Rockefeller Scumbags OK With Russian Oil, But Not Canadian

[Anonymous]

Where the fuck are Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair when they are needed?  Why aren't these three stooges not showing real leadership and uniting to fight those who attack Canadian industry and workers? Is Vladimir Putin or the Rockefellers paying off our politicians to turn a blind eye while they sabotage Canadian industry? Makes me fucking sick!!

Score one for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.



In July, 2008, the New York-based billionaires had a secret meeting, chaired by Michael Northrop. It was the launch of their "Tar Sands Campaign," and the goal was simple: to stop the "globally significant threat" of Canada's oilsands

After six years, and tens of millions of dollars, they can declare their first victory. Last week, Total SA, the huge French-based oil company, announced it was shelving its $11-billion proposed oilsands development.



The 150 Canadians who had been working on the project will likely be laid off. But of course the loss is what may never be: the thousands of construction jobs to build the project, the thousands of permanent jobs to work it, the billions of dollars of indirect economic development in everything from restaurants to car dealers. And of course billions of dollars in lost tax revenue to Alberta and Canada.



This is a success for the Rockefeller Brothers. As they wrote in their July, 2008 plan, their goal was "raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop infrastructure." That was almost word for word the explanation offered up by Total SA for pulling out.



The U.S. environmentalist war against Canadian jobs has driven up regulatory costs and increased delays. But more acutely, it has delayed the construction of critical pipelines needed to get the oilsands to market. That has driven up costs as oilsands companies have found more expensive ways, like using trains. More importantly, that bottleneck has driven down the price that Canadian oil companies receive for their oil – sometimes up to $30/barrel less than world prices.

Total SA could have probably made its investment work if it got world prices for its oil. It can't if its oil is being "de-marketed" – a phrase used by environmental extremists.



In 2008, the Rockefeller Brothers listed "five strategic campaign tracks," the first of which was "stop/limit pipelines and refinery expansions." In 2014, that worked.



Page 24 of the campaign plan outlined an annual budget of $7 million to fight the oilsands, with lawsuits as the No. 1 tactic. That budget that has grown exponentially over the past six years as other U.S. billionaires have flooded into Canada, colonizing our once-independent environmental movement. Even the Council of Canadians has sold out, accepting $1.6 million from other U.S. funders to wage war against Canadian oil and gas companies. If there were truth in advertising, it would be called the American Council of Canadians.



It's precisely that Canadianness the Americans are buying. They know that if billionaires from New York flew up here on their private jets to lecture us about oil and gas, we'd laugh them out of town. So they're really hiring actors. And not just any Canadians. Page 36 of the Rockefeller Brothers campaign plan specifically calls for "First Nations" frontmen Their smartest move was to rent a handful of aboriginal spokesmodels.



Page 12 of the plan lists some of the Canadians willing to take U.S. money to destroy our jobs. The list is packed with registered Canadian charities – groups that, under the Income Tax Act, are forbidden from engaging in politics: Environmental Defence, the Tides Foundation's project Forest Ethics, the World Wildlife Fund, the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club. These are Canadian charities or their affiliates, taking foreign money from the Rockefellers and other billionaires to wage a trade war against us. And despite formal complaints to the Canada Revenue Agency, none of these charities – many of which are also registered lobby firms! – have had their charitable status revoked. Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing them.



But don't weep for Total SA. It's worth $150 billion. That's Rockefeller-sized money. And it's a true multinational company.



Earlier this month it signed a massive new oil and gas deal – with Vladimir Putin. Total will frack for shale oil in Siberia.

Lucky for the company, the Rockefeller Brothers and their Canadian hired guns, don't oppose Russian or OPEC oil, or the jobs that come from them. They just hate Canada.http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/05/31/us-group-fine-with-russian-oil-just-not-canadian-oil">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/05/31/u ... nadian-oil">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/05/31/us-group-fine-with-russian-oil-just-not-canadian-oil

[Anonymous]

Andrew Weaver only hates Canadian oil even though his own research proved the Alberta oilsands have no impact on climate change even if you believe in that dubious theory.

Andrew Weaver is an anti-oilsands extremist from Victoria, B.C.



He claims to oppose oil and gas – but he only criticizes oil and gas from Canada, not from OPEC giants like Saudi Arabia and Iran.



He claims to oppose oil and gas – but he loves to use oil and gas himself, jetting around the world, using fossil fuels for his very important life, while telling the rest of us not to.



