Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Important Enough for It's Own Thread.... Energy

Recommended Posts

DON BRAID

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 14 Mar 2018
  • DON BRAID Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald. dbraid@postmedia.com
getimage.aspx?regionKey=hite4zMiO5AIvPhU70yPPA%3d%3dTHE CANADIAN PRESS/FILES Premier Rachel Notley must ask what she has to do to get Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to push the B.C. government hard to finally get the Kinder Morgan pipeline built, writes Don Braid.

Premier Rachel Notley’s crew won’t say it outright, but they’re worried that Ottawa could slide away from full support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

This doesn’t have to be outright abandonment of federal power over interprovincial trade. It could simply mean the feds fail to push the B.C. government hard, or at all, and leave the fight entirely to Alberta until Kinder Morgan quietly folds up its tent.

And before you know it, there’s a friendly environment for the Liberals on B.C.’s Lower Mainland during next year’s federal election.

Notley says one key reason for her boycott legislation is to “make sure that everyone keeps the priority for that project as No. 1 on the front burner.”

She has to stir up a regional crisis to hold Ottawa’s attention. A premier certain of her federal ally wouldn’t feel the need to do that.

What Alberta gets for this cockeyed necessity is deteriorating relations with the people of a province most of us deeply admire.

Notley always talks about how much she’d regret causing serious distress to British Columbians.

She means it. And yet, there’s now serious risk of a trade war that would be Ottawa’s fault. It’s being fomented by federal lassitude — or something far worse, pure lust for another Liberal majority.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau often boasts of his prized national deal — climate change action in return for a pipeline to tidewater.

He has blasted B.C. Premier John Horgan for threatening that whole plan with his opposition.

But federal actions reveal a double standard.

Simply put, if you’re against a pipeline, no problem.

If you’re against a carbon tax, look out.

Ottawa has just pulled $62 million in climate change funding from Saskatchewan, which refuses to implement a provincial carbon tax.

This news came in a March 9 letter from federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna to her Saskatchewan counterpart.

“The condition for receiving your province’s allocation under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund was signing on to Canada’s clean growth and climate action plan,” she said.

“Your decision not to sign on to the national plan means that Saskatchewan’s allocation will now be moved into the second phase of the Fund, the Low Carbon Economy Challenge.”

The money will be spread around other provinces. Laughably, Ottawa says Saskatchewan can also apply for it.

Saskatchewan is still faced with a federal carbon tax. Why take away money intended to help with climate measures, except as political punishment?

Horgan, by contrast, is challenging federal authority over interprovincial trade, the very glue that holds the country together.

Trudeau does nothing. He has not talked about pulling funding for programs. He hasn’t said anything about eliminating or curtailing the $1.5 billion to be spent on marine safety as part of the pipeline deal.

The sole hint of retaliation, in fact, was cancellation of a news conference after one of Horgan’s escalations was announced.

In fact, B.C. now comes in for McKenna’s specific praise.

Providing measures for Saskatchewan to emulate, her letter says, “For example, British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax provides targeted support to both low-income and rural residents.”

She doesn’t praise Alberta’s carbon tax, which has versions of those features.

Horgan must sometimes wonder what he could possibly do to make the feds penalize B.C. Probably nothing.

Notley must ask what she has to do to get some action out of Trudeau.

At this point, she seems mercilessly trapped. Her measures are alienating B.C. without bringing the necessary federal pressure.

Protests are gearing up on the Lower Mainland. There’s a growing belief Trans Mountain expansion will never happen, despite federal approval. (Northern Gateway had that too, remember?)

And Alberta New Democrats who believed Trudeau’s line about getting the pipeline built are starting to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truths, myths about trans mountain pipeline

IS PROPOSED PIPELINE EXPANSION REALLY THE OCEAN-MURDERING HELLSPAWN B.C. SAYS IT IS?

  • Calgary Herald
  • 14 Mar 2018
  • TrisTin Hopper National Post thopper@nationalpost.com Twitter.com/TristinHopper
getimage.aspx?regionKey=JUNf4FbjElzi2WTYa%2fEOig%3d%3dMARK MALLESON / THE CENTER FOR WHALE RESEARCH VIA AP Opponents of the Trans Mountain expansion say the project is a “death knell” for endangered southern resident killer whales, but tankers represent less than five per cent of the vessels expected to be processed in Vancouver by 2026.

If you ask the B.C. government why it’s trying to block the federally approved Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, it will say it’s all about protecting the ocean. “I’m standing up for the coast, man,” B.C. Premier John Horgan said last month.

Rather than crude oil, the Trans Mountain pipeline will carry diluted bitumen, a heavier and more viscous petroleum product. Pipeline opponents maintain that this makes the project a uniquely dangerous environmental threat.

There may be some truth to that, but it’s safe to say that B.C. is currently awash in a galaxy of pipeline fears that don’t necessarily square with reality.

Below, our attempt to explain the risks, debunk the myths and illustrate, as best as possible, whether the Trans Mountain pipeline really is the destroyer of worlds that activists say it is.

THE PIPELINE MAKES A COASTAL B.C. SPILL MORE LIKELY

Currently, about five tankers per month pull into the waters off Vancouver and fill up with diluted bitumen shipped in on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system. The pipeline expansion would increase that number to more than 30 per month. The points below discuss the relative risk that these extra tankers represent, risk that the National Energy Board deemed to be “acceptable.” However, if British Columbian opponents cannot abide any increase in risk to ocean safety, nothing is going to change their minds on the pipeline. A complicating factor is that most of the economic benefits from the pipeline will flow to Alberta and B.C. Interior communities.

NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT BITUMEN WILL DO IN SALTWATER

Diluted bitumen (dilbit) is the raw molasses-like product extracted from the Athabasca oilsands, mixed in with diluents to make it fluid enough to travel through a pipeline. The product is heavier and more viscous than conventional crude, so the fear is that while regular spilled oil can be skimmed from the surface, diluted bitumen will sink to the bottom. A massive 2010 spill of dilbit into the Kalamazoo River, for instance, resulted in thousands of litres sinking to the bottom, from where it had to be painstakingly dredged and vacuumed out. This has prompted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to warn that dilbit sinks within a “matter of days” after a spill. But dilbit will float upon contact with water and there are unknowns about what causes it to sink and how quickly. “Despite the importance of oil type, the overall impact of an oil spill … depends mainly on the environmental characteristics, the conditions where the spill takes place and the speed of response,” said a 2015 report by the Royal Society of Canada. Context is everything in an oil spill.

