PMJT: The First 100 Days

[Fishbone Jones]

99.9% in this case.  This allows Justin a win on a file that wasn't going to happen.

Everyone, including the aboriginals, has a price. Big oil has big money.

But whatever, when you're done with that crystal ball, I have dibs.

 

[jmt18325]

Everyone, including the aboriginals, has a price. Big oil has big money.

But whatever, when you're done with that crystal ball, I have dibs.

You're not understanding.  There was a court case last year that changed everything in BC.  It requires not consultation with, but consent from first nations bands for projects on their traditional territory.  That means if even 1 band were to disagree, the project couldn't go ahead.  That's why I can be certain in this case. 

Transmountain, from what I understand, is different.  There is already a pipeline there, and Kinder Morgan already owns the right of way.  There isn't the same kind of work to be done.

 

[stealthylizard]

Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).

 

[jmt18325]

Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).

Then that pipeline is unlikely to happen as well. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Right now Canada has a trade balance in the black with 25% of the total coming from oil exports.Banning tankers will probably see this trade surplus go away,as exports will shift to the US where crude is refined.High paying jobs would be helpful to the native population in BC, as its certainly helped Alberta.Liberal rhetoric will soon collide with reality.Not good for Canada.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).

You can use the existing ROW, but generally it needs to be expanded as there are spacing and setback allowances and that expansion will trigger consultations and permits.

Northern Gateway (I hate that name by the way) is unlikely to proceed and the economic cost will be minimized if 1-2 LNG terminals are completed on the west coast. Endbridge, both the Federal an Provincial governments did a terrible job preparing the social ground for that project. Also thee was really zero benefit for BC and a lot of risk. I don't know of any company that would take on that much risk for so little gain. Better early (prior to submission) on consultations with First Nations, communities would have been good. Not tilting the process so far in favour of the company would have helped. A refinery based around Dawson Creek area to bring the oil to light sweet crude would have helped create a economic argument for BC to be more supportive. it would also help limit the environmental arguments. Plus it would eventually become a refinery that could produce more retail products, easing the chronic refining shortages we suffer on the west coast.

 

[suffolkowner]

Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay

 

[Remius]

I think the honeymoon period will be over sooner than most people think (or hope for).

A reversal from Trudeau in regards to the CF-18s may be inevitable but so far there does not seem to be any indication that will happen.  Trudeau may just let the current agreement until March stay in place. 

I still contend though that our air contribution is symbolic and adds little to the overall mission and does very little to prevent tragedies like Paris, Ottawa etc etc.  Those targets our airforce are hitting would still have been hit by someone else (I concede that they do have an impact, but suggest that they would have happened regardless of our contribution).  But standing with our allies (and they are few that are participating, but France is one of them) in a concrete way though is a tangible effect that pays dividends.

I'm convinced that if this attack had happened during the election, we might have seen a different result.

This issue coupled with the Syrian Refugee scheme will define this government. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Heaven forbid a large terrorist event happens here, but that would likely squash the Trudeau Liberals for the next four years and probably see them unelected next time around. People would just discount everything they say and there would be no confidence in their plans.

Oh, and the CAD is dropping this morning on all FOREX markets. Wonder why?

 

[dapaterson]

http://frankmag.ca/2015/11/justin-trudeau-as-mr-sunny-ways/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay

The Pacific region (pretty much of every department) has been telling Ottawa for decades not to ignore consultation in BC because it will bite you, and it did. The last minute panic of sending out ministers to try to bandaid the problem was pathetic. BC is unique to the rest of Canada in regards to First Nation issues, few treaties, over lapping claims to name a few issues. also because of geography some bands feel the developmental push more than other and some will benefit greatly from a project, while the band next door gets nothing. by and large the coastal FN's support the LNG industry, but the feeling is not mutual for the bands in the NE of BC. Part of the issue is determining which bands are opposing a project as part of a negotiation strategy or because of a significant principle.   

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sasl Premier Brad Wall has come out and asked that the refugee plans be revisited.  He's spot on too.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall wants the federal government to suspend its plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the year.

In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Wall said he was concerned bringing in refuges could "undermine the refugee screening process."

"I understand that the overwhelming majority of refugees are fleeing violence and bloodshed and pose no threat to anyone," wrote Wall. "However, if even a small number of individuals who wish to do harm to our country are able to enter Canada as a result of a rushed refugee resettlement process, the results could be devastating."

In the letter, Wall cited the recent terror attacks in Paris last week, which killed 129 people.

"The recent attacks in Paris are a grim reminder of the death and destruction even a small number of malevolent individuals can inflict upon a peaceful country and its citizens," wrote Wall. "Surely, we do not want to be date-driven or numbers-driven in an endeavour that may affect the safety of our citizens and the security of our country."

Wall said he wants to see a "redoubling" of security checks before the refugees are brought into Canada.