He participates in foreign-funded, foreign-orchestrated smear campaigns against Canadian jobs, like when he mugged for the cameras with Neil Young, the millionaire American celebrity who jetted up to Canada to smear our oilsands. Young actually comparing Fort McMurray, Alta., to Hiroshima, while Weaver – who purports to be a scientist – just stood by and said nothing about that unscientific, vicious smear.



Weaver can dish it out. But he acts like a thin-skinned bully. God forbid you dare to criticize him – he'll sue you. He'll try to destroy you in court, by using our laws to silence you. It's lawfare. It's SLAPP suits – strategic litigation against public participation.



Weaver sued climatologist Dr. Tim Ball for, amongst other things, saying Weaver was "lacking a basic understanding of climate science," according to a glowing New York Times article, cheering on his SLAPP suit.



Seriously? Suing someone, in a court of law, for saying you don't understand global warming? This from a scholar, an academic, a teacher? And now a politician – an opposition politician, no less. Weaver is now a Green Party MLA in British Columbia, someone who hurls insults as part of his job description.



But it's not just Dr. Ball. Last week, Weaver's lawsuit against the National Post went to trial, for daring to criticize him back in 2009.



Nobody remembers those columns anymore. They surely haven't damaged Weaver's career – he's a global warming celebrity, an international hero to the left, not just for his political views, but for suing those whose views he doesn't like.



That's not what true academics do. That's not what politicians do – especially opposition politicians. Andrew Weaver is acting like a thug, not a scholar or a public servant. He is trying to censor and punish his enemies, not debate his opponents.



I wrote to Weaver and his lawyer asking, how does he pay for it all? A professor makes about $100,000 a year. An MLA in B.C. makes about the same. He's not poor, but he's not rich.



Weaver hired Vancouver's premier defamation lawyer, Roger McConchie – a very expensive lawyer, for a five-year lawsuit.



It's hard to believe that a man earning about $70,000 dollars, after tax, can afford that. Is Weaver taking any money from environmental groups to silence Dr. Ball and the National Post? Is he taking foreign money, as so often is the case in Canadian environmentalism? (His lawyer has yet to respond.)



Weaver's not alone. In the United States, Michael Mann, a global warming advocate, has sued Mark Steyn and National Review magazine, for criticizing his so-called "hockey stick" graph that is the basis of so much junk science.



The hockey stick graph was bad science. It was adjusted to make it look like global warming has been sudden and pronounced. Steyn called it fraud – not a criminal fraud, but fraud in the common usage of that word. That's certainly fair enough in the rough and tumble debate that Mann voluntarily enters into every day himself as a global warming smearer. He's always attacking someone, attacking someone. And, like Weaver, the one time someone criticizes him back, he rushes to court to censor his opponents.



Mann has claimed, repeatedly, that he won the Nobel Prize. But he didn't -- Mann was a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the prize in 2007 -- and he corrected that exaggeration only when Steyn embarrassed him about it.



These lawsuits are not really about a particular column in a newspaper or magazine. They're about two big bullies – Weaver and Mann – who love to attack their enemies at will, not being man enough to take criticism themselves. Not being scholarly enough to engage in debate. Not being big boys enough to ignore the odd insult.



It's about silencing of critics. Which is the best these eco-extremists have got.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/06/silencing-critics-instead-of-debating-them">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/06/s ... ating-them">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/06/silencing-critics-instead-of-debating-them

[RW]

Everything impacts climate change don'tcha know.



I completely agree with the bullshit that's being spouted against Canadian oil. I guess ethical oil has no real value.

[Anonymous]

Everything impacts climate change don'tcha know.



I completely agree with the bullshit that's being spouted against Canadian oil. I guess ethical oil has no real value.

This is why I have quit exhaling. ;)

[Anonymous]

An anti-oilsands publicty stunt trip to NE Alberta....the fashion accessory every braindead, greedy celebutard needs to revive a stagnant career. Hell, foreign funded "charities" lie TIDES will even pay them for the endorsement.

It's time to turn oilsands controversy into cold hard cash.



Those taking verbal shots at Desmond Tutu and others using Alberta's oilsands as a platform to bash Canada are missing the

opportunity

 of a lifetime.



Yes folks, it's time to tout Fort McMurray as the hottest tourist destination in the world.



It's a vacation for misguided activists, poseurs, rich kid wannabes who've always dreamed of being celebrity protesters and, of course, the already famous who want to 'make their bones' as envirowarriors.



Think of it as a safari, but rather than bagging a wild animal, you'll be bringing down those nasty oil companies destroying the world!