… BUT LABORATORY TESTS KEEP FINDING THAT DILUTED BITUMEN FLOATS

The National Academy of Sciences report quoted above was a literature review; it didn’t do any original research. And while there are very few direct studies into the behaviour of dilbit in saltwater, the ones that exist have generally favoured the “dilbit floats” camp. The one cited in National Energy Board documents was a study that poured dilbit into saltwater tanks to see if it could be cleaned up with conventional oil-spill equipment. The study concluded that dilbit needed two things to sink. First, a period of “weathering,” in which lighter components could evaporate from the dilbit. Then sediments need to cling to the remaining product and drag it to the bottom. The conclusion was that dilbit wasn’t particularly unique in this behaviour and acted like “many other heavy crude oils.”

DILBIT IS NOT MORE PRONE TO INLAND SPILLS

The aforementioned Kalamazoo spill, which occurred when a ruptured Enbridge pipeline leaked nearly four million litres of dilbit, helped popularize the notion that dilbit is more prone to spill because it corrodes metal quicker. However, this has been debunked by U.S. research. As well, the Trans Mountain pipeline might actually reduce the amount of oil likely to spill in the B.C. Interior by reducing the vast numbers of trains currently transporting bitumen to the coast.

REGULAR TANKER TRAFFIC ISN’T UNIQUELY DANGEROUS TO KILLER WHALES

Lots of anti-pipeline literature has been premised on the notion that, even without a spill, the Trans Mountain pipeline will manage to get B.C.’s orcas killed. There are 76 orcas who live in the Salish Sea, constituting the only endangered North American orca population. Ecojustice called the pipeline a “death knell” to orcas, while the Raincoast Conservation Foundation called it “the death certificate” for the southern resident killer whale population. Noise and vessel collisions are indeed a hazard to B.C. orcas, but by 2026 Port Metro Vancouver is expecting to process 6,500 vessels per year. Of that total, only 4.6 per cent will represent the 300 extra tankers per year expected to be brought by an expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

IT’S REASONABLE TO EXPECT A MARINE SPILL WOULD NOT HAPPEN

Even as global oil consumption has soared and sea lanes have become increasingly packed, the amount of oil spilling into oceans has plummeted. In 1974, there were nearly 3,000 oil spills of more than seven tonnes, according to data maintained by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. In 2016, there were fewer than 100. The decrease closely mirrors a similar decrease in commercial aviation crashes over the same period. In both cases, industry responded to each accident with new safety measures, with the inevitable result that spill-causing mistakes have plummeted. According to Kinder Morgan risk calculations, a major spill would be a once-in-473-years event.

KINDER MORGAN HAS NO LIABILITY FOR A MARINE SPILL

Enbridge spent US$1.21 billion cleaning up the Kalamazoo spill. If the Trans Mountain pipeline suffered a similar rupture, Kinder Morgan would similarly be on the hook to clean it up, remediate affected areas and compensate victims. But Kinder Morgan’s responsibility ends as soon as a tanker pulls away from port. If the unthinkable should happen, British Columbians would be left to seek compensation from whatever foreign-flagged vessel did the deed. There are a number of funds designed to kick in should a marine spill occur, but British Columbia can expect to collect a maximum of only $1.3 billion in the event of a spill. When adjusting for inflation, it’s much less than the US$1.025-billion settlement paid after the Exxon Valdez spill. Even then, the Valdez settlement is notorious for failing to cover the true costs of the disaster. “I got 10 cents on the dollar for my losses,” one gillnetter told the Anchorage Daily News in 2016.

THE SPILL RESPONSE ISN’T NOTHING

Vancouver is the headquarters of Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, the industry funded private company in charge of spill response on the B.C. coast. While the company maintains caches all along the coast, its response times are shortest in the Vancouver area. In addition, Trans Mountain announced last year that spill response would be beefed up by $150 million in preparation for the pipeline. Still, Western Canada Marine Response is only rated to deal with a spill under 10,000 tonnes. This is only onetenth of the volume spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Tim Armstrong, the fire chief in New Westminster, told a Trans Mountain ministerial panel that he had concerns about Kinder Morgan’s stated plans to respond to a large-scale spill with teams from Alberta. “That’s not an emergency response. That’s a remediation plan,” he said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaughn Palmer: Big B.C. pension plan pumps millions in U.S. LNG project

 

Vaughn PalmerVAUGHN PALMER
Published on: March 13, 2018 | Last Updated: March 13, 2018 5:34 PM PDT

A man speaks on his phone while attending the Canada LNG Export Conference & Exhibition in Vancouver, B.C., on Thursday May 12, 2016.DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS

VICTORIA — While B.C. continues to wait — and wait — for the first big liquefied natural gas project, the province’s public sector pensions have quietly been investing millions in a rival LNG exporter based in the U.S.

Cheniere Energy, operator of one LNG terminal in Louisiana and nearing completion of a second in Texas, reported the increased stake late last month.

“B.C. Investment Management Corporation grew its position by 37.6 per cent during the fourth quarter,” disclosed the company in an investment filing. “BCIMC now owns 109, 417 shares valued at $5,894,000 after buying an additional 29,925 shares.”

BCIMC manages pension investments for public servants, teachers, college instructors, university professors, municipal workers and others in the public sector.

A corporation spokesperson this week confirmed the increased stake in Cheniere, though per long-standing policy declined to discuss either investment strategies or holdings.

The BCIMC website indicates that the pension fund trustees’ appoint the majority of members to the board, which sets overall strategies, but leaves actual investment decisions to a team of professional managers.

From the mission statement: “We deliver to our clients the highest return for a given level of risk, at a reasonable cost, while recognizing our responsibility to the broader society through our governance, social, and environmental related activities.”

The Cheniere investment, while accounting for only a tiny fraction of the $135 billion in assets managed by the corporation, looks like a good bet in terms of anticipated returns.

The company took the plunge into the LNG-for-export market in 2011, about the same time as B.C. began talking up the possibilities under Premier Christy Clark.

While the B.C. pace was glacial, Cheniere had its first production train up and running at Sabine Pass in Louisiana two years ago. The second terminal in Corpus Christi is scheduled to come on line this spring.

Targeting the same Asian markets as B.C., the company earlier this year signed a long-term export agreement with China and recently sent its first LNG shipment to India under a 20-year deal. With ready access to the expanded Panama Canal, it is well poised to take advantage of a projected one-third growth in global LNG demand by early in the next decade.

The main driver behind the shift is China, busy weaning itself off coal by shifting to relatively cleaner natural gas, an opportunity cited many times by Christy Clark to much mockery from political opponents.

As for B.C.’s current prospects, I asked Energy Minister Michelle Mungall if she expects we’ll see the opening of a multi-billion dollar LNG terminal here in B.C. one of these days?

