Northern Gateway APPROVED

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spring,, we live in a global market now a days. There is no such thing as our companies and their companies. There are as many Canadian companies doing business around the world as there are foreign companies doing business in Canada that's the way the world works today. Denying foreign investment into a country is economic suicide. Whether we refine this oil here or its done else where makes no difference in the big scope of things. In the end the product ends up in the same places and is used for the same end result. You obviously don't understand the economics of refining products if you are pushing for the refinement of these products here. And there are people looking to build refineries in Canada, look at the pipeline line east project, look at the LNG plants these are basically refineries in a sense preparing a product for shipping bringing secure jobs to "your" region. Preparing these products in a safe country, in a country that actually has environmental regulations in a country that pays its workers fairly. Could there be more refining done here,, of course there could be but that has to come from the industry itself as they see the need not imposed by Government regulation. Look at David Black he wants to build you all a refinery but he can't unless he has a line to do it. So how can you say you are all for local jobs when there are companies ready to do this work here in Canada in "your" province but they are being apposed at every given opportunity and then you all wonder why these companies want to take there business elsewhere,, wake up.. We have to create an environment that they can do business in. These projects are not just for the good of Alberta they are for the good of the country as a whole. BC, Alberta, Sask are world leaders in innovation on environmental issues surrounding the oil and gas industry. Again,, we should be promoting our product as a nation to the world and be setting an example for the world to see that it can be done economically while looking after the environment. Its how we do business..

Hey,, we in Alberta have all the work we need,, too much that's why a good percentage of your young are over here working. I am more worried for BC than I am Alberta I truly am. I said it on here before and I will say it again,, I want all regions of our nation t be strong I hate seeing any place not prospering.

And of course I work in the industry,, I am looking out the window at a drilling rig now that's my job,, provide the world with the energy it needs and demands.. Think of old walleyes would yah next time you are filling up your truck and boat and turning up the heat in your home,, a little thx I think would be appropriate if you don't mind.

The view from my work window..
imagejpg1_zps47de6527.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walleyes, know you from the other forum and will say you seem like a stand up guy. But preaching on here won't change anyone's mind. Plus it is tougher to convince those in BC because we are taking such a LARGE portion of the risk, yet see little reward, as when it comes to permanent jobs in BC, it's quite pathetic how few there are from the project and AB is unwilling to share the revenue from it with BC in any sort of substantial way. I think when you look at it from our perspective it can become kind of obvious why we would not want it through. Just like how I look at it from AB's perspective, I'd want it done in an instant.
 
Oh I don't know Dave,, I enjoy bringing a different point of view to things. Win or lose I believe people deserve to hear two sides to a story.

PS.. my brother really enjoyed your guys operation up there last summer, said it was probably the best ran operation he has been with..
 
I am curious why are you so outspoken on this topic you are not really protecting your industry. I assume you work in it. I was there too, and totally understand why people are there. Its not easy working up North.

What do you think is going to happen to all the upgrading facilities etc. Fort Mac will turn into simple SAGD pumping put it in pipe and go...You will have jobs initially but come 5 years from the time China starts getting it some of those jobs up there will go bye bye...I am just stating the obvious... The main reason I oppose the pipeline is it actually hurts Alberta's jobs... Your effectively doing what BC does with raw logs. We need to refine here. Much like we need to mill our wood here..Why give it to China to refine....

Now there is one thing I agree on. There are few enviro groups that have links to Chinese.... They are paid and used as a diversion so the chinese companies can sneak in there and grab up resources... If media is distracted peopl will likely focus on the enviro story and not company x buying up oilsands...

If you end outsourcing ( force companies to keep work onshore) and keep manufacturing here you end the need for freighters = no pipeline. We all did it to our self... Cheap goods and pushed all our manufacturing and jobs offshore...China doesn't have fuel to keep up with demand... Thats why were in this mess.

All right you want refineries and jobs,, put your vote and voice where it counts then and help these projects get off the ground. Come on boys,, get at it..