Alberta can offer charter flights from California or New York to Fort Mac; the very belly of beast, where 'protester-tourists' can walk in the footsteps of formerly drug addicted rock stars and cinematic giants like Daryl Hannah; whom you might remember played the mermaid in Splash.



Then we take you for a tour of the oilsands where you'll be given a sign and be arrested by a 'real' RCMP officer.



Give the performance of a lifetime as you're hauled off kicking and screaming while a TV production crew shoots a video you'll always treasure.



And if you don't like the first take, the crew will cheerfully shoot it over again until they capture the right look of outrage on your face.



Then, you'll be guests of honour at a press conference which is televised internationally on the CBC, courtesy of Canadian taxpayers.



CBC reporters openly sympathetic to your cause will ask you questions like 'is this really all about the children for you?'



You'll have been briefed and be ready for that 'tough question' with a prepared statement telling the world about how 'children are the future' and how you weep daily for fate of the planet.



If you like you'll get to use terms like 'filthy' and 'dirty' oil without having to comment on why it's OK for OPEC countries to sell the same product.



Hey, has-beens!



If you're an actor who hasn't had a hit since the '90s and are resigned to life in the reality show circuit, this will get the attention of Hollywood producers who didn't realize you were still alive.



If you're a burned out rock star who's last album sold 12 copies, this will let everyone know you are still a relevant artist with something important to say ... even if you can't always remember what it is.



If you're not famous, you can regale your rich liberal friends back home with harrowing stories of how you stood up to Canada, the mad dog scourge of the western world and international outlaw.



Isn't it time Fort Mac capitalized on its growing notoriety?



Become the place people love to hate.



It could emerge as the centre of universe for the latest trend in adventure vacations; 'advocacy tourism'.



Let's capitalize on 1%ers who wear their trendy causes like a fashion accessory.



It makes them feel less vacuous, like their lives have meaning.



Aging boomers can relive their activist days in the '60s.



And it'll be a huge boost to tourism in Fort McMurray.



OK ... so maybe this is really a cheeky way of knocking down the anti-oilsands celebs and wannabes.



Bear in mind however, the last thing they want is to be mocked.



So a good way to deal with them is to laugh in their face and take their money and send them packing.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/11/time-for-alberta-to-cash-in-on-oilsands-protests">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/11/t ... s-protests">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/11/time-for-alberta-to-cash-in-on-oilsands-protests

[Anonymous]

Everything impacts climate change don'tcha know.



I completely agree with the bullshit that's being spouted against Canadian oil. I guess ethical oil has no real value.

If we are going to continue using steel, I would prefer the raw materials come from Canada. Same for gasoline or chemicals, I would prefer to buy the crude for it from this country.

[RW]

I'm with ya Seoul.

[Anonymous]

I'm with ya Seoul.

It's too bad that some Canadians have been brainwashed into believing the way we extract resources is somehow inferior to other resource exporters.

[Anonymous]

Everything impacts climate change don'tcha know.



I completely agree with the bullshit that's being spouted against Canadian oil. I guess ethical oil has no real value.

If we are going to continue using steel, I would prefer the raw materials come from Canada. Same for gasoline or chemicals, I would prefer to buy the crude for it from this country.

I don't consciously think about where a product or it's raw materials come from when I shop..



But, if I knew that either came from Canada and was produced by unionize Canadian workers it would influence my purchasing decision in a positive way.

[Anonymous]

I always look for that OPEC label when filling up. Those fucking Venezuelans really care about the environment.  

[Obvious Li]

I always look for that OPEC label when filling up. Those fucking Venezuelans really care about the environment.  

  i tell you a bedtime story......in a past life i was flown to a pipeline break in the Irkutsk (??) mountains area in Russia...we had the only technology and expertise available to handle a 48" line break....when we got there we found the Russian oil company had brought in lots of heavy equipment...dug a deep trench to the nearest river and was flowing the oil to the river which then went down the river to a lake where they skimmed the oil off and loaded it into tankers and hauled it to a refinery.....the entire lake was covered in more than a foot of heavy crude..it was so toxic everyone in the area still alive had been evacuated.....during our stay there while we were fixing the break i learned they had five 48" lines running to refineries near Moscow....more than 10% never arrived...it was lost to leaks and theft in transport.....can you imagine the amount of pollution 10% of five 48" pipelines represents....yes by all means lets stop oil sands production in favor of importing oil from countries like russia and venezula....GO TIDES GO...GO CHRISTY GO....GO NATIVES GO....GO NEIL GO....GO DARYL GO......FUCKING DIPSHITS

[Anonymous]

I always look for that OPEC label when filling up. Those fucking Venezuelans really care about the environment.  