“I do,” she said. “As soon as I was given this portfolio, I instructed my ministry to move forward with looking at how do we be competitive in the current global market pricing. So we’ve done that work and identified ways in which we can increase our competitiveness.”

The New Democrats are currently staking their hopes on LNG Canada, the Kitimat-based project backed by Shell Canada and partners.

“LNG Canada is still very much committed to working in B.C.,” Mungall told me during an interview last week on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV.

“They are anticipating to have a final investment decision within this calendar year. So they are still very much actively pursuing.”

Before the election, the New Democrats sided with a minority of First Nations in opposition to the chosen site near Port Edward on the northwest coast for an LNG project proposed by Malaysian-government owned Petronas. Petronas walked away from the project six days after the NDP took office, blaming market conditions.

Mungall says the Kitimat project meets NDP’s standards for support from First Nations.

“When I met many of the 21 First Nations that are along the line for LNG Canada from well to tidewater, many of them said ‘we want to make sure that you’re going to see LNG Canada happen because it’s so important for our community and not just the economic development opportunities.’ Many of them had community-wide votes after they did their own environmental assessment process, and those communities came out in strong support of LNG Canada.”

Soon to come from Mungall on the LNG file is her fulfilment of a promise the New Democrats made before the election to conduct a scientific review of fracking, the water-driven process whereby the B.C. natural gas resource is released from rocks deep in the earth.

Most of B.C.’s natural gas is produced by fracking and Mungall has rejected calls from activists for a moratorium while the scientists do their work.

“I can’t imagine anybody in B.C. who relies on natural gas to heat their home and heat their water suddenly saying: ‘yeah, sure, put a moratorium on it; I don’t want to have a warm home and I don’t want to have a nice hot shower in the morning,’” she told me.

She insists the panel will be constructive in its approach to natural gas development: “Our scientific panel’s going to work with industry to incentivize them to do things better. There’s always room for improvement … And when I sit down with industry and talk to them about what our plans are, they agree there’s always learning opportunities for them to do better.”

Still, it remains to be seen whether the panel will add further uncertainties to natural gas development in B.C., while B.C.’s rivals go full speed ahead on LNG production.   \story Link: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-big-b-c-pension-plan-pumps-millions-in-u-s-lng-project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

B.C. clean tech group warns pipeline fight could derail climate change progress

A group of clean technology executives from British Columbia have waded into the fight over the Trans Mountain pipeline by voicing support for the controversial expansion.

'We believe the path to a stable climate is long and arduous with no easy short cuts'

Jessica Barrett · CBC News · Posted: Mar 29, 2018 7:24 PM MT | Last Updated: 11 hours ago
 
kinder-morgan-tour-20150604.jpg?imwidth=
'By not constructing the pipeline expansion, Canada forgoes significant economic benefits with no offsetting global environmental gains,' states a letter by a group of B.C.-based clean technology professionals. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

A group of clean technology executives from British Columbia have waded into the fight over the Trans Mountain pipeline by voicing support for the controversial expansion.

More than two dozen executives and investors have written a letter to B.C. Premier John Horgan expressing concern that the province's vow to block the pipeline could result in serious setbacks to Canada's plans to address climate change.

According to the letter, the group's members are involved in various industries aimed at reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. 

"We're very concerned that the demonstrations and the threat by the B.C. government to cancel the TMX pipeline will in fact cause that climate change agenda to go sideways," group spokesman Denis Connor told CBC's the Eyeopener.

"Particularly, it may cause the election of conservative governments that are opposed to the carbon pricing ideas of the present government."

Connor said he is affiliated with a company that develops carbon capture technology but he did not want to reveal the name of the company since he is not speaking on its behalf. 

The federal Liberal government's approval of the expansion was necessary to bring Alberta on board with its climate change accord, Connor said. Failure to follow through would dissuade Alberta's energy sector, and perhaps public sentiment, from supporting progressive climate change policies and investing in clean technology. 

"I think the federal government is simply going to have to stay the course," Connor said. "And there are going to be demonstrations all through the summer."

 
pipeline-protest.jpg?imwidth=840
Denis Connor, spokesperson for the group says the federal government must 'stay the course' despite widespread protests against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)

In the letter, the group also argues failure to twin the pipeline will put Canada and Alberta at an economic disadvantage, but it won't do anything to stem the global demand for oil.

"Canadian oil would just be replaced by oil from the U.S. or other jurisdictions having easier access to ocean transport and no carbon pricing," the letter states. "By not constructing the pipeline expansion, Canada forgoes significant economic benefits with no offsetting global environmental gains."

A better plan for Canada is to continue to regulate and tax carbon emissions, the letter said, adding the revenue from those programs should be used to continue to develop clean technologies that can reduce emissions an ease a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels over time.

"We believe the path to a stable climate is long and arduous with no easy short cuts, such as stopping shipment to world markets of oil from Alberta," the letter states.

Connor said he has received a "kind note" from the B.C. government confirming it has received the letter and is awaiting a full response from the province's Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIBERALS FURTHER BURDEN PIPELINE APPROVALS WITH PROGRESSIVE ADD-ONS

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 1 Apr 2018
  • GUNTER
getimage.aspx?regionKey=fB9N8NMo6bkd3DRgm3umwQ%3d%3dGeTTy IMaGes  

In testimony before the House of Commons environment committee on Wednesday, Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built” under the Trudeau government’s new impact assessment bill now working through Parliament.

If the bill only required more stringent environmental reviews, industry could probably live with that.

Oil and gas companies have grown accustomed to spending hundreds of millions completing all the tests and contingency plans required to win environmental approval for new projects.

What makes the Liberals’ new law so much more likely to slam the door shut on investment are all the socialengineering add-ons that have nothing — nothing — to do with the environment or business, such as genderbased assessments.

These add-ons are merely designed to puff up the Liberals’ image among the symbolism-loving voter groups they hope to woo.

To get a sense of just how deep the anti-pipeline delirium has permeated the Liberals and the federal government, consider the furor around a February letter from Quebec’s deputy environment minister, Patrick Beauchesne, to his counterpart in Ottawa.

One of the add-ons in the Liberals’ new law would give Indigenous “traditional knowledge” equal standing with scientific data when considering environmental impacts. Because the new Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) contains a “very broad” definition of traditional Indigenous knowledge, Beauchesne was merely wondering how the federal government proposed to resolve any discrepancies or disputes that arise when scientific research and traditional knowledge conflict?

Since his letter became public, Beauchesne has been eviscerated as a racist.

