Guarded Reaction To Libs’ Pan of Pipeline
Prince George, BC – A coalition of stakeholders in communities affected by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is taking some comfort in the BC Government’s refusal to support the Enbridge proposal over environmental concerns. (click here for previous story)
Friends of Wild Salmon represents First Nations, sport and commercial fishers, community organizations and concerned residents living along BC North Coast and the Skeena watershed. Chair, Gerald Amos, says the government’s written submission to the Joint Review Panel is a clear indication that the concerns of people living along the proposed pipeline and tanker routes are being heard. (250News file photo of rally outside JRP hearings in Fort St. James)
"This is an important moment, but our work is not done," says Amos. "We still have questions for the BC Government about how they are going to ensure the federal government does not push this project through; however, we acknowledge and appreciate this decision."
NDP Leader, Adrian Dix, calls yesterday’s submission "toothless".
"Only after intense pressure from New Democrats, environmentalists, First Nations, and communities concerned about our coast and our economy, did the Liberals finally decide to oppose the project," says Dix. But, he adds, the BC Liberals signed away decision-making authority to Ottawa back in 2010.
"If they had any interest in actually stopping the pipeline from being built, the Liberals would withdraw from the agreement that gives Ottawa the only authority for approval of the pipeline."
The Province will present its final oral submission to the JRP in Terrace on June 17th.
Comments
Lol, Clark is headed for a election herself so good timing to take a stand. She knows the lower mainland has very limited support of the project
The next time the Liberals tell the truth will be the first time.
Well Adrain the NDP will be dixless one day soon so enjoy your ride.
This pipeline isn’t going happen anytime soon. Will Harper even survive the Duffy fiasco? What a freaking joke that is. Any bets the next federal government will be Liberal!
Make no mistake, if the NDP were governing this Province, they would have made the exact same announcement. However, Dix is right in saying that it has no teeth.
I too agree with Dix..if the BC LIberals want to show their disapproval of the Proposed Northern Gateway pipeline then they should honestly speak up now on behalf of British Columbians and withdraw from the agreement that gives the federal gov’t the sole decision-making powers on this project. I believe the BC LIberals are still within their 60 day timeline to withdraw…..now that would show leadership and add some genuine back bone to the BC LIberals decision to disapprove the pipeline.
Also don’t be fooled into thinking that if the Provincial government plays hardball, the Feds won’t play the same right back.
Who cares JB! I’m sure Obama would love to put up 60 MPH on our highways. Annex with Alaska the US would love it! We threatened to pull out of Canada before we can do it again.
Who care about the tar sands and this pipeline JB, it only contributes .2% towards Canada’s economy! Not nearly as much as you, and some others think!
[url}http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2011/02/02/are-tar-sands-too-big-fail[/url]
China is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases on this planet, we don’t need to ship them more carbon burning oil!
Lol, NoWay. Be very careful what you wish for.
Hint: If the phrase ‘tar sands’ is used in a blog site or article, you know where the bias is.
BCRacer wrote: “it would be so much cheaper for the liberals just to elect a new leader….”
The level of understanding by a significant number of people on this site, such as BCRacer, of how the Canadian system of government works makes me think that we should seriously consider a screening test before people are allowed to vote.
Thanks for the link, People#1.
Add to that the fact that the extraction of bitumen from the bitumen sands requires a lot of energy unless a totally new process is developed to extract this fuel.
This energy comes from natural gas, this being a carbon based non-renewable resource itself! However, that doesn’t seem to raise too many eyebrows, apparently!
By the way, bitumen (like crude oil) is a basic resource from which hundreds of products are made, from asphalt to gasoline and diesel, plastics and medicines. China for instance has many nuclear reactors already and dozens more under construction and puts a new coal fired electrical generating plant on line at the rate of one per week. Denying them the purchase of this Alberta bitumen wouldn’t be a huge setback for them. They will get what they need for their industry from some other countries.
How the Alberta Tar Sands became the Canadian Oil Sands.
The Oil Baron powers that be in their downtown Calgary skyscrapers became concerned about the Alberta Tar Sands image, and with their vast amount of money hired the best marketing advice they could buy. These experts said unto the Oil Company CEOs, you must change the word “Tar” to “Oil” because Oil is more acceptable to the public than Tar. And so the Alberta Tar Sands became the Alberta Oil Sands.
Soon the Oil Company CEOs began to realize that there was growing opposition to their precious Alberta Oil Sand from citizen in other provinces, like BC. And so those that sat in their big chairs in those boardroom offices high atop Calgary skyscrapers again hired the best marketing experts oil money could buy.
The experts studies the problem and said unto those Oil Company CEO’s you must change the Name “Alberta” to “Canada”. Then it will be more actable to the rest of Canada, any future opposition to the Oil Sands will be opposition to Canada itself and not Alberta. And sor the Alberta Tar Sands became the Canadian Oil Sands and the Big Oil CEOs were pleased : )
More *acceptable* to the rest of Canada… sorry… left my laptop for a while when posting this then rushed through typing the rest, because of the dreaded automatic refreshing this site does. I have taken my time to post a few times only to lose it all when the site refreshes itself.
BTW, those who have said that the provincial statement is moot since it is the feds who control interprovincial piplines may wish to read the opinion provided at the following:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2013-13-e.htm
Remember that when you read that you are reading from the Library of Parliament Research Publication.