  i tell you a bedtime story......in a past life i was flown to a pipeline break in the Irkutsk (??) mountains area in Russia...we had the only technology and expertise available to handle a 48" line break....when we got there we found the Russian oil company had brought in lots of heavy equipment...dug a deep trench to the nearest river and was flowing the oil to the river which then went down the river to a lake where they skimmed the oil off and loaded it into tankers and hauled it to a refinery.....the entire lake was covered in more than a foot of heavy crude..it was so toxic everyone in the area still alive had been evacuated.....during our stay there while we were fixing the break i learned they had five 48" lines running to refineries near Moscow....more than 10% never arrived...it was lost to leaks and theft in transport.....can you imagine the amount of pollution 10% of five 48" pipelines represents....yes by all means lets stop oil sands production in favor of importing oil from countries like russia and venezula....GO TIDES GO...GO CHRISTY GO....GO NATIVES GO....GO NEIL GO....GO DARYL GO......FUCKING DIPSHITS

I remember in university, one of my profs telling me that Russia had something like 50 major pipeline spills for every one in North America. Strangely, they are one of the major beneficiaries of our lack of international pipelines.

[Anonymous]

Today, let's address the green myths that developing Canada's oils sands will be "game over for the climate" and that the Keystone XL pipeline is the "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."



 The first myth stems from a May 9, 2012 New York Times column by James Hansen, the retired director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the first climate scientist to warn about the dangers of man-made global warming in 1981.



It has been widely misquoted as claiming Hansen said developing the oil sands alone would be "Game Over for the Climate", which was the Times' headline on Hansen's column.



What Hansen, who certainly opposes developing the oil sands, actually said was: "If Canada proceeds and we do nothing (my emphasis) it will be game over for the climate."



Hansen meant that if we keep using fossil fuels the way we have been, it will be "game over for the climate", which he's been saying for decades.



Indeed, Hansen notes in the column two sentences later that a climate crisis will occur: "If we were to fully exploit this new oil source (the oil sands), and continue to burn our conventional gas, oil and coal supplies." (My emphasis.)



Of course, environmental activists continue to quote what Hansen said out of context, in order to falsely portray Canada's oil sands as the largest environmental threat on Earth.



I'll explain why that argument is nonsense in a moment but first let's deal with claims the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to move bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast is "a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."



This phrase appears to have originated in a letter a group of 11 U.S. and Canadian environmental activists, led by American Bill McKibben of 350.org, wrote on June 23, 2011, encouraging people to engage in civil disobedience outside the White House to protest Keystone.



The letter describes Keystone as a fuse to "the biggest carbon bomb on the continent" not the "planet."



As Reuters reported on June 27, 2011, after a series of stinging defeats in the U.S. Congress on climate change: "McKibben and his allies figure the $7 billion Keystone XL — which was barely on their environmental radar screen a year ago — could be a galvanizer because the 1,702-mile underground pipeline would be a 'fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet'."



In other words, Keystone was deliberately chosen by environmentalists as a symbol of green hysteria, built on equally hysterical rhetoric.



Even President Barack Obama, who has been dithering about approving Keystone for years, acknowledged in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine published April 25, 2012 that: "The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change" (my emphasis) but because of its symbolic value.



McKibben, at least, is one of few oil sands protesters who is also critical of Obama, under whom U.S. fossil fuel mining and pipeline construction have exploded.



As for the oil sands, Canadian climate scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart, published in February, 2012 a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Climate Change in which they, "undertook to measure the likely impact of oil sands development upon world climate."



Scientists generally agree the future rise in global temperatures must be kept below 2 degrees C.



Weaver and Swart concluded developing the economically viable portion of the oil sands would raise global temperatures by a mere 0.03 degrees C.



Add in the commercially uneconomic portion of the oil sands and the increase would be only 0.36 degrees C.



Burn all of the world's oil and the increase would still be under 1 degree C.



But burn all the world's coal and the increase is 14.8 degrees C.



Weaver is no patsy for Big Oil. He's a lead reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an MLA for the Green Party in British Columbia and a fierce critic of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on energy policy.



He believes the Conservative government needs to do far more to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and control development of the oil sands.



But he's also honest about what the big problem is from a global perspective. It's not the oil sands. It's not even oil.



It's coal, which America uses to produce almost 40% of its electricity, China 80% and India 70%, compared to under 11% in Canada.



But don't tell that to hysterical oil sands protesters and politicians.



Reality confuses them.​

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/28/oil-sands-myths">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/28/oil-sands-myths