His boss, Quebec Environment Minister Isabelle Melancon and provincial Native Affairs Minister Geoffrey Kelley have gone crawling to First Nations groups begging for forgiveness for Beauchesne’s insensitivity.

Indigenous leaders have slammed the deputy minister for his “insulting,” “outrageous,” “offensive” and “colonial” statement.

Federal Liberal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna reaffirmed her government’s intention to “make it mandatory to consider Indigenous traditional knowledge alongside science and other evidence.”

But my favourites were from seven University of Ottawa professors, led by law professor Thomas Burelli, who accused Beauchesne of a “racism of intelligence” and of advocating a “hierarchy of knowledges.”

Um, what’s wrong with a hierarchy of knowledges? If you need a heart operation, don’t you favour the knowledge of a cardiac surgeon over the “knowledge” of your cousin who looked up your condition on the internet?

We even acknowledge a hierarchy among surgeons. We want “the best,” not just an average one.

Investors are not going to risk billions in Canada’s economy if our regulatory agencies are obliged to value folk wisdom equally with research, lest they be accused of a “racism of intelligence.”

This came up in a Supreme Court case, too. In the 1997 Delgamuukw decision, the Lamer court ruled that in land claims, “Aboriginal oral traditions” should be given the same or greater evidentiary weight as scholarly research and land titles records.

It’s always struck me as funny that Indigenous activists and politically correct politicians (and law profs) can bemoan how white governments and society have destroyed First Nations’ communities, culture, social structure and traditions. Residential schools in particular, they claim, wiped out much of what Indigenous peoples value about being Indigenous.

Yet, somehow despite this “cultural genocide,” Indigenous traditional knowledge has remained so robustly intact that it can now be relied on to decide whether multibillion-dollar megaprojects should be allowed to proceed.

And thanks to the hysteria of political correctness, everyone who so much as wonders aloud about this must be shouted down as a racist.

The notion that folk wisdom is as meaningful as scientific inquiry has been allowed to grow, unchallenged, until now it is about to codified in Canada law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that trudeau intends to grant defacto control over Canada's natural resources to natives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

It would seem that trudeau intends to grant defacto control over Canada's natural resources to natives.

and protestors funded from south of the 49th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again the Liberals attempt to transfer blame to the former Conservative Government.  But: http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/pipelines-politics-where-the-parties-stand-on-oil-gas-issues

TRUDEAU VISITS THE OILSANDS

PM blames Harper for pipeline delays

  • Calgary Herald
  • 7 Apr 2018
  • VINCENT MCDERMOTT With files from The Canadian Press and additional reporting from Laura Beamish

FORT MCMURRAY Delays in getting pipelines built and a public mistrust toward oilsands developments are legacies of the former Conservative government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said during a Friday tour of Suncor’s Fort Hills operation north of Fort McMurray.

Following the visit, Trudeau said the Harper government failed to get major pipeline projects built because Canadians did not trust those in power “to both grow the economy and protect the environment.”

“For 10 years, Stephen Harper’s government talked up the oilsands, but couldn’t get it done,” said Trudeau. “Their lack of any sort of responsibility on the environment didn’t just hurt the environment, it hurt the economy.”

Trudeau took aim at critics on both sides of the pipeline debate, arguing they were either hurting economic growth or ignoring the economic need for a pipeline to the West Coast.

“It’s a shame that there are people out there who are very much looking to polarize this debate and pit Canadians against Canadians and regions against another,” he said.

Following Trudeau’s comments, Jason Kenney, leader of the United Conservative Party and a former cabinet minister in the Harper government, tweeted that Trudeau’s claim is “demonstrably false.”

“Trudeau (is) the one who killed Northern Gateway and scuttled Energy East, and is failing to fight Trans Mountain obstructionism,” he tweeted.

Trudeau’s trip to the oilsands followed a visit to B.C. on Thursday, where he delivered a similar message on balancing resource development and environmental stewardship.

His Vancouver fundraiser was disrupted by protesters chanting “Kinder Morgan has got to go.”

On Friday, Trudeau acknowledged there were people in Fort McMurray who saw his environmental policies — particularly toward carbon pricing — as the reason major pipeline projects have yet to be built.

Suncor CEO Steve Williams said he felt “reassured” regarding Trudeau’s pipeline and environmental commitments.

“I think we’re going to get some help,” Williams said.

While taking questions from workers in a break room, one man said the number of foreign oil companies that have left the oilsands in the last few years worried him. He asked how Ottawa would bring those companies back to Alberta.

“We do need to do a better job on getting international investment,” said Trudeau. “We’re going to be able to do that as we move forward on NAFTA, as we create better trade deals and as we demonstrate our capacity to get big projects, like the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, built.”

Trudeau also met with the leaders of several oil companies, and those of First Nation and Métis communities in the Wood Buffalo region.

“First Nations want development to happen throughout Canada, but First Nations want to be a big part of development,” Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam said as he arrived for the meeting.

We do need to do a better job on getting international investment. We’re going to be able to do that as we move forward on NAFTA, as we create better trade deals and as we demonstrate our capacity to get big projects ... built.

image.png.33c69958b53d317699478a0c4ce052fe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and I hope the next news item is that Kinder Morgan is switching the existing pipeline over only to the carriage of products from the Alberta Oil Sands and stopping the carriage of any refined fuel.

April 8, 2018 3:44 pm
Updated: April 8, 2018 6:13 pm

Kinder Morgan halts Trans Mountain pipeline expansion amid B.C. opposition

By Jesse Ferreras and Emily Mertz Global News
 

Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (KML) has suspended all “non-essential activities and related spending” on the expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline, the company said in a Sunday news release.

The release said that the company will “not commit additional shareholder resources” to the project in light of “continued actions in opposition to the project” by B.C.’s provincial government.

Coverage of the Trans Mountain pipeline on Globalnews.ca:

Legal victory has Alberta premier confident about Trans Mountain pipeline

2018-03-27T00-11-21.766Z--1280x720.jpg?w=648&quality=70&strip=all
Legal victory has Alberta premier confident about Trans Mountain pipeline

Kinder Morgan said it would consult with stakeholders with a view to reaching agreements by May 31 that “may allow the project to proceed.”

It’s looking for clarity on the ability of the expansion to be built through B.C., and for protection of shareholders.

READ MORE: Kinder Morgan pipeline protests a legacy of dismissing environmental worries: Trudeau

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, B.C. Premier John Horgan said he spoke with both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and KML president Ian Anderson.

“Mr. Anderson told me he believes that the project Kinder Morgan has been undertaking has been unnecessarily harassed by British Columbia, and I told him that I disagreed,” Horgan said.

