Canada does NOT support pipeline.

[canuck89]

Cummon Castanet... at least read the stock that gives you your stories...

If 50% of 100 people have heard of the proposed pipeline and of those, only 50% like the concept:

How many people polled really supported the pipeline?

a) 50% (what you printed)
B) 25% (what should be printed).

Think about it.

Spin Spin Spin.

[The Green Barbarian]

which pipeline are you referring to?

If it is the Keystone pipeline to the USA and/or the Enbridge pipeline to Kitimat, then I am all for them. 100%.

[grammafreddy]

http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/69365/P ... r-pipeline

Poll: 48% support in BC for pipeline
by The Canadian Press - Story: 69365
Jan 5, 2012 / 1:14 pm

Nearly half of British Columbians support Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway project, which would pass through the province, according to an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of the pipeline company.

The survey, released Thursday, suggests 48 per cent of B.C. residents back the controversial $5.5-billion project, 14 per cent of those strongly. On the flip side, 32 per cent oppose it, 13 per cent strongly.

Northern Gateway would carry some 525,000 barrels per day of Alberta crude to the West Coast for export to Asian countries. A much smaller parallel line would bring diluent, used to make oilsands bitumen thin enough to flow through pipelines, from the coast to Alberta.

Regulatory hearings into Northern Gateway begin next week in Kitimat, and the process is expected to take about two years, with more than 4,000 people set to speak.

There has been vocal opposition to the project from First Nations, environmental and other groups, though Thursday's poll suggests that sentiment may not be as widespread as has been thought.

The biggest benefits cited by supporters in the survey had to do with the economy and employment, while detractors said environmental harm and the risk of spills and leaks topped their concerns.

Only four in ten British Columbians said they were familiar with the project, with awareness higher amongst northern residents and older respondents.

The poll of 1,000 British Columbians, taken between December 12 and 15, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

[The Green Barbarian]

Really? Hugo Chavez's company is going to testify against the Enbridge pipeline? Really? Imagine if a bunch of Albertans went down to Venezuela to testify against Comrade Chavez? They'd all be thrown in the clink! This is getting beyond ridiculous. Enough is enough.

‘Foreign money’ could gum up pipeline approval, Harper warns

The Prime Minister is threatening to prevent foreign environmental interests from delaying the approval of a pipeline that would take bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to the West Coast for shipment to Asian markets.

The petroleum lobby group EthicalOil.org, which wants “foreigners and foreign groups” to be excluded from hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that are to begin next week, appears to have a sympathetic ear in Stephen Harper.
“Growing concern has been expressed to me about the use of foreign money to really overload the public consultation phase of regulatory hearings just for the purpose of slowing down the process,” the Prime Minister told reporters Friday in Edmonton.

“This is something that is not good for the Canadian economy and the government of Canada will be taking a close look at how we can ensure that our regulatory processes are effective and deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time.”

On Thursday, Kathryn Marshall, a spokesperson for EthicalOil.org. said Canadians have much at stake in the construction of the pipeline and “must take a stand against foreigners and their lobbying groups interfering in our decision.”

The group says the organizations registered to give testimony at the pipeline hearings include companies owned by foreign interests including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s oil company, CITGO.

Mr. Harper said the government would not interfere in the regulatory process.

But, particularly in light of decisions made in the United States, where the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has been threatened by the lobbying of environmentalists, Mr. Harper said his government is clear about the necessity for broadening Canada’s markets for energy products.

“I think it is particularly essential for this country that, over time, we have the capacity to sell our energy products into the growing markets of Asia,” he said.

“We want to ensure in Canada that we have a regulator system that protects our environment and obviously protects worker safety and various other community interests,” Mr. Harper said. “At the same time, though, we have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time and processes that cannot be hijacked.”

The Prime Minister was also asked about a proposal by Alberta Premier Alison Redford to create a national energy strategy that would pull together Alberta's oil sands, the hydro power of British Columbia, offshore oil in the Atlantic and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's green-energy agenda.

Mr. Harper said he has been broached by Ms. Redford about the idea and is anticipating a meeting in the near future with Alberta and with several other provinces to get more details

“The approach of the federal government for some years has been to have an energy sector that is primarily driven by market demand,” the Prime Minister said. “That policy I think generally has served this part of the country and served the country as a whole quite well.”

The Conservative government has made it clear it considers the oil sands to be critical to Canada’s economic growth and job creation.

On Friday, Statistics Canada said 17,500 new jobs were created in this country in December.

Mr. Harper said that was good news as were the job numbers from the United States where 200,000 more people were working last month than in November.

“This has been one of the things that has been lacking over the past couple of years,” he said. “We have seen 600,000 net new jobs created in Canada, but we haven't been seeing the kind of job growth we need in the United States to help with our trade.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... nt=2294309

[butcher99]

During the last federal election campaign federal conservatives were asked over and over about the keystone pipeline and shipping oil down the west coast of Canada. Over and over the replies were, we have no plans to ship oil down the west coast of Canada. Well I guess no plans means they had nothing drawn up. They have every intention of doing it but just no actual blueprints on how it will happen.
When a poll taken by the company getting ready to construct the line cannot come up with a poll to give them a majority what are the real figures in BC apposing the pipeline. Certainly a lot lower than 25%.
What does BC get out of this? Well we get a few temporary jobs (the low paying kind, not the high paying type), a few full time jobs in Kitimate. A handful only. A few million, yes, million dollars a year in revenue.
Those billion dollar figures you hear bandied about? That money all goes to Alberta and Ottawa.

