Really, honest.

Besides dumping raw sewage and some of that sourceed from Andrew Weaver himself, how’s that carbon tax working out for ya all?

Let’s see we ship out coal, oil and natural gas and get charged a carbon tax on our own use of those energies based on a falsified science. Is that raw sewage I smell.

Folks you are being taken big time.

Oh forgot to add today is .12/12/12 and only 9 days to the end of the world so all this won’t matter anyhow.

“It cracks me up when people supplement their argument by attempting to create relationships between items and events that are completely unrelated, thereby making them look really foolish in the process. “

I wasn’t supplementing any argument; I was merely pointing out that there are a lot of hypocrites out there.

Or are you saying that it’s OK to dump your raw sewage into the ocean so long as you oppose the pipeline since it will all balance it out in the end? I can through my Starbucks coffee cup in the ditch because I picked up someone’s Tim Hortons’ cup yesterday.

I’m not really following what you’re saying. This is probably due to the fact you’re not really saying anything.

Posted by: gus on December 12 2012 2:24 PM
“Perhaps the profits are so much greater in shipping the raw product to China versus refining it here?”

Again, from whose point of view?

I think that it is not only a matter of profits, but having a crystal ball of what oil prices will do over the next 20 year or so.

———————-

I don’t think that most people in the business world are thinking that far in to the future. They want to maximize profits now because that’s in their best interest.

herb: “Everybody gets a vote, last time I looked Canada is still a democracy. Unfortunate for you Harperites though! “

The only unfortunate thing is your delusion that the NDP and Mulcair will run this country.

What I’m saying is that the pros and cons of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline have absolutely nothing to do with sewage treatment in Victoria or people going through the Tim Hortons drive-thru to get their cup of coffee.

I do understand your hypocrisy assertion but I think that’s also flawed. One could very easily be comfortable with one situation that has potential negative environmental impacts while being against a different situation that also has potential negative environmental impacts. This discrepancy could easily be explained by the scale of the potential environmental impacts, whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives, their own personal bias, etc. It’s not black and white. Heck, there are likely even people out there who don’t object to pipelines but DO object to the Northern Gateway proposal for a myriad of reasons, some of which may be environmental some of which may not be.

The unfortunate thing is that Harper is trying to run it into the ground right now.

“One could very easily be comfortable with one situation that has potential negative environmental impacts while being against a different situation that also has potential negative environmental impacts. This discrepancy could easily be explained by the scale of the potential environmental impacts, whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives, their own personal bias, etc. “

Is that not an example of hypocrisy?

Love how that cut and paste formatted… Couldn’t do that if I had tried. :)

“Is that not an example of hypocrisy?”

Actually, no it isn’t. For it to be hypocrisy, the person would have to claim that they would never be in support of a project or development that had negative environmental impacts AND at the same time, their actions would have to be in conflict with that statement.

In my example, both people started from the same position, that being that environmental consequences could be an acceptable tradeoff for an otherwise positive development. They never subscribed to the viewpoint that environmental damage must never occur with a project, so there is no possibility that hypocrisy could occur.

I think you are confusing the conclusion someone may have about the project with hypocrisy. They are two completely different things.

Oh and yes, that cut and paste was pretty cool :)

I had a great post all set to go and it just disapeared.

So to hell with it, Im not going to do it again.

In my mind the true description of prestine is for the land to remain the closest to its natural state as possable. That means not oil soaked and un usable for nature or for our future generations. I hope that clarifies the definition of PRESTINE for those that would wreck our habitat and for those that are shilling for harper and company. (small letter intended)

“PRESTINE”

Never hear that word before.

Now that the federal gov just approved the sale of Nexen to the Chinese, can the feds or the BC government not allow them to take their oil and gas home?
If they meet the laws of this country, I doubt that anyone can stop them legally.

Hard to picture it but take a chunk of Alberta about 100kms by about 100kms square put chinese flags up at the corners and see how this feels. Same thing for their ownership in Northeast BC gas patch which is part of China’s holdings.
They now have a big oil tank (about 20% of all the oilsands)and a big bottle of nat gas (about 20% of the gas in the BC horn river) that they need a way to get home.

Woodchipper, there are Canadian companies that own resources out of Canada. Most of Nexen’s assets are outside of Canada. This is how the world works, like it or not.

Ok Johnybelt, you as most people are missing the point. Yes it is true that Canadian COMPANIES may well control resources in other countries. Name a country where CANADA ITSELF owns and controls a resource in another country?
Do you think that China would allow the Canadian government to own and control a strategically important part of China? OR a strategically vital resource?
Not in a million years will that be permitted to happen in this world!

The point is, if Nexen was really so potentially profitable, why did its shareholders accept the Chinese offer? Why not hang onto their shares, and realise a return on them?

For every transaction there has to be a willing seller as well as a willing buyer, and it would seem those shareholders didn’t see the same value in keeping Nexen’s assets as the Chinese did in acquiring them. So who will be the ultimate ‘winner’? Only time will tell.

Just because some large corporate or even government entity buys something is no guarantee that what they’ve bought will meet projected expectations. History is replete with major takeovers that everyone expected would be highly profitable for the acquirer only to see them end up being anything but.

This is not a conventional business deal and looking at this with that lens doesn’t tell the story.
The purchaser of Nexen isn’t a company nor is it looking at a short term return like a conventional public company or an investor would. The purchaser is a country called China that is looking for security of future supply. It is a forward looking country that knows that the costs of securing oil supplies in Canada and elsewhwere is a good deal compared with the volitility of world supplies as well as the costs of military protection.
This isn’t about oil profits per say it is about controlling the source of what is the lifeblood of their future economic success.
They are the consumers of the oil and that is very different than an independent oil producing and marketing company who sells to the highest bidder.
Good for Nexen shareholders to make extra but very bad for everything else.