“We were consistent from the time the campaign started until it completed, right up to this day, that our job, we believe, of the Government of British Columbia is to defend our water, our lands and, most importantly, our coast.”

In a statement, Greenpeace spokesperson Mike Hudema said:

“The writing is on the wall and even Kinder Morgan can read it.

“Investors should note that the opposition to this project is strong, deep and gets bigger by the day.

“We encourage Kinder Morgan to shelve this project before the litany of lawsuits, crumbling economics, and the growing resistance does it for them.”

Thousands of people march together during a protest against the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in Burnaby, B.C., on Saturday March 10, 2018.

In a statement, Kinder Morgan chairman and CEO Steve Kean said the company wants to be “judicious in our use of shareholder funds.”

“In keeping with that commitment, we have determined that in the current environment, we will not put KML shareholders at risk on the remaining project spend,” he said.

“A company cannot resolve differences between governments. While we have succeeded in all legal challenges to date, a company cannot litigate its way to an in-service pipeline amidst jurisdictional differences between governments.”

In the release, Kinder Morgan said the project is facing “unquantifiable risk” as B.C. has asserted “broad jurisdiction” and indicated that it would use its jurisdiction to stop the expansion.

“B.C.’s intention in that regard has been neither validated nor quashed, and the province has continued to threaten unspecified additional actions to prevent project success.”

Kean said if an agreement can’t be reached by May 31, then “it is difficult to conceive of any scenario in which we would proceed with the project.”

READ MORE: Artist takes 20,000-km journey along B.C.-Alberta pipeline route. Both sides are wrong, he says

In a statement, federal Natural Resource Minister Jim Carr to “end all threats of delay to the Trans Mountain expansion.”

“His government’s actions stand to harm the entire Canadian economy,” Carr said.

“At a time of great global trade uncertainty, the importance of Canada’s role in the global energy market is bigger than individual projects and provinces.”

Carr went on to say that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the Canadian economy grows and remains stable, and that B.C. shares in the responsibility to ensure Canada’s resources reach the market.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley had strong words for B.C. — and for Canada — in a news conference on Sunday afternoon.

“Federal approval of this project must be worth more than the paper it is printed on,” she said.

Notley went on to say, “Premier [John] Horgan believes he can harass this project without economic consequences for B.C.

“There, he is wrong.”

Notley said her government would bring forward legislation that would give Alberta the tools it needs to “impose economic consequence on British Columbia if the government continues on its present course.”

She did not get into specifics.

READ MORE: Oilpatch CEO says Trudeau needs to give real pipeline support, ‘not just words’

Notley also accused Horgan of believing he can harass the managers and investors behind the pipeline expansion.

“There, he is wrong as well.

“Maybe the government of B.C. thinks they can mess with Texas. Let me be absolutely clear: they cannot mess with Alberta.”

Alberta opposition leader Jason Kenney called Kinder Morgan’s decision “devastating but predictable.”

“If we can’t get this pipeline built, it proves that Canada is broken,” he said.

Kenney accused the federal government of standing by “passively” as the BC NDP has “kept true to their promise to do everything in their power to stop this project.”

Even after the project was approved according to the “highest environmental standards,” he said.

Supporters of the pipeline expansion say some tough talks could be coming.

“Canada loses in so many ways if this project isn’t finished,” said Stewart Muir, executive director of Resource Works Canada.

Naysayers feel they’ve been proven right by the latest news.

“This looks like recognition by Kinder Morgan that the legal, scientific and social backing is not there,” said Jay Ritchlin, director general of B.C. and the western region at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

and I hope the next news item is that Kinder Morgan is switching the existing pipeline over only to the carriage of products from the Alberta Oil Sands and stopping the carriage of any refined fuel.

 

The Alberta government can do this itself by being selective on what export permits it signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would have thought, NDPs putting cash ahead of their principals.  If she keeps this up even I might vote for her in the next election. :D

To save Kinder Morgan project, Notley would buy it

Alberta prepares to inflict serious damage on B.C. as lawmakers prepare legislation

  • Calgary Herald
  • 10 Apr 2018
  • DON BRAID Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald dbraid@postmedia.com Twitter: @DonBraid
getimage.aspx?regionKey=MvVP0dN2TkGNPQ%2fb4YQLyw%3d%3dJONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS/FILES Premier Rachel Notley says Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project has become “too big to fail” both economically and in terms of national symbolism.

Premier Rachel Notley says Alberta would buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion if the company wants out after May 31.

In an interview Tuesday, I asked her: “If Kinder Morgan were to say, ‘We’re gone, and if you want to buy, it’s yours’ — that’s what you’d do?”

“That’s what we’d do,” said the premier.

The answer is almost too clear for politics. But it’s what she said.

Earlier I asked: “Are you assuring Albertans that even if Kinder Morgan does walk away, that it (the Trans Mountain project) will still be alive and kicking with Alberta in control, after May 31.”

“We have every intention that this will happen,” she said.

Anybody who thinks Notley is bluffing should remember that she’s already phased out coal, brought in a carbon tax, turned the electricity industry on its head and imposed a cap on emissions.

Notley won’t talk about the cost of buying the expansion or what other solutions might work. But she’s determined that the province, hopefully with Ottawa as co-investor, would control the project.

Notley says the Trans Mountain expansion has become “too big to fail” both economically and in terms of national symbolism. “Success would send a strong signal; failure would send an even stronger signal.”

Alberta officials have been in talks with the company for some time.

“We have been surveying the options but we’re not in a position to say we’ve arrived at Model A or Model B,” Notley said. “What is true is that we’ve been having good, robust, wideranging conversations.”

She wouldn’t comment on Ottawa’s involvement, but the feds are clearly engaged with Kinder Morgan, too.

Notley certainly wants Ottawa in. She’s meeting federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau on Wednesday to discuss options. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called an emergency cabinet meeting.

Nobody is talking numbers yet, but obviously a buyout would run to billions.

One idea is for the government to buy a controlling interest and then sell shares to the Alberta public.

That worked in the 1970s, when the Progressive Conservatives created the Alberta Energy Co. to develop oil and gas.

Premier Peter Lougheed’s government issued shares for 50 per cent of the government’s stake. Stock ownership was strictly limited to Alberta residents.

Lougheed even let cabinet ministers buy shares. He wanted Albertans to be sure the politicians were enthusiastic about the company’s success.

They certainly were. Albertans snapped up the offering. The stock soon split three ways.

For many years it was a solid investment for thousands of families. (In 2002, Alberta Energy merged with Pan Canadian Energy to become Encana.)

