[Surrealplaces]

I'm not usually supportive of governments taking a stake in a business, but I would be supportive of the government getting involved in TMX. There's a lot of money and future involved in it. I don't see it as much of a risk either, as @darwink mentioned it'll likely get built..just a matter of when. The after effects of it all from a nation standpoint will be really interesting.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

So according to Trudeau, the federal government is going to be meeting with Kinder Morgan. I guess it is to discuss a stake in the project, or some contingencies if things continue to be delayed. He also said that they are looking at legislation options presumably to force the B.C. government to comply. All very reassuring and has the required urgency. I will say this .... 'It's about time'!

 

[AccUnit]

This pipeline debate, as they all of have been recently, has become so frickin political. Ultimately Horgan wants to stay in power however his government is being propped up by 3 green MLA's who adamantly oppose construction. What the anti pipeline crowd doesn't acknowledge is that the oil will come out of the ground and will be sold and will be exported, whether it's in a rail car, 40-60 year old existing infrastructure or new modern pipeline doesn't matter. Either they are very naive of how the economy functions or willfully ignorant, I'm not sure which. My guess is that Horgan put it to Notley and Trudeau to make it impossible to oppose the pipeline so he can both back down and keep the support of the greens and stay in power. Immediately after the meeting Alberta starts the process of halting flow of oil to BC which will make gasoline prices (already a sticking point in BC) astronomical. In response Horgan will then either have to allow imported oil, ie, tankers on the coast or agree to stop obstructing the pipeline. That's my guess, but who knows.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

The 'anti-pipeliners' seem to be divided into two groups, the first group is against anything and everything to do with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Those people have to be told flat out ... "fossil fuels are here to stay for decades to come. Canada either takes advantage of our natural resources, responsibly, and exports more to the world; or we keep those resources in the ground and let other countries, like our neighbour to the south, wave good-bye to us as our economy tanks. Your argument is not relevant or sustainable in today's global environment."
The second group appear not to be concerned with pipelines as much as the increase in 'diluted bitumen' through the expanded pipeline, and the increase in tanker traffic to transport that bitumen from Burnaby to elsewhere. In their minds, there is a greater risk for an accident or spill which is I will say, is possible. If there is a spill, they don't believe that bitumen can be recovered or the water cleaned, the same as other types of oil. Even though the NEB and other environmental studies took all of that heightened risk into consideration when the expansion was approved .... that does not seem to be good enough. This particular group (Horgan included) of anti-pipeliners seem to think they know more about risk.
If decisions were based solely on risk ... nothing would get built. There is always the possibility of something going wrong but that is why you take appropriate precautions. For example, trains loaded with highly explosive fuels and chemicals roll through downtown Calgary dozens of times every day. The frequency would suggest there is a high possibility that something could happen over time. Does that mean no one should work or live in buildings nearby .......as there is risk of a derailment and possibly an explosion? The precautions taken to prevent something like this happening in a highly populated area, makes the probability of that happening as very low.
The same argument and logic applies to pipelines or refineries or LNG plants or anything else people want to protest against.

 

[darwink]

Risk does not increase the more times you roll a dice - it isn’t cumulative. Buying 2 lottery tickets on games like 649 or lotto max does not increase your chances to two in a million, you’re still playing a one in a million game twice, which is very different.

 

[AccUnit]

The 'anti-pipeliners' seem to be divided into two groups, the first group is against anything and everything to do with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Those people have to be told flat out ... "fossil fuels are here to stay for decades to come. Canada either takes advantage of our natural resources, responsibly, and exports more to the world; or we keep those resources in the ground and let other countries, like our neighbour to the south, wave good-bye to us as our economy tanks. Your argument is not relevant or sustainable in today's global environment."
The second group appear not to be concerned with pipelines as much as the increase in 'diluted bitumen' through the expanded pipeline, and the increase in tanker traffic to transport that bitumen from Burnaby to elsewhere. In their minds, there is a greater risk for an accident or spill which is I will say, is possible. If there is a spill, they don't believe that bitumen can be recovered or the water cleaned, the same as other types of oil. Even though the NEB and other environmental studies took all of that heightened risk into consideration when the expansion was approved .... that does not seem to be good enough. This particular group (Horgan included) of anti-pipeliners seem to think they know more about risk.
If decisions were based solely on risk ... nothing would get built. There is always the possibility of something going wrong but that is why you take appropriate precautions. For example, trains loaded with highly explosive fuels and chemicals roll through downtown Calgary dozens of times every day. The frequency would suggest there is a high possibility that something could happen over time. Does that mean no one should work or live in buildings nearby .......as there is risk of a derailment and possibly an explosion? The precautions taken to prevent something like this happening in a highly populated area, makes the probability of that happening as very low.
The same argument and logic applies to pipelines or refineries or LNG plants or anything else people want to protest against.

Yeah I agree with your split. There are a couple things I find frustrating about "group 2". First, they have no specifics on the "risks" of which they are worried, the NEB and Feds have already done the actual homework yet they are somehow above it and not convinced. Second, they are the biggest fricking hypocrites when it comes to the environment. Victoria, to this day, is pumping raw sewage into the ocean on the scale of millions of litres per year and Vancouver is the single largest exporter of coal in North America, in fact it's their largest export. How can they try to stand on environmental principles when in their actions they show none at all?