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/09/three-crazy-ideas/
 
China Deal Trumps Province, First Nations on Energy Projects: Treaty Expert
FIPPA carries big labour and regulatory implications for LNG development.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca




Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Approved 31-year treaty with China without debate.


Chairman Harper and the Chinese Sell-Out
Who needs democracy? Secret treaty is a massive giveaway of Canadian resources and rights with no vote in Parliament.
Harper Gov't 'Conceded to China' under Pressure: Treaty Expert
FIPA 'is the price China demanded to open its purse strings for investing in the resource sector in Canada.'
Harper's Sneaky, Undemocratic, Terrible Deal with China
Why the sudden ratification of FIPA is sparking startled outrage across Canada.
Read more: Energy, Federal Politics, BC Politics, Environment
One of the nation's investment treaty experts warns that Canada's highly preferential trade agreement with China could have important implications for resource and LNG development in British Columbia and the rest of the country.

The controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which the Harper government signed into effect without parliamentary debate, "means that any B.C. government or legislature or courts would now be subject to obligations arranged by the federal government and China under the treaty," says Osgoode Law School professor Gus Van Harten.

It also means that the FIPPA obligations can overrule the priorities and rights of First Nations in the province.

Van Harten offered two critical examples on how FIPPA could impact the province.

If the government of British Columbia decided to change the rules on hydraulic fracturing of shale gas to protect water or reduce methane leaks, those changes could be contested by Chinese investors as unfair and a violation of their expectations at the time they invested.

In addition, if the B.C. government stipulates that more British Columbians must be employed by the industry as opposed to foreign temporary workers, then Chinese investors could contest those changes too, also as an unfair change to the rules in place when they invested.



"If they want to change the rules about extraction or employment, the government would be restrained by obligations in the treaty," adds Van Harten, the author of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law.

The government of B.C. has already signed an agreement with China that would allow the importation of cheap labour from the superpower to build LNG terminals.

How does FIPPA connect to that labour agreement? Van Harten wonders.

"The governments of British Columbia and the federal government have to come clean about their decisions and how they may have been influenced by obligations under the treaty," adds the law professor.

Give public a 'window' on treaty

The B.C. government has actively subsidized shale gas and LNG development with low royalties, infrastructure incentives, free water, and free geoscience amounting to more than a billion dollars worth of taxpayers' money.

A B.C. government website boasts that "British Columbia offers low corporate tax rates, royalty credits, tax credits, and refunds for investments in research and development, machinery and equipment."

Under FIPPA the cessation of any of these subsidies could be challenged by Chinese investors too. It's not easily predicted, Van Harten notes, because under FIPPA the situation with subsidies is much more complex. Some subsidies are allowed by the agreement while others are not.

The treaty expert would like to see provincial or federal legislation that provides the public with "any information available to government about how the treaty has been invoked by foreign investors so the public can have a window on the treaty's impact on government in Canada."

FIPPA, which faces ongoing legal challenges from First Nations, has many controversial chapters and significantly departs from other trade agreements in critical ways.

Expert lists concerns

Here are just a few of the treaty's unique components as explored by Van Harten in a forthcoming and in-depth study for The Canadian Yearbook of International Law.

It gives China unique Most Favoured Nation status and "obligates Canada, but not China, to open its economy to the other state's investors."

It allows Chinese investors, in general, to purchase assets in Canada that Canadian investors would not be able to purchase in China.

It limits Canada's ability to screen Chinese investments to review under the Investment Canada Act while preserving China's ability to screen Canadian investments at any level of government and without the limitations imposed on screening by the Investment Canada Act.

It allows foreign investors from either country to bring claims against the other, but it does not allow either government to bring claims against foreign investors -- a clear imbalance.

It omits a reservation designed to preserve aboriginal rights, something included in all of Canada's 25 other similar investment and trade agreements.

The treaty has a lifespan of 31 years -- a longevity greater than the great majority of similar treaties signed by Canada.