Today, the NDP is actively discussing this idea. And there might be a hot market for shares in a project that has almost become a patriotic symbol to many Albertans.

While all this is being considered, the plan to squeeze B.C.’s economy has turned serious, specific — and angry.

After Kinder Morgan’s Sunday decision to stop work, MLAs of all parties are ready to inflict some serious damage.

New enabling bills will be tabled next week. Notley said one measure is ready for launch immediately.

“The first one you will see has been vetted for use. The financial risk, the investor risk, has been fully vetted. We’re not bringing in something just to put it in the window.”

She won’t divulge the target, but it may be Lower Mainland fuel supplies through the constriction of oil exports.

Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd told the legislature, “In the forthcoming days there will be legislation dropped … to restrict resources to B.C., to inflict economic pain upon them so that they realize what their decision means.”

Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman was even more direct: “You want to make life hard on Albertans? We can certainly do the same for British Columbians. We don’t want to, but we’re willing to do that, and because it’s in the national interest we have the means to do so.”

B.C. Premier John Horgan has 52 days to issue non-harassment guarantees that satisfy Kinder Morgan.

If he doesn’t, he could soon be looking at a new project owner who’s mad as a grizzly and won’t be run off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE RULES AREN’T FAIR

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 10 Apr 2018
  •  

Albertans who have grown increasingly concerned about the barriers facing Canada’s energy industry have even more reason to despair. It’s well known that Canada’s regulatory environment is among the most robust in the world, ensuring the highest regard for the environment, including limiting greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, Alberta has imposed a carbon tax and capped oilsands emissions in the naive hope of securing so-called social license for pipeline development. Everyone knows how that has turned out.

An ocean away, the United Nations body that regulates the international shipping industry is meeting in London this week to see if it can agree on a strategy to reduce emissions from the cargo ships, oil tankers and other vessels that traverse the planet’s oceans. This is serious work, because such emissions were excluded from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.

This means that when Eastern Canada buys its fuel from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria and Angola, the oil isn’t just produced using less rigorous environmental standards than those in Canada. It also means the oil tankers that transport foreign oil to our shores aren’t subjected to controls on their greenhouse gas emissions.

The UN’s International Maritime Organization says such vessels risk becoming the singlelargest source of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

And yet Eastern Canadians welcome the tankers with open arms, while vehemently opposing Canadian pipelines.

If action isn’t taken, the organization says emissions from shipping could grow by up to 250 per cent by 2050. International shipping emissions are not assigned to any one country, according to The Canadian Press, but on their own, they are higher than the total emissions from all but the six biggest national emitters — China, the United States, India, Russia, Japan and Germany.

It’s an indignity that Albertans and their economy have been placed in a straitjacket for no apparent purpose by Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The federal government even changed the rules recently to require future pipeline projects to calculate the upstream and downstream environmental emissions — which is pollution produced during extraction and when the fuel is burned in vehicles.

No such burden is placed on Eastern Canadian carmakers or plane manufacturers, of course. Or on ships that deliver foreign oil to Eastern ports.

Alberta is being unfairly treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for the Libs to excrete or get off the pot.

Cabinet to hold emergency meeting today in bid to save pipeline expansion

Faced with an escalating battle between British Columbia and Alberta as well as a spooked investment community, federal cabinet ministers will gather today for an emergency meeting in search of a way to convince Kinder Morgan to go forward with its Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Kinder Morgan announced late Sunday it was calling a halt to all non-essential spending on the project

Gemma Karstens-Smith · The Canadian Press · Posted: Apr 10, 2018 9:16 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

Faced with an escalating battle between British Columbia and Alberta as well as a spooked investment community, federal cabinet ministers will gather Tuesday for an emergency meeting in search of a way to convince Kinder Morgan to go forward with its Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The House of Commons is in the middle of a two-week break, during which times cabinet rarely meets. But ministers are hightailing it back to Ottawa to try and salvage the pipeline project they green-lighted 17 months ago.

Kinder Morgan announced late Sunday it was calling a halt to all non-essential spending on the project, giving Ottawa a deadline of May 31 to convince the company and its investors that the pipeline can prevail over the opposition that now threatens to block it.

The fight between B.C. and Alberta escalated Monday as Alberta Premier Rachel Notley promised legislation this week that would, once passed, give Alberta the ability to reduce domestic oil supplies into B.C. Such a move would cause already high gas prices in B.C. to spike, ramping up the pressure from pipeline proponents on the province to back down.

B.C. Premier John Horgan, however, heads a minority NDP government that clings to power only with the support of three Green party members under an agreement to fight the pipeline. So far, he's shown no sign of giving in.

The pipeline is within federal jurisdiction, but Horgan is trying to use provincial powers to limit how much oil — ultimately destined for export markets overseas — can flow through it, effectively killing any reason for expansion.

Trudeau says pipeline is in the national interest

Notley said Monday she expects the federal government to follow Alberta's lead and put economic and fiscal pressure on B.C. to back off. She also wants Ottawa to use the courts or legislation to assert its jurisdictional authority over the pipeline, and to put its money where its mouth is — either as insurance for worried investors or even as a stakeholder in the project.

The fight between Alberta and B.C. Premier John Horgan escalated Monday as Alberta Premier Rachel Notley promised legislation this week that would, once passed, give Alberta the ability to reduce domestic oil supplies into B.C (Mark Blinch/Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Legal, regulatory and financial options are all being considered, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said Monday. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described a long conversation Sunday with Horgan in which he told him not to intervene in an area of federal jurisdiction.

"I impressed upon him the importance of working together and respecting the federal responsibility for protecting things that are in the national interest," Trudeau said during a news conference in Montreal. "This is a pipeline in the national interest and it will get built."

The expansion project is meant to triple the capacity of the pipeline that already runs between Edmonton and Burnaby, B.C. Opponents to the project in B.C. say the pipeline can't go ahead if Canada is to meet its climate change targets, and also fear the expanded risk of oil spills and heightened oil tanker traffic off the coast of B.C.

Conservative natural resources critic Shannon Stubbs called the emergency cabinet meeting a "good sign," but only if it yields a concrete plan to end an "escalating interprovincial dispute."

"It is the job of the prime minister to lead and to demonstrate exactly how his approved expansion will not keep facing blockades and barriers and delays," Stubbs said.

Earlier this year, Carr and Trudeau both said they would not stand for undue delays, but so far have done nothing to back up their words, she added.