What else do we get? We get a pipeline that eventually will have spills that Enbridge admits it will be unable to clean up properly. And we get tankers running up and down our coast that eventually will produce a spill.

There is no win side on this for BC.

[twobits]

During the last federal election campaign federal conservatives were asked over and over about the keystone pipeline and shipping oil down the west coast of Canada. Over and over the replies were, we have no plans to ship oil down the west coast of Canada. Well I guess no plans means they had nothing drawn up. They have every intention of doing it but just no actual blueprints on how it will happen.
When a poll taken by the company getting ready to construct the line cannot come up with a poll to give them a majority what are the real figures in BC apposing the pipeline. Certainly a lot lower than 25%.
What does BC get out of this? Well we get a few temporary jobs (the low paying kind, not the high paying type), a few full time jobs in Kitimate. A handful only. A few million, yes, million dollars a year in revenue.
Those billion dollar figures you hear bandied about? That money all goes to Alberta and Ottawa.

What else do we get? We get a pipeline that eventually will have spills that Enbridge admits it will be unable to clean up properly. And we get tankers running up and down our coast that eventually will produce a spill.

There is no win side on this for BC.

Our oil will go east. not down the coast. What's your plan to stop Alaska oil running down the coast to the lower 48?

[NAB]

Ya twobits. I read something yesterday about that and the idea perhaps Alberta should expand their capacity to pipeline oil and gas to eastern Canada and eastern USA rather than put so many of their chickens in the Ktimat - Asia and Gulf Coast pipelines basket. But as to the down the coast shipping thing, I'm pretty sure that if a USA customer wants to buy oil or gas originating out of Kitimat and ship it down the coast, no one is going to say no if they have the capacity to fill the order.

Nab

[NAB]

[quote="The Green Barbarian"]Really? Hugo Chavez's company is going to testify against the Enbridge pipeline? Really? Imagine if a bunch of Albertans went down to Venezuela to testify against Comrade Chavez? They'd all be thrown in the clink! This is getting beyond ridiculous. Enough is enough.

‘Foreign money’ could gum up pipeline approval, Harper warns

...snip...

Sorta funny fer sure that GB. Seems we want only a one way street with respect to desired elements of Globalization doesn't it? EthicalOil, our enviro types, and particularly Harper, seemingly have no reservations about injecting their say and our dollars into the economic and environmental affairs of other countries, but heaven forbid similar would be permitted to come in our direction.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... nt=2294309

...and with respect to Alaskan Oil by ship to the west coast of the lower 48, I suspect those ships stay well off the west coast. But one do wonder in the case of any shipments in that direction from Kitimat, whether it will be just a short step for good neighborliness, convenience, and cost savings to channel the ships down the inside passages and straits rather than forcing them around the outside and into open ocean outside our territorial limits or jurisdiction.

Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

Sorta funny fer sure that GB. Seems we want only a one way street with respect to desired elements of Globalization doesn't it? EthicalOil, our enviro types, and particularly Harper, seemingly have no reservations about injecting their say and our dollars into the economic and environmental affairs of other countries, but heaven forbid similar would be permitted to come in our direction.
Nab

Nab - I am pretty sure you either totally misunderstood the article, or you typoed here. At any rate - Ethical Oil and Harper aren't the ones "injecting their say and our dollars into affairs of other countries". Like I said, this must be a typo. It's the nuts and whack-jobs from the US, the UK and the EU that are injecting their millions upon millions of bucks into Canada's affairs, and that just ain't right. I can see the Yanks having a say on the Keystone pipeline, but not the Enbridge Northern Gateway, and especially not the complete losers from Europe. I wonder how many pipelines in Venezuela these fools are opposing? I sure miss the old days when the government would announce a pipeline and everyone would say "yahoo - jobs!!" and "yahoo - a secure delivery of our natural resource to another market!" We've definitely become too comfortable in our social programs and lifestyle, such that we can just cavalierly accept bozos like Hugo Chavez wanting a say in our domestic affairs etc. BTW - where was Elizabeth "Screeching Owl" May born again?

[NAB]

Nope, no misunderstanding or typo there GB. I wrote it and mean it. Think about it without bias against just the enviros. As much as I think Harper is the best thing we have going for us on so many fronts, I think he is being somewhat hypocritical and heavily biased toward Alberta (and perhaps against BC) on this particular point.

Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

Nope, no misunderstanding or typo there GB. I wrote it and mean it. Think about it without bias against just the enviros. As much as I think Harper is the best thing we have going for us on so many fronts, I think he is being somewhat hypocritical and heavily biased toward Alberta (and perhaps against BC) on this particular point.