It gives a special status to foreign investors such as the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) or China Petrochemical Corp. (Sinopec) in the form of substantive legal protections not enjoyed by other private parties, including domestic competitors.

It allows investors such as Chinese state-owned corporations to bring claims against the government in secret. (Van Harten says the arbitration would have to be made public only when an award is issued.)

Furthermore the treaty's definition of investment is extremely broad.

It does not mean just land or buildings but includes resource concession rights, debt instruments (that is, portfolio investment), intellectual property rights and "any other tangible or intangible... property and related property rights acquired or used for business purposes."

Who controls LNG benefits?

Chinese interest in the province's proposed 14 LNG terminals is substantial and largely confined to powerful state-owned corporations with direct ties to China's totalitarian Communist party.

These mega-firms, among the world's largest oil companies, have all been embroiled in scandals and corruption probes around the world, including Canada.

Sinopec, China's largest company by revenue, has a 15 per cent stake in the Pacific Northwest LNG project.

CNOOC owns a 60 per cent stake in the Aurora LNG project proposal and is pursuing an interest in Prince Rupert LNG project.

And PetroChina Co. Ltd. is a major partner in a consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell to build an LNG project in Kitimat.

A 2013 report by the US-China Business Council noted that, "Investment and market access restrictions continue to be a priority concern" for U.S. and Canadian companies trying to operate in the restrictive and highly protectionist Chinese economy.

No independent public review on the implications of unprecedented treaty took place prior to its ratification.

Trade between China and Canada is highly imbalanced. In 2013 Canada exported about $20-billion worth of raw goods (ores, fish and wood pulp) to China, while it imported $50-billion worth of machinery, footwear, furniture, toys and plastics from that country.

Read more: Energy, Federal Politics, BC Politics, Environment

Andrew Nikiforuk is a contributing editor to the Tyee. He will be talking in Squamish about the province's LNG plans on Thursday night. More details here. Find his previous stories here.

This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
 
Let's not forget the 42 people that died in the lac megantic rail crash= is it really safer.The Transmountain pipeline has bin pumping Heavy crude into Burnaby since 1957 has there bin a death or a spill in 60 years.. The people criticizing pipelines are the same ones who support them every time they fill their gas tank up =jokes on you
 
acutally Jwolfe, there have been several very recent ones. Thanks for asking:

July 15, 2005: About 210,000 litres (55,500 gallons) of crude leaked into the area surrounding the company's Sumas Mountain storage facility in Abbotsford, BC, polluting Kilgard Creek.
July 24, 2007: An oil spill occurred along the Kinder Morgan pipeline in Burnaby, BC, when a construction crew accidently ran into the unmarked pipe. Almost 250,000 litres (66,000 gallons) of oil sprung from the pipeline, soaking a residential neighbourhood and seeping into the Burrard Inlet. 50 homes were evacuated.
May 6, 2009: A spill was discovered at the company's Burnaby Mountain, BC, tank farm with had nearly 200,000 litres (52,800 gallons) of leaking oil
January 24, 2012: A pipeline rupture at the Sumas Mountain tank farm in British Columbia spilled an estimated 110,000 litres (29,300 gallons) of oil. Communities nearby reported nausea, headaches and fatigue, and schoolchildren were kept indoors for fear of airborne toxins.
April 3, 2012: Another spill in at Sumas Mountain facility caused strong odors and air quality concerns in surrounding neighbourhoods.

Remember, it was only in 2005 that Kinder Morgan purchased the Transmountain pipeline... and judging by above it appears there have been many significant spills under their watch. Increased capacity leads to increased traffic and inevitably increased spills which will continue to be serious issues for any of us here who want to protect what's left of salmon habitat.

https://www.wildernesscommittee.org...regarding_the_kinder_morgan_pipeline_proposal
 
Looks like neither the Charity critic nor the Charities are completely beyond suspicion?
 
Would be nice if they could refine the heavy crude on site ...Do you know if that pipeline rupture killed anyone in Michigan...If you and me are going to continue use fossil fuels what is your solution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top