The Conservatives also want Trudeau to sit down with Horgan. The prime minister was in Victoria last week, but Horgan was away in Kamloops; the pair haven't sat down in the same room since last fall.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged the question of federal investment during a news conference in Montreal Monday, saying only there is a "broad range of options" for Ottawa to consider. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press)

Melanee Thomas, a politics professor at the University of Calgary, said provinces have very little legal ability to force other provinces to take action. She said Notley's plan to give Alberta the ability to restrict B.C.'s oil supply may not be constitutional, but likely can't be challenged unless and until she actually goes through with it.

"There isn't really a court challenge there until they pull the trigger, but it's still ratcheting up the fight," said Thomas.

Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Ottawa, said the federal Liberals are up against the wall — they have alienated some of their environmental supporters by backing the pipeline, and could end up with nothing to show for it.

Crowley called it a "no-win situation" for Trudeau politically, but one that may be beyond politics now.

"This has now become an issue of if the law prevails in Canada or if angry minorities can prevail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking seems to be all that either Lefty government wants to do.

The Alberta government could end this in a week if they just quit signing export permits for awhile.

Drive the price of Vancouver gasoline up to $5 a litre and let the little bastards suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trans Mountain and the slow western break from Confederation

"For industry, the failure of Trans Mountain would be a clear indication that Canada is the equivalent of a prevaricating, Third World nation." Jen Gerson on credibility conflicts and threats to Confederation.

We've got Conservatives advocating an NDP plan to invest taxpayer cash in oil and gas

 
jen-gerson.jpg?imwidth=100
Jen Gerson · for CBC News · Posted: Apr 11, 2018 6:30 AM MT | Last Updated: 3 minutes ago
Alberta Premier Rachel Notely and B.C. Premier John Horgan are both leading NDP governments, but they are on opposite ends of the Trans Mountain pipeline debate. (CBC)
road-ahead-provincial-alberta-logo.jpg?i
 
road-ahead-provincial-alberta-logo.jpg?i

Dear God, it's come to this.

We've got Conservatives advocating an NDP plan to invest taxpayer cash in oil and gas.

The last decade of pipeline politics have culminated in a set of conditions so bizarre that there now seems to be no option other than threatening to nationalize the Trans Mountain pipeline. Yes, nationalizing a goddamn pipeline.

Kinder Morgan says it's going to suspend all non-essential expenditures for Trans Mountain — and suggests the whole project could be mothballed by May 31 — if some significant progress isn't made on the political side. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is suggesting Alberta could invest in the line to ensure it goes forward. United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney backs the moves, and adds he wants to see Ottawa pitch in as well.

And so, we are now offering to pay a multi-billion dollar company to "bear with us" while we get our self-made political quagmire sorted out.

To be frank, I'm not even sure there's a better option at this point.

Political savvy

There's no real debate that the federal government maintains the jurisdiction over the Trans Mountain project. It approved the twinning of the line in 2016.

But B.C. NDP leader John Horgan has responded with announcements intended to stall the increased flow of bitumen to the coast. This tactic almost certainly has no legal merit, but may yet prove effective at introducing enough vagueness and uncertainty that Kinder Morgan will simply have to give up.

Indeed, that's what seems to be happening. It's hard to blame Kinder Morgan — although we can certainly note their political savvy. By making the threat, the company is forcing the federal government's hand.

However, at a certain point, political uncertainty simply adds too much "unquantifiable risk," (as the company put it), to what would otherwise be a simple math equation. How many more years of deliberation were its shareholders willing to tolerate? The answer, apparently: not one more.

Given how much political capital has already been spent on on this line, Trans Mountain's potential scuttling can't be allowed to stand.

The failure of this particular project risks all kinds of unintended consequences for Alberta, and the country as a whole.

Billions in royalties

Firstly, Alberta would lose billions in royalties, but that's the least of its problems.

Trans Mountain's failure would be the clearest demonstration yet that Notley's ambitious greenhouse gas reduction policies have categorically failed to build the necessary "social licence" for the province to continue to mine and ship its primary export. She will not be able to allow this failure to pass unchallenged.

Premier Rachel Notley can't afford to fail in her defence of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (CBC)

Notley would have to hold true to her promise to cancel plans to increase carbon pricing — which risks undermining Canada's carbon emissions targets. She would also be within her rights to rescind Alberta's hard emissions cap on oil sands development. She does not want to do this. This is a government that prided itself on taking a leadership role on climate change in this country. But Notley's also depending on that increase in carbon taxes to fix Alberta's budget.

For industry, the failure of Trans Mountain would be a clear indication that Canada is the equivalent of a prevaricating, Third World nation. One where approvals on major projects are subject not to objective standards or a fair, technocratic, examination of their merits — but rather by public whim and political fancy.

This risks creating a culture of institutionalized kickbacks and corruption — similar to how business is done in much of the developing world, where getting projects built is often more a matter of appeasing the right people, than serving the public good.

Kinder Morgan announced Sunday it was halting all "non-essential activities and related spending" on the Trans Mountain pipeline project due to B.C. opposition. (Trans Mountain)

For the federal government, failure of the Trans Mountain pipeline would demonstrate its fundamental impotency. A province need not demonstrate jurisdictional authority at all. Opponents to federally approved projects need only be patient.

But all this, is no longer about a pipeline.

Every political actor has put too much of their own credibility on the line to allow Kinder Morgan to back out. Backing the pipeline with public funds is the least ideal option. But, because credibility is on the line, it's the only one left on the table.

Spending (even losing) a few billion to buy an equity stake to prevent these outcomes is a reasonable price for Alberta. It would give the project time to weather court rulings and other manufactured delays. (Let the protesters set up tents at a reasonable distance from dangerous construction, if they please. It's a free country.)

Setting B.C. against Alberta

In the midst of this escalating fight, let's also note the way Trans Mountain has set B.C. against Alberta while, hope against hope, the federal government mediates the dispute. What happens when the federal government reveals itself to be the null power?

If B.C. and Alberta are left to sort out their own trade disputes absent federal oversight, it's easy start wondering what the ultimate value of Confederation is, exactly.

Imagine, for a moment, that B.C. and Alberta didn't see themselves as two distinct people at odds, as they do under the current system — but rather one small nation, were the risks and rewards of resource royalties are shared. Would a pipeline be an easier sell, then?

September 2013: Alberta Premier Alison Redford, left, and British Columbia Premier Christy Clark chat while walking along the boardwalk in Kelowna, B.C.

Back in 2012 during the controversy over the now defunct Northern Gateway line, then Liberal B.C. Premier Christy Clark set out five conditions for her province's support of heavy oil pipelines within its borders. Among them was, "a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits."

Critics like myself pointed out that this demand was flatly unconstitutional — royalties belong to the province in which the resource originates. B.C. had no leverage with which to rescind its approval of pipelines at all. Of course, that's only if we're talking about the Canadian constitution.

