herbie_popnecker wrote:My Grandfather argued for more secondary industry in Canada. WTF are we doing still arguing that? And arguing for MORE tote dat wood, draw dat water crap.
DHCollins wrote:So much for peripheral vision.
This is a matter of ETHICS, not economics. Whether you believe it or not, you are your brother's keeper. And right now, your brothers and sisters in Alberta are getting sick off this stuff.
Now why would you exploit that for your own financial gain???
Thestar.com wrote: Approval should be withheld until we get credible answers on many worrisome questions:
• Pipelines routinely break, industry reassurances to the contrary. That being the case, we need to know by what means Enbridge Inc. and TransCanada Corp., sponsors of the Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines, respectively, plan to improve new pipe, pumps and so on over the lines prone to failure they’ve put in place to date.
TransCanada’s Keystone, in operation for just over a year, has already had a dozen spills. And an Enbridge pipeline rupture in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River last year caused the biggest oil spill in Midwest history. An ExxonMobil Corp. pipeline last year spilled oil into Montana’s Yellowstone River. Under U.S. federal pressure, BP PLC finally is rehabilitating a Prudhoe Bay network of pipelines that have spilled millions of gallons of oil.
Do the operators even know exactly what caused those breaks? What’s being done to anticipate and prevent spills across almost 4,000 km of proposed additional pipeline? We know that sand- and stone-laden tar-sands oil is more corrosive to pipe than conventional crude. What provisions, by way of sturdier pipe, have been made for that?
• Heavy-oil spills are much tougher to clean up than conventional crude. Surface skimmers, booms and vacuums used in spills are of little use since heavy oil quickly submerges and suffocates bottom-dwelling plant and animal life.
That being the case, approval should not be granted until the pipeline sponsors and community authorities the entire length of the proposed pipelines have “war gamed” a spill at any point along the two pipelines’ routes.
How, exactly, does one rapidly arrest a spill in a remote B.C. mountain range? Let’s see the plans, kilometre by kilometre. The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe taught us the consequences of inadequate emergency planning.
• Given its viscosity, tar-sands oil must be blended with a dilutent, called DilBit, that enables the crude to flow through the pipeline. DilBit contains the carcinogen benzene and other toxins. Industry reticence about the “secret sauce” of DilBit needs to end; communities at risk must know exactly what chemicals they’re dealing with in a spill. We know the compound is dangerous, given Enbridge’s haste in buying residential properties no longer habitable after its Michigan spill.
herbie_popnecker wrote:The "idea" of having an export route for Alberta's oil production is good.
The proposal on the table is disgusting. It delivers the absolute least economic benefit to the country as is possible.
The least amount of jobs possible.
The least cost for Enbridge.
But we residents of the Northern Resource Extraction Zone should be happy with the "least". You should be happy for two weeks work with a shovel as it goes through your town. With the bullshit lying ads they bought in your local paper and radio about foreign puppets.
You think you're "entitled" to benefit from your own country's resources? Be happy to get anything at all.
Wikipedia wrote:In economics, the Dutch disease is a concept that explains the apparent relationship between the increase in exploitation of natural resources and a decline in the manufacturing sector. The mechanism is that an increase in revenues from natural resources (or inflows of foreign aid) will make a given nation's currency stronger compared to that of other nations (manifest in an exchange rate), resulting in the nation's other exports becoming more expensive for other countries to buy, making the manufacturing sector less competitive. While it most often refers to natural resource discovery, it can also refer to "any development that results in a large inflow of foreign currency, including a sharp surge in natural resource prices, foreign assistance, and foreign direct investment".
The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of a large natural gas field in 1959.
This is pretty low on the pipeline supporters' part.