The fact that it was downplayed what this meant in Canada is what fooled most people such that johnnybelt is being fooled. The fact is that Nexen isn’t producing a great deal of its assets in Canada doesn’t mean it doesn’t have lots of assets ready to be produced from in Canada. 20% of the entire oilsands and 20% of the natural gas in the horn river of BC is not exactly an insignificant asset.
Would it be understood by people if it was a thirsty country with over a billion people who just took control of 20% of Canada’s water supplies?

The government of Canada could ‘nationalise’ Nexen any time it wants, Woodchipper.

And the only difference between it doing that and the Chinese doing the same thing to any Canadian investments in China is that under our system the Canadian government would normally have to fairly compensate the owner whose property was taken.

That owner would have recourse in law here to argue before a Court which would independently ultimately decide what was fair compensation, and that is what the government would have to pay. In times of war this provision could be set aside completely.

As I understand the matter, China doesn’t yet have similar provisions in its laws, though they have recently agreed they would treat Canadian investments in China the same way we do with their investments here.

I don’t really think much of a case can be made over the ‘ownership’ of the entity that’s acquiring Nexen, i.e., whether it’s owned by the Chinese government, or by private Chinese investors. I don’t see how that really changes anything.

China would have to have the means of protecting its interests militarily, and we would have to be largely unable to resist the use of such an action. Given where we are located geographically, I don’t see that happening.

Not only that, if we want to be a ‘sovereign’ country, we’d best be prepared to defend that sovereignty unilaterally. This is not something that’s physically impossible for Canada to do. We could make military action against us very unprofitable for an aggressor nation.

The US and Great Britain have both used private and quasi private companies to invest abroad in resources they wished to have a greater sense of security in obtaining, and some government owned companies, too.

British Petroleum and its predecessors was once fully owned by the British government, and its main investment was in Iran. I don’t believe there was any compensation offered when Iran first nationalised those assets, and if there was it would certainly have been an arbitrary amount set by the Iranian government, and not arguable before a Court there. That, of course, led to the toppling of that government. Just as many governments elsewhere have been toppled courtesy of covert or overt actions by the country whose ‘interests’ were threatened.

The US and Britain used ‘gunboat diplomacy’ in China right up until the Communist takeover in 1949. And they were protecting their national interests there that were almost entirely privately owned. Same in many of the countries of South and Central America. With the United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, W R Grace, and others. All private entities. They could do that because the countries involved couldn’t effectively protect themselves militarily. It didn’t work in Mexico when Pemex was formed, and Shell and other private foreign oil companies given the boot. It didn’t work at Suez, when Britain and France and Israel invaded that country to regain the first two’s national interests in the Suez Canal Company.

Given our situation, overall, Nexen is really pretty much of a drop in the bucket relative to the US investment in Canadian oil, British investment in Canadian oil, and even our own investment in it. And we haven’t even scratched the surface, in all likelihood, of what exists and is yet to be discovered here in the way of additional oilfields.

I am surprised by your post socredible..
Canada isn’t going to nationalize anything and that is a pile of distracting bunk. If anything, Canada will sell any asset it can for a buck and obviously Canadian companies are no different in divesting our natural resource assets.

The monopoly gameboard has tilted and North America and Europe is sliding towards bankruptcy while China uses its mountains of cash to buy up the last valuable assets. They are good at this game of monopoly capitalism. Good for them. Good for Nexen shareholders.

When the next major skirmish happens in the middle east and the disruptions to world oil supplies, then watch what happens to our country as it goes absolutely broke trying to operate with skyrocketing world energy prices and shortages. Our economy will grind to a halt even with $150 oil let alone double that and just imagine oil shortages such as in the US during the early 1970s again. Remember oil could never cost that much and there could never be a shortage..right? The Chinese will row their boats home with THEIR oil that came from Canada, that cost them $50 a barrel while we dumbass Canadians will pay $150 plus if we can even get it. Isn’t it smart that we live by this so called free market economy that only applies to us but not who we deal with and to our detriment?

The world price of oil is only part of the price of what that oil costs a country in the case of China and consumers as it costs Canadians. Was the war in Iraq free? Libya, Syria, Egypt,etc etc? The American, European and even Canadian tax payer has paid and continues to pay the billions to keep the military in that region to keep the peace and have the ability to respond to a skirmish whenever it happens and it is because of oil that they are there. Not because of camels or sand or keeping soldiers suntanning on aircaft carriers.

Oh yes remember Iran and its little firecracker leader and I’m sure that is good for keeping the peace. One nuclear weapon fired from that country and the world will be a different place. Oil will be at the center of the conflict or oil will be the reasons and the justifications for the response and for sure it will be very very expensive.

China is smarter and is willing to buy the cheap and secure sources of oil via oil rights in Canada so it doesn’t have to risk being drawn into conflicts threatening the oil supplies to their country. Good for them saving their soldiers and military costs.

China is soon to be the dominant world economic superpower and this is ensured to happen when it is their patriotic and long term thinking, coordinated with its state owned companies for the wellbeing of their entire country that is paramount to anything else. China and its billion plus people want a better standard of living and they and their companies as a collective force are using the benefits of the capitalism system in a manner which most other countries cannot compete.

In case anyone doubts the realities involved with allowing the sale of our non renewable strategically important energy reserves, then take it that our government just learned (albeit too late) that it needed to announce the futue restrictions of foreign takeovers involving the oilsands. Unlike socredible who can see the vast and yet to be discovered oil pools, to anyone else 20% of the oilsands being sold to China is not “a drop in the bucket” and not in Canada’s best interests. Even our federal goverment now understands this.