Flatly unconstitutional

It's hard not to look at that list of demands now and wonder whether or not it was the first step in some kind of slow western break from Confederation. One that would fulfil a century-old ambition to tie the West's economy a little more closely to the U.S. and Asia — and a little less with Ontario and Quebec.

Today, these two provinces might be enemies over a pipeline. But if this issue isn't resolved, might it be too far a stretch to imagine a time in which they are allies bound by a shared belief in the uselessness of the federal government?

What if, for example, B.C. and Alberta mediated this pipeline dispute through the New West Partnership Trade Agreement's dispute resolution process? A successful outcome here would sure raise questions about whether the western provinces had the civic infrastructure to hum along without the need for Ottawa to play big brother.

That said, Clark's five conditions set the board for Horgan's current intransigence. Such plays are not always so easy to track or control. The Trans Mountain pipeline may prove to be the Bad Bishop in a much broader game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMING SOON: THE NDP BILL TO CHOKE OFF FUEL TO B.C.

Notley tired of Horgan’s pipeline expansion games and is prepared to take hard action

  • Calgary Herald
  • 11 Apr 2018
  • DON BRAID Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald. dbraid@postmedia.com Twitter: @DonBraid
getimage.aspx?regionKey=vTvjqDHJQmISM6Rxc2xv%2fg%3d%3d  

The bill coming from the Alberta NDP sounds tame, but this is no paper tiger.

Called the Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, it will enable cuts of Alberta fuel shipments to B.C.’s Lower Mainland.

This will likely apply to oil, natural gas and refined products, including gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.

And the restrictions probably won’t just apply to pipeline shipments. There could also be a restriction of petroleum moving to B.C. by rail or truck.

The bill will be unveiled in the legislature next week, probably Monday. Debate and passage would take no more than a few days. Regulations will follow.

And then, Premier Rachel Notley will look for a moment of maximum impact to drive fuel prices up dramatically in Vancouver and across the whole southern region.

The Alberta NDP will frame these actions in Canadian patriotism, emphasizing the economic necessity of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

But the reality for many British Columbians will be a bitter taste of the economic harm the B.C. government’s pipeline resistance inflicts on Alberta.

“Their government has caused pain to Alberta families,” Alberta deputy premier Sarah Hoffman said Tuesday. “We can certainly do the same, and we’ve put a bill on the order paper that enables us to do that.”

B.C. Premier John Horgan is defiant, or maybe just oblivious.

He crowed to the B.C. legislature Tuesday about forcing Notley’s retreat from her brief ban on B.C. wine.

The wine war was “a one-sided battle,” he said.

“We had the province to our east say they were no longer going to accept wine shipments from British Columbia. Our response was to say: ‘That’s illegal, and you shouldn’t do that.’

“Now they’ve withdrawn that position, and they may well have others, but I don’t think it’s useful to speculate on the actions of other people.”

He might not be speculating much longer. The wine ban was only suspended, not ended. Notley might still re-impose it as a warning that the gasoline squeeze is coming.

Choking B.C.’s fuel supply will bring recrimination, but Notley and her caucus are finally angry enough to pressure Horgan with genuine hardship.

It’s important to remember that Horgan doesn’t really speak for B.C. According to polls, his pipeline stance isn’t even supported by a majority.

The province’s Liberal opposition is fiercely critical of the premier, and much more attuned to the troubles B.C. could soon be facing.

“I’m certain that most British Columbians would feel that it is not the premier’s job to provoke a trade war with Alberta ... that could result in very serious consequences for the people of British Columbia,” Liberal MLA Todd Stone, from KamloopsSouth Thompson, said Tuesday.

B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said Horgan has been blasted across Canada since Kinder Morgan’s decision to stop work on the project.

“What is this premier going to do?” Wilkinson asked. “What is his plan to resolve this emerging war with Alberta and an ongoing dispute with the government of Canada and a completely destructive approach to the investment community?”

Horgan responded, as always, that he’s waiting for another court decision. Wilkinson continued: “This premier stands totally isolated in Canada on this file. He purports to wrap himself in the flag of the people of British Columbia, but he has failed to recognize that no one else thinks he has the jurisdiction to do what he’s trying to do.

“And that is clear from the government of Alberta, from the government of Saskatchewan, from the government of Canada and from the investment community.”

After the bill comes down, Notley will wait and watch for the next week or more, as buyout talks with Kinder Morgan continue and Ottawa works on its own strategy.

But if Horgan doesn’t bend soon, the voters of B.C. are in for severe gas pain.

Their government has caused pain to Alberta families. We can certainly do the same, and we’ve put a bill on the order paper that enables us to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
April 11, 2018 4:02 pm

B.C. gas prices could hit $2 a litre if Trans Mountain tensions continue, analyst says

amy-judd-crop.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w By Amy Judd Online News Producer  Global News
 

Drivers across B.C. are no doubt keeping a close eye on the gas prices as tensions have risen between Alberta and B.C. over the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Alberta’s NDP government served notice Tuesday of plans to introduce legislation that Premier Rachel Notley has said will give the province the power to reduce oil flows and likely prompt a spike in gas prices in B.C.

Motorists in Metro Vancouver currently pay more than $1.50 a litre for gas.

READ MORE: B.C. premier ‘surprised and concerned’ at Alberta’s move to throttle oil flow

Dan McTeague, an analyst with GasBuddy.com, gave Global News a look at what that disruption in oil flows could mean.

“If we do see a disruption in the Trans Mountain Pipeline, the existing pipeline, if Alberta decides to turn off the taps entirely, then you’re looking at a drop of at least 50 per cent of the fuel supplies – diesel, gasoline, and even oil to supply perhaps even a portion of the Parkland refineries output,” he says. 

“To put it into perspective, Parkland probably provides about 25 to 30 per cent of all the fuel needs of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. The Trans Mountain provides about 50 per cent.”

McTeague says about 50 to 60 per cent of B.C.’s fuel needs would be affected.

READ MORE: Trans Mountain fiasco could worsen pain at the pump for all Canadians this summer

The pipeline dispute between B.C., Alberta and the federal government heated up last weekend when Kinder Morgan Canada announced it was suspending work on the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because of opposition and delays in B.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fido said:

To paraphrase:

'Let those WestCoast bastards freeze in the dark'

Problem with that is evidently the majority of those who live in BC are in favour of the pipeline, it is the extremists who are running the show however...... so perhaps a citizens revolt?  Or maybe our Federal Government will grow a "set" (sexist I know) and do something to solve the conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this