Violator Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 12 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats OK, its the investors that will determine that Your right i should invest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Pretty sure Vancouver gets more tourists than the oil scarred hell scape called Alberta.... I'm sure it does. I'm also sure that the dump Surrey gets no tourists ever. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Violator said: Your right i should invest. I don't think it will replace current pipelines, but I do think its making a compelling case for whatever is going to be new capacity. I think there's a high probability of the TM twin being completed, but this is Canada, so there's always a chance it gets squished in the courts. If thats the case, technologies like the pux are the only option left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 So sad that the majority of the orchestrated opposition is funded by US oil interests. The whining and protesting is largely a coordinated and funded attack to protect the US oil industry. So sad so many Canadian's have fallen for this. US Oil Interests funding the coordinated anti-pipeline movement in Canada The cash pipeline opposing Canadian oil pipelines The anti-pipeline machine is a “directed, network campaign,” a new breed of professional, staged activism The suspension of the National Energy Board’s review of the Energy East pipeline review can be traced back to anti-pipeline activism and controversy stemming from a story published by The National Observer. On the first day of the project’s hearing in Montreal, protestors stormed the meeting room and brought the review to a standstill because of security concerns. Days later, all three National Energy Board panelists recused themselves in the wake of revelations by National Observer reporter Mike De Souza that two of the panelists had met with former Quebec premier Jean Charest who had not disclosed that he was retained by TransCanada Pipelines, the company looking to build Energy East. Given the significant impact of anti-pipeline activism, it’s time for an update about who funds it, who is involved, and why this U.S.-funded campaign against Alberta oil is unacceptable. Prior to the shakedown of the NEB, few Canadians had heard of the National Observer or its sister publication, The Vancouver Observer. Both are on-line reporting projects of the Observer Media Group. Launched in 2015 with crowd-funded seed capital, the National Observer calls itself “independent” and says that it exists “thanks to reader subscriptions and donations.” One of those donors, according to U.S. tax returns, is The Tides Foundation in San Francisco. Tides has funded Observer Media via Earth Ways, a charitable foundation in Malibu Beach, Calif. Tides and Earth Ways have a long history and are funded by some of the same donors. In 2015, Tides paid US$21,000 to Earth Ways for re-granting to Observer Media, US$20,000 for “media reporting” and US$1,000 “in honour of Linda Solomon.” Solomon is the founder and editor-in-chief of the National Observer and CEO of The Observer Group. She’s also the sister of Joel Solomon, a former employee and chairman of The Tides Foundation. Linda Solomon did not reply to an email seeking further information about her publication’s connection to Tides. De Souza responded to a request for comment, but did not answer questions about funding from Tides. Given that the National Observer is partially funded by Tides, it bears mention that Tides is by no means an impartial bystander in the campaign against Alberta oil. In fact, Tides is the funding and co-ordination juggernaut behind anti-pipeline activism. Totaling US$35 million, Tides made more than 400 payments (2009 to 2015) to nearly 100 anti-pipeline groups. Without all that Tides money, pipeline projects would not be facing well-organized opposition. If Tides funded activists to act as honest brokers, that would be fair. But that’s not what Tides does. Tides funds The Tar Sands Campaign, an international effort that aims to embarrass Canada, deter investment and stigmatize Alberta oil as the poster child of dirty fuel. The goal of this campaign is nothing short of stopping the export of Alberta oil by pipeline, rail and tanker. Tides launched The Tar Sands Campaign back in 2008 with funds from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other U.S. donors. At first, the main intermediary funder was Tides but in 2012 that changed as some U.S. donors shifted to the New Venture Fund, based in Washington, D.C. Like Tides, New Venture operates a “donor-advised fund” that receives and re-grants money, keeping the original donor anonymous. One of the activists associated with New Venture Fund is Tzeporah Berman, who now co-chairs the Alberta NDP government’s Oil Sands Advisory Working Group. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a charitable foundation financed by the famous oil barons of the same name, has funded New Venture explicitly “to support the campaign to cap tar sands production in Alberta.” When Rachel Notley’s NDP government announced a climate plan in November that would cap the Alberta oil industry’s allowable carbon emissions at 100 million tonnes, the Rockefellers got exactly what their funding was meant for, even if that wasn’t Notley’s intention. In 2015, Tides paid $4 million to 50 anti-pipeline groups. Of that, $750,000 went to U.S. organizations while $3.3 million was paid out in Canada. A total of $615,000 went to the four environmental groups involved in the development of the Notley government’s climate plan: STAND, formerly Forest Ethics; The Pembina Institute; Environmental Defence; and Equiterre. The largest single grant from Tides to a Canadian environmental organization was US$700,000 paid to The Sisu Institute, a low-profile non-profit based in Sointula, B.C. That was for an initiative called “Canada’s Road To Paris: Changing The Narrative.” If the activists marching in protests and storming NEB hearings make the anti-pipeline campaign look like an amateur, grassroots movement, the reality is it’s anything but. The anti-pipeline machine is what is now called a “directed, network campaign,” a new breed of professional, staged activism. From Neil Young concerts to First Nations lawsuits, this campaign is centrally planned, funded and executed by paid organizers at NetChange, a private company funded in part by Joel Solomon. Anti-pipeline activists say they’re protesting pipelines to “keep oil in the ground.” And yet, against Texas, where oil production has doubled, there’s no multi-million-dollar campaign. The U.S. now jostles with Saudia Arabia and Russia for top spot as the world’s number one oil producer. Last year, the U.S. began exporting oil to China, Japan, France, Italy and elsewhere but there is no campaign against exporting U.S. oil. The Tar Sands Campaign is keeping Canadian oil landlocked within North America, stopping it from reaching overseas buyers and allowing the U.S. to dominate the market. Anti-pipeline activism claims to be about the carbon emissions and the climate but what it amounts to is economic protectionism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 NEB rejects environmental group's call to expand scope of Trans Mountain pipeline review The National Energy Board is rejecting a call made by an environmental group last month to greatly expand the scope of its reconsideration