It is not as simple as most of you like to make these kind of matters.
For exaple, the following are intersting words:
“While interprovincial pipelines are unquestionably federal undertakings, numerous related matters â provincial Crown land, property and civil rights, and direct taxation in a province â fall within provincial jurisdiction.
“A province may enact laws relating to provincial matters that incidentally affect an interprovincial pipeline.
“For example, it might pass a tax law that happens to apply to pipelines in the province. However, if a province fashioned legislation in such a way that it appeared to be about a provincial matter, such as provincial tax or provincial Crown lands, but in reality was a disguised attempt to interfere with an interprovincial pipeline, the provincial law would not be valid.”
So, it appears that if Enbridge does not provide assurance that they will pay for any spill cleanups, especially unexpected large spills, the province could tax the pipeline operators to take care of the risk on their own.
With respect to Prince George’s comment regarding construction permits, it is quite clear as written:
“Provinces are responsible for issuing various permits and providing electricity to construct major projects, such as interprovincial pipelines.
“A provinceâs withholding such permits or electricity to delay or block an interprovincial pipeline project would not be an advisable means of exerting influence over it.
“If the pipeline company met all legal requirements to receive a permit or electricity service, an administrative decision to nevertheless deny that permit or service could be deemed arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, and it could be overturned on that basis.”
So, what then would be the most effective strategy by the province?
“The legal reasoning in this HillNote is necessarily speculative. No province has ever made a direct attempt to assert jurisdiction over an interprovincial pipeline resulting in a court challenge, which would provide the opportunity for judges to pronounce on the question.
“Law is only one means of influencing outcomes. Popular support for, or opposition to, an interprovincial pipeline may exert an even greater influence over the final decision-making process.”
So there you have it. I think in this case the lawyers the province has working on our behalf are off to a good start!!!!
;-)
China besides building nuclear and coal fired power plants as fast as they can they are also building coal liquefaction plants. That is producing oil from coal and the price seems to be about $80 a barrel. So the market for oil sands oil may diminish. Watch to see if China sells any of their oil sands interests.
People#1 it is the so called environmentalists that changed the name from oil sands to tar sands. Do you sign onto this type of activism?
People1st: “And so the Alberta Tar Sands became the Canadian Oil Sands and the Big Oil CEOs were pleased : )”
You meant to say, the Big Tar CEOs.
Might not be that bad being a part of the good ole US of A JB. I know a few Americans and the cost of living is lower than Canada, income tax is lower, so the only real downer is medical. But the Canadian Medicare system isn’t the greatest either. Long wait lists for pretty much everything. But it is cheap, just don’t get sick.
Gus, thanks for the link above, a good read.
I am thankful that Clark and our present government said no to this pipeline. IMHO I think the NDP probably would have flip flopped on this issue and gone ahead with it.
There isn’t much alternative for Alberta left to export it to pacific ocean unless it quits the federation and joins US as a state. That is a leverage they can use or look eastward.
Did you know over 70% of the Alberta Tar Sands is foreign owned?
“In reality, itâs not environmental groups that are funded by foreigners â itâs the companies eager to exploit the tar sands. Many of Canadaâs biggest energy companies â firms that are headquartered in Canada and trade on Canadian stock exchanges â are in fact largely owned by foreign interests, including Suncor (57 percent), Canadian Oil Sands (57 percent) and Husky Energy (91 percent). All told, some 70 percent of all tar-sands production in Alberta is owned by non-Canadian shareholders.”
We are selling out our own energy resources to foreign interests! Way to go Canada!
Canadian mining and exploration companies also own assets, land, and resources outside of Canada. Not sure what your point is.
Did you know that Canada is among the 7% of countries world wide that allow foreign oil companies unfettered access to their oil and gas resources?
“According to consulting firm PFC Energy, only 7% of the world’s estimated oil and gas reserves are in countries that allow private international companies free rein. Fully 65% are in the hands of state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, with the rest in countries such as Russia and Venezuela, where access by Western companies is difficult. The PFC study implies political factors are limiting capacity increases in Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. Saudi Arabia is also limiting capacity expansion, but because of a self-imposed cap, unlike the other countries.”
Gee… “where access by Western companies is difficult”
No kidding? Why don’t we open our doors a little more to China owned Sinopec. LOL you are funny JB : )
Oh and by the way, Sinopec is a giant oil company owned and operated by the Chinese Government, it is not a private company. Come on, lets open our energy resource doors even more so counties like China can own all of our energy resources.
I know, lets make our oil energy more like our coal industry, you know let Chinese owned companies, hire temporary foreign workers from China to dig our coal, for export to China. Can we do that for our oil and gas resources as well please?
Yeah right… Canada needs a National Energy Plan / Strategy!
If the issue is how the product gets to port the best method will be pipeline. There is enough money involed to put out the contracts required to convince the railroad or trucking company’s to put the machinery in place to do this job. Look at the spills and derail figures for the rail, and think about the amout of truck traffic you would like to face every time you drive the highway before you nix the safe way to transport this material. I have driven the highways as a bulk carrier driver and this method is pure scary. The rail line infrastucture is not up to this job but they will try if given the chance.
You’re right transporter. Pipelines are statistically the safest way to go.
Comments for this article are closed.