 

[UrbanWarrior]

The Vancouver area also pumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the environment per year as well. Victoria is only noteworthy because of it's extremely small size relative to the vast amounts of sewage they dump.

 

[Oddball]

The Vancouver area also pumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the environment per year as well. Victoria is only noteworthy because of it's extremely small size relative to the vast amounts of sewage they dump.

If it's ripping on west coast hypocracy We're all getting in on, I gotta say that I've been loving all the articles pointing out that Vancouver is North America's largest coal export terminal.

 

[Social Justice]

West Coast Hypocracy

-Vancouver exports 35 million tons of coal.
-B.C. logs 190,000 acres annually
-100 provincial hydro-dams flood an untold area of land.
-200 cruise ships will disgorge 800,000 tourists annually in Vancouver. The average cruise ship have a gas mileage of less than a metre per litre.
-Victoria discharges 80 million litres of raw sewage into the ocean daily.

 

[Silence&Motion]

The 'anti-pipeliners' seem to be divided into two groups, the first group is against anything and everything to do with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Those people have to be told flat out ... "fossil fuels are here to stay for decades to come. Canada either takes advantage of our natural resources, responsibly, and exports more to the world; or we keep those resources in the ground and let other countries, like our neighbour to the south, wave good-bye to us as our economy tanks. Your argument is not relevant or sustainable in today's global environment."

How about the argument that investing more in the fossil fuel industry will only make more Canadians more economically dependent on it and make it even more difficult to transition to a post-carbon economy? If we're serious that a post-carbon economy is only decades away, isn't it crazy to double-down on fossil fuels instead of trying wean our economy off of them?

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think we need to work both sides of the argument. Someday fossil fuels will be in limited use, and they won't likely be a significant part of our economy. How long away that is is anyone's guess...my guess is somewhere between 30-50 years. Either way it's going to slow down significantly, and we will have no choice but to lose our dependency on it.

Building the pipeline may keep the dependency going, but at the same time it's hard turn down billions of dollars that are there for the taking, by walking away from it. If we walk away from it, the billions simply go elsewhere. I'd rather see Canada get its share over the next few decades while it can. From a global long-term perspective fossil fuels will slowly decrease in significance, I don't see an advantage of voluntarily going away now rather than let nature take its slow, drawn out course.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Building the pipeline may keep the dependency going, but at the same time it's hard turn down billions of dollars that are there for the taking, by walking away from it. If we walk away from it, the billions simply go elsewhere. I'd rather see Canada get its share over the next few decades while it can. From a global long-term perspective fossil fuels will slowly decrease in significance, I don't see an advantage of voluntarily going away now rather than let nature take its slow, drawn out course.

It's not like there are just bags of money sitting there for the taking. Economies are systems. There are trade-offs if we decide to build our economy around the extraction of oil and gas. Talent and capital that gets sucked up by the oil and gas industries could flow into other sectors and generate wealth in other ways. We should be worried about how we're positioned over the long term, not how much quick money we can make before the fossil fuel party ends. That certainly didn't go well for places like West Virginia.

Anyway, I don't think this pipeline will make a difference one way or the other, but the hysteria that is gripping the province right now is really overwhelming.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

It's not like there are just bags of money sitting there for the taking. Economies are systems. There are trade-offs if we decide to build our economy around the extraction of oil and gas. Talent and capital that gets sucked up by the oil and gas industries could flow into other sectors and generate wealth in other ways. We should be worried about how we're positioned over the long term, not how much quick money we can make before the fossil fuel party ends. That certainly didn't go well for places like West Virginia.

Anyway, I don't think this pipeline will make a difference one way or the other, but the hysteria that is gripping the province right now is really overwhelming.

That's a really good point.

 

[MichaelS]

It's not like there are just bags of money sitting there for the taking. Economies are systems. There are trade-offs if we decide to build our economy around the extraction of oil and gas. Talent and capital that gets sucked up by the oil and gas industries could flow into other sectors and generate wealth in other ways. We should be worried about how we're positioned over the long term, not how much quick money we can make before the fossil fuel party ends. That certainly didn't go well for places like West Virginia.

Anyway, I don't think this pipeline will make a difference one way or the other, but the hysteria that is gripping the province right now is really overwhelming.

Keep in mind the money is not contained to Alberta. Yes, it could flow to other sectors, but what we are likely to see is the money will flow to other jurisdictions that are more open and willing to develop their natural resources. This is already occurring. We can take the principled stance you propose, but just need to be cognizant of the fact that it may very well cost our economy billions.

 

[darwink]

Yeah, foreign direct investment will chase returns, and serve the predicted continued rise in worldwide oil demand. It is pretty easy to look at other jurisdictions that have a declining resource base (UK, Norway) and say that they are slowing investment in fossil fuel due to a policy choice, and we should make that same choice, but it is not reality. Alberta doesn't have a resource base, and even in a carbon contained world we should try to make every last cent we can out of the resource base. As oil prices enter a switching death spiral (whether that is 20, 30 or 40 years from now), it won't make sense to make new investments to sustain production, and production will enter a decline.