Nab

I really don't get what you are saying here Nab. You may want to read a bit more about this topic. And definitely read the EthicalOil site. You didn't answer my Screeching Owl question either.

[NAB]

I do a lot of reading on this topic GB, as well as many others. I think perhaps it is you who is limiting your research and reading on it, or at least limiting the breadth of your interest. As for me not answering your "Screeching Owl" question - I have no idea what you are talking about, at least directed at me since it should be quite clear by now I have no interest in Elizabeth May, what she says, or where she was born. Just a waste of air and parliamentary space and funds IMO. Or are you just trying to deflect away from the points I raised on this topic? No question however that on this topic it is a question of money/economy versus the environment (particularly the more critical environments of BC compared to Alberta), which is why Christy Clark and the two opposing sides of her coalition on this issue are having such a problem coming to grips with it (more for shaky political uncertainty reasons than anything else I suspect), ....unlike either Dix or Cummings or even Harper and the new Premier in Alberta who to date have made their present positions (and the reasoning behind them) quite clear.

Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

I do a lot of reading on this topic GB, as well as many others. I think perhaps it is you who is limiting your research and reading on it, or at least limiting the breadth of your interest.

Nab - it makes no sense to accuse Ethical Oil of spending money in other countries. This simply isn't happening. You really are not explaining yourself very well and continue to answer in riddles. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't. It's clear that you think being deliberately obtuse is the way to go so have it. I'm done on this merry-go-round.

As for me not answering your "Screeching Owl" question - I have no idea what you are talking about, at least directed at me since it should be quite clear by now I have no interest in Elizabeth May, what she says, or where she was born.

She was born in the USA!! Surprise!

Just a waste of air and parliamentary space IMO.

THAT we can definitely agree on.

Or are you just trying to deflect away from the points I raised on
this topic? No question however that on this topic it is a question of money/economy versus the environment (particularly the more critical environments of BC), which is why Christy Clark and the two sides of her coalition are having such a problem coming to grips with it (more for shaky political uncertainty reasons than anything else I suspect), ....unlike either Dix or Cummings or even Harper and the new Premier in Alberta who to date have made their present positions (and the reasoning behind them) quite clear.
Nab

I don't know if this is "deflecting away" Nab - but think about this. The Chinese are going to buy our oil. Some way we have to get it to them. We can fritter away years discussing the merits of a pipeline for BC, and whether the pay-off is big enough to offset all of the environmental risks that the feverish imaginations of foreigners with deep pockets conjure up to scare people, meanwhile, the trucks and trains will be rolling on our highways, delivering crude to the lower Mainland to be shipped to China. This alternative seems to be making everyone more happy. Is this the way we want to deliver our oil to the Chinese? Or via a pipeline? Shouldn't that be the real question here? Because one way or another, the oil will be delivered.

[NAB]

Because one way or another, the oil will be delivered (to Asia).

I'm not so sure about that yet GB. The world is a very competitive place, ....and Canada's place in it (or should I simply say Alberta's), particularly related to oil, is far from secure IMO. Let's see some solid delivery long term contracts before we invest in a pipeline on spec that poses such a major risk to BC's rather touchy environment compared to the much less environmental risk the Alberta portion poses, yet which delivers the lions share of the economic benefits to Alberta and Alberta producers. (and related traders of course, wherever in the world situated). BC's proposed share really is a peanut in the bigger scheme of things IMO, and we need a LOT more incentive than is currently being offered to buy in, and should be playing hard ball to get it rather than putting up with weak rewards resulting from just bending over some more. On that point, I am rather concerned about Cummins' position, and think Dix might be the best "pitcher" and "goal keeper" for BC when it comes to getting what we are really worth to the project.

Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

Because one way or another, the oil will be delivered (to Asia).

I'm not so sure about that yet GB. The world is a very competitive place, ....and Canada's place in it (or should I simply say Alberta's), particularly related to oil, is far from secure IMO. Let's see some solid delivery long term contracts before we invest in a pipeline on spec that poses such a major risk to BC's rather touchy environment compared to the much less environmental risk the Alberta portion poses, yet which delivers the lions share of the economic benefits to Alberta and Alberta producers. (and related traders of course, wherever in the world situated). BC's proposed share really is a peanut in the bigger scheme of things IMO, and we need a LOT more incentive than is currently being offered to buy in, and should be playing hard ball to get it rather than putting up with weak rewards resulting from just bending over some more. On that point, I am rather concerned about Cummins' position, and think Dix might be the best "pitcher" and "goal keeper" for BC when it comes to getting what we are really worth to the project.

Nab

Now we're into the meat of the dicussion NAB. I definitely have zero confidence in someone like Dix even grasping the basic concepts of this pipeline deal, but hey, maybe he'll surprise me. I agree I would like to see BC maximize their returns here, however, they may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if they get too hard-ball, the pipeline never gets built, and instead all of that crude ends up being transported on federal waterways, highways and railways, and we don't see a dollar from it, yet are stuck with the clean up should one of those trains derail or one of those semis hit the ditch.