Prime Minister Trudeau made the Syrian refugee announcement a key part of his election campaign.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-premier-brad-wall-asks-feds-to-suspend-syrian-refugee-plan-1.3321159

 

[jmt18325]

Right now Canada has a trade balance in the black with 25% of the total coming from oil exports.Banning tankers will probably see this trade surplus go away,as exports will shift to the US where crude is refined.High paying jobs would be helpful to the native population in BC, as its certainly helped Alberta.Liberal rhetoric will soon collide with reality.Not good for Canada.

Tankers were always informally banned on the NORTH BC coast.  This simply formalizes that and prevents the Northern Gateway from happening (it wasn't anyway).

 

[GAP]

The Pacific region (pretty much of every department) has been telling Ottawa for decades not to ignore consultation in BC because it will bite you, and it did. The last minute panic of sending out ministers to try to bandaid the problem was pathetic. BC is unique to the rest of Canada in regards to First Nation issues, few treaties, over lapping claims to name a few issues. also because of geography some bands feel the developmental push more than other and some will benefit greatly from a project, while the band next door gets nothing. by and large the coastal FN's support the LNG industry, but the feeling is not mutual for the bands in the NE of BC. Part of the issue is determining which bands are opposing a project as part of a negotiation strategy or because of a significant principle. 

Was there not some talk last year or early this year, of bands receiving $$ support from environmental groups to reject the pipeline?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay

Without getting into the "Northern Gateway" discussion, Suffolkowner, I can tell you that It would make no sense whatever to bring the oil to Thunder Bay.

First of all, the Great Lakes are closed by ice three months of the year (and Thunder Bay is one of the last places to lose its ice).

Second of all, the size limit in the various lock systems is such that the tankers that could make the trip are about one eight to one tenth the size of the super tankers envisaged for Northern Gateway. It is not economical to run such small tankers for oversea delivery of oil, so you would've to trans-ship to larger ships somewhere along the St. Lawrence system passed Quebec City. Environmentalists just shot down such a project.

Finally, with super tankers, the Panama canal is out, so any deliveries to Asia require either a transit south of one of the Capes (Good Hope or Cape Horn) or across the Atlantic, to the Med. and then through Suez. Any way, it is long and expensive compared to middle eastern oil transits, something that cuts into the economy of the whole thing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has imposed a tanked ban on BC's North Coast (Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound).

          (Is this the North Coast?

)

Suppose you're Chinese and, therefore, you're accustomed to Big Projects and you're accustomed, too, to building artificial islands, perhaps even something like this:

         

          This is in Thailand, but it is indicative of what is well within
          the current state of the art.

Could you not imagine building a pipeline from Alberta, through BC ~ after negotiating with the First Nations (the Chinese are good at "negotiating") ~ and crossing Vancouver Island to a HUGE artificial tanker port off the BC coast?

I said that China will want something in exchange for its warm words and "friendship."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tankers were always informally banned on the NORTH BC coast.  This simply formalizes that and prevents the Northern Gateway from happening (it wasn't anyway).

Common misconception. Tankers traveling North and South of our coast to and from Alaska followed a "voluntary exclusion zone" that kept the tanker far enough to sea that in the event of a breakdown that a rescue tug could reach it and put a tow on it, before the tanker would be going ashore.

Tanker traffic in and out of Vancouver is quite common. Also Marine Safety from a emergency response view treats a fuel barge as a tanker. 

 

[jmt18325]

Common misconception. Tankers traveling North and South of our coast to and from Alaska followed a "voluntary exclusion zone" that kept the tanker far enough to sea that in the event of a breakdown that a rescue tug could reach it and put a tow on it, before the tanker would be going ashore.

I think we're misunderstanding eachother.  That's exactly what I meant.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except there was no ban. The enbridge hearings made that point clear, I had to go through parts of that and my co-worker had to sit through the entire thing. JT mandate letter was clearly written by staff that don't have a clue what they are talking about which is not surprising. You are right that for the moment Endbridge is dead, but it's basically driving a stake in a already semi-cold body. It will however resurface again under a new name.

 

[Kirkhill]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has imposed a tanked ban on BC's North Coast (Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound).

          (Is this the North Coast?

)

Suppose you're Chinese and, therefore, you're accustomed to Big Projects and you're accustomed, too, to building artificial islands, perhaps even something like this:

         

          This is in Thailand, but it is indicative of what is well within
          the current state of the art.

Could you not imagine building a pipeline from Alberta, through BC ~ after negotiating with the First Nations (the Chinese are good at "negotiating") ~ and crossing Vancouver Island to a HUGE artificial tanker port off the BC coast?

I said that China will want something in exchange for its warm words and "friendship."

How about a railway bridge to Vancouver Island?  And a Port Renfrew terminal?

CHINA OPENS THE WORLD'S LONGEST BRIDGE OVER WATER, TOPPLING AMERICAN RECORD-HOLDER
By Rebecca Boyle  Posted July 1, 2011
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-07/china-opens-worlds-longest-sea-bridge-toppling-american-record-holder

Or maybe BC could get the Chinese to pay for a new coastal route from Vancouver to Port Hardy.  If only BC hadn't blown up Ripple Rock the Seymour Narrows jump would be easy.