Deep Climate; Exploring climate science disinformation in Canada and beyond wrote:Ethical Oil political connections, part 1: Conservatives “Go Newclear”]
Posted on January 13, 2012
As a once in a generation Canadian pipeline review process gets underway, the rhetoric around the massive Northern Gateway project has heated up noticeably. The Conservative government and the Ethical Oil pro-industry group seemed to take turns ratcheting up attacks on environmental groups opposing the project almost daily. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver may have set a new low in his recent attacks on those who would “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda”, backed by “foreign special interest groups”, not to mention “billionaire socialists … like George Soros”. The eerie echoes of Ethical Oil’s recent advertising campaign and back-and-forth timing have led some to recall previously discussed ties between Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and key Ethical Oil figures Ezra Levant and former executive director Alykhan Velshi (now safely back in the PMO).
But it turns out there are other interesting ties behind the scenes. An examination of the web server hosting EthicalOil.org reveals a network of fifty or so websites, mainly on behalf of right-wing causes and politicians. The latter include two Conservative cabinet ministers, Velshi’s old boss immigration minister Jason Kenney and that scourge of foreign billionaire socialists, Joe Oliver. And it also points to the key involvement of Go Newclear Productions, a somewhat mysterious “full service digital agency with a focus on public affairs and politics”.
Go Newclear is headed up by none other than political wunderkind Hamish Marshall, already a veteran of both the PMO and the Conservative federal council – and husband of hapless Ethical Oil spokesperson Kathryn Marshall. The other Go Newclear directors /officers (and presumed principals) are linked to the Conservative PR machine known as the Conservative Resources Group; radio and TV advertising specialist Brendan Jones left the CRG in 2009, while developer Travis Freeman, astonishingly enough, is still with the group. Not only that, but the Ethical Oil cluster of websites and Joe Oliver.ca form a distinct sub-group within the Go Newclear network, with unmistakeable signs of common development and a deployment seemingly aimed at obfuscating the link to Newclear team. So there is more than just common ideology tying EthicalOil.org to the Conservative PR machine; they also share digital service providers – and a lack of transparency.
http://www.albertadiary.ca/ wrote:Mr. Marshall is married to Kathryn Marshall, University of Calgary law student, member of the U of C Wildrose Alliance Club and vocal supporter of the Wildrose Alliance.
Is a picture beginning to form here? While it is possible that the Abingdon poll is legitimate, without more information it would also be reasonable to conclude that this might be a poll that was administered to a self-selecting sample for a client that desired a specific outcome.
It is interesting that the release of the Wildrose Alliance claims followed by only four days the publication in journalist Paul McLaughlin’s subscription-only Alberta Scan newsletter the details of a scientifically valid poll with results much less favourable to the Wildrose Alliance.
Peter Ewart Pacificfreepress.com wrote:One of the aims of disinformation campaigns is to shake the resolve of people. And we are seeing ample evidence of this in the campaign to sell the Enbridge pipeline which, if constructed, will stretch across the lands and waterways of Northern BC and result in major oil tanker traffic in the ocean waters off BC’s Pacific coast.
Recently, an Ipsos-Reid poll, released exclusively to the Postmedia News chain, is alleging that, by a whopping 48 to 32 percentage, most people across the province are now in favour of the controversial pipeline. This poll, of course, was commissioned and paid for by the Enbridge Corporation.
The results are almost the exact opposite of another poll conducted by the Mustel polling group in 2010 and commissioned by pipeline opponent group “Forest Ethics”. That poll showed a 51 to 34 percent margin against the pipeline. The gap between the two polls is stunning.
Nonetheless, despite the huge disparity in poll results, the Postmedia News chain was quick to punch out headlines such as: “New poll points to pipeline support”, as well as articles claiming that the poll could be a “game changer” for project opponents. For its part, Enbridge has issued a statement that the “new poll” will set a “’proper context’ for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.”
But the question needs to be asked: just what is Enbridge’s “proper context”?
A key part of Enbridge’s efforts to establish this “proper context” is to create the impression that the people of this region and across the province actually support the controversial pipeline. And even more than that, they “want” it to be built.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], luctor et emergo and 7 guests