of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Stand.earth filed a motion to the federal regulator on Jan. 21 demanding it add consideration of the project's upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions to its review of project-related marine shipping issues. It asked the board to apply the same standard to the project as it did with the Energy East pipeline before it submits its final report to the federal government, expected this Friday. But the federal regulator says in a ruling on its website that its reconsideration is designed only to address issues arising out of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling in August that set aside its previous approval. It says Stand.earth's proposal missed its deadlines and repeated requests made by several other parties that had already been denied. In a news release, Stand.earth says the NEB decision breaks an election pledge made in 2015 by the Liberals to give all energy projects a full climate review. "The National Energy Board has denied this motion because the Trudeau government specifically excluded climate change impacts from a full review of this pipeline," said international program director Tzeporah Berman. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/trans-mountain-environmental-review-scope-1.5025420 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: So sad that the majority of the orchestrated opposition is funded by US oil interests. The whining and protesting is largely a coordinated and funded attack to protect the US oil industry. So sad so many Canadian's have fallen for this. yah pretty disgusting to see Canadians actually concerned about global warming / Green energy / and climate change..... How dare the dirty environmentalists get in the way of big oil corporate profits.... Edited February 20, 2019 by kingofsurrey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: yah pretty disgusting to see Canadians actually concerned about global warming / Green energy / and climate change..... How dare the dirty environmentalists get in the way of big oil corporate profits.... You mean the profits that would support all Canadians? Hey 3 quick questions: you want to kill the oil industry in Canada, right? Would we then buy our oil off the US? Wouldn't the US still be contributing to global warming? Edited February 20, 2019 by Ryan Strome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: You mean the profits that would support all Canadians? Hey 3 quick questions: you want to kill the oil industry in Canada, right? Would we then buy our oil off the US? Wouldn't the US still be contributing to global warming? Hopefully Canadians could reduce consumption and move to cleaner / greener sources of energy. Of course USA contribute to global warming... we all do . Lastly, the Canadian oil industry is on its last legs with our low quality / high production cost tar sands as a money loser when the full costs of land reclamation is factored in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 9 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Hopefully Canadians could reduce consumption and move to cleaner / greener sources of energy. Of course USA contribute to global warming... we all do . Lastly, the Canadian oil industry is on its last legs with our low quality / high production cost tar sands as a money loser when the full costs of land reclamation is factored in.... Why do you say the last part? It's not fact and actually it's the opposite. Btw you don't think it's only tar sands in Alberta, right? Btw so we would pay the Americans, make them rich while contributing to global warming? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Well kos I'm off to bed I have to get up early seeing as how I'm on my last legs as you say. Maybe my skills are transferable to a quality company in Surrey. Would you help a buddy out? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Well kos I'm off to bed I have to get up early seeing as how I'm on my last legs as you say. Maybe my skills are transferable to a quality company in Surrey. Would you help a buddy out? I don't worry about you. I am sure the skills you have developed would be super valuable to most companies here in BC .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Alberta to spend $3.7B to get oil to prized Gulf coast market by rail https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/alberta-to-spend-3-7b-to-get-oil-to-prized-gulf-coast-market-by-rail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: Alberta to spend $3.7B to get oil to prized Gulf coast market by rail https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/alberta-to-spend-3-7b-to-get-oil-to-prized-gulf-coast-market-by-rail This proves the case for developing the Canapux. If this makes money, the pux will as well since they ship more bitumen per car, in cheaper cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: Alberta to spend $3.7B to get oil to prized Gulf coast market by rail https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/alberta-to-spend-3-7b-to-get-oil-to-prized-gulf-coast-market-by-rail More rail. Gotta love the so called environmentalists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: More rail. Gotta love the so called environmentalists. Are you saying Notley is a so called environmentalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 33 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: Are you saying Notley is a so called environmentalist? You are the exact person people are referring to when they talk about US money being behind the pipeline protest. Let me guess you never even knew the TM pipeline existed until a couple years ago, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 48 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: More rail. Gotta love the so called environmentalists. not sure how you can put this on the environmentalists? This is 100% Notley's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: not sure how you can put this on the environmentalists? This is 100% Notley's decision. The environmentalists pushing for rail is pretty funny. I'm not talking about Notley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: The environmentalists pushing for rail is pretty funny. I'm not talking about Notley. ah. I doubt there are many people actually asking for more conventional crude by rail. Well, you have to wonder if by 2020 Notelys rail purchases will even be necessary: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/notley-cn-cp-1.5025055 I guess Kenney can always use them as his version of fast ferries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: You are the exact person people are referring to when they talk about US money being behind the pipeline protest. Let me guess you never even knew the TM pipeline existed until a couple years ago, right? I am not that exact person you are accusing me of being. it is as wrong as me saying you are a toothless redneck who got kicked out of school in grade 6 for not shaving everyday. My particular issue is not really with the pipeline, but, more super tankers filled with dilbit in the Salish Sea as I reside on Van. Island, which I have stated many times before. You will not find me with my hair painted blue holding a sign protesting the pipeline, far from it. I feel that Canapux are the right answer to both, Take the dil out of dilbit Edited February 20, 2019 by Mackcanuck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts