http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/trudeaus-rebranding-of-canada-offers-sunshine-to-davos-but-its-cold-comfort-for-battered-oilpatch?__lsa=0d86-0bab
In a speech in Davos this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau distanced Canada from its natural resource economy (i.e. oil and gas), and instead played up its economic diversity and its technology brainpower as part of his efforts to "rebrand" the country. 
"My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources," Trudeau said in his keynote address at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alps. "Well I want you to know Canada for its resourcefulness. Our natural resources are substantial and they will always be a basis of the Canadian economy, but Canadians also know ... that growth and prosperity is not just a matter of what lies under our feet, but what lies between our ears."
Trudeau's 'Sunny-Ways' marketing may have amused the Davos elites, but it's cold comfort to the estimated 100,000 people back home who lost their direct and indirect oil and gas jobs over the past year, or their homes and businesses, or their life savings.
For the legions of scientists who work in the energy sector, it's downright insulting.
Trudeau should re-acquaint himself with the never-more-relevant quote by petroleum geologist Wallace E. Pratt that oil "is first found in the minds of men."
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is showing little resourcefulness of his own.
Rather than doing what's in his power to do to improve market access for oil, which would alleviate the pain felt in Alberta and Saskatchewan from the oil price collapse, Trudeau's solution is to marginalize the energy sector and look elsewhere.
Surprisingly, in private meetings in Davos with Leonardo Di Caprio, Trudeau warned the actor and anti-oil activist from making uninformed statements about the oilsands, as if his continuing disinterest in their collapse is any better.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, also in Davos, appropriately disagreed with Trudeau and suggested Canada should be marketed as "resource-plus."
"We are a resource economy. Our biggest export is still energy and I do not see a path where that does not continue to be the case, so clearly we need to do what we can on market access," Nenshi said, noting it was "being discussed in every corner in this place."
"The two most likely pipeline projects are both entirely in Canada – Trans Mountain and Energy East – and Energy East in particular supplies Alberta energy to the rest of Canada," he said. "So, yes, social licence is required within our own country, but we also need to see action from this federal government about what's happening in Canada and I look forward to that happening."
Trudeau's remedy so far has been old government thinking — $1 billion in federal cash for infrastructure projects for Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Next to the oil and gas investment yanked in the past year alone, Trudeau's offering barely makes a dent. A single company, Husky Energy Inc., cut almost that much this week, when it announced it would reduce spending by $800 million in Western Canada this year.
			
			
			
				Trudeau can start to revive enthusiasm for Canada's battered oil economy by confirming he is still keen to get export pipelines built, ending a paralysis that's gone on for almost a decade.
Lack of market access is half the reason the Canadian energy sector is being hammered so badly in the oil collapse, why investment is being cut so drastically, why investors are staying on the sidelines. A $10 discount on Canada's oil because of transportation constraints hurts a lot more when oil is sub $30 a barrel.
That's also what Trudeau promised in Calgary less a year ago, when he said at the Calgary Petroleum Club: "Getting our resources to market is a priority for Canadians and we know that that economic success depends on us keeping our word on the environment."
But where is the urgency to resolve market access that Trudeau showed for climate change policy, or for accepting Syrian refugees, or to deliver on promises to aboriginal people?
Where is the leadership by Canada's senior statesman in the face of the out-of-control anti-pipeline politics played by premiers like Christy Clark, who keeps demanding her share of rent before allowing bitumen pipelines through British Columbia; or Montreal-area mayors like Denis Coderre, who on Thursday rejected the Energy East project, supposedly because the risks far outweigh the economic benefits, as if the risks of importing oil from abroad are any better.
It took Alberta Wildrose leader Brian Jean to point out the obvious: "You can't dump raw sewage, accept foreign tankers, benefit from equalization and then reject our pipelines," Jean said on Twitter.
Meanwhile, Trudeau keeps encouraging pipeline opposition by banning oil tankers from the Northern B.C. coast, is insisting on 'modernizing' the perfectly competent National Energy Board even if that means more pipeline delays, and is offering sunshine while Canada's energy economy is sinking.
			
			
			
				I was watching Andre Coyne talk about the Montreal mayors rejecting Energy East before the NEB hearings are even held. The issue of no international market access for our number one export is holding this country back. What kind of a country do we have when every regional politician is allowed to put personal selfish interest ahead of the national good. This is why this issue should be left taken right out of the hands of politicians entirely and placed in the hands of an independent body like the National Energy Board.
			
			
			
				I think the price of oil is being pushed down and depressed by America and its allies blowing up the Middle East.
The true price of oil per barrel is much higher than the current $30 its trading at. Heck the labor, transportation, etc which goes into extracting it alone must be $30.
If it weren't for that military interevention, oil would be sky high by now & the folks in Fort McMurray and Saskatchewan would be doin' just fine.
That's the who purpose of going to war against ISIS, to keep the price of oil down.
Otherwise the American Economy can't hum.
			
			
			
				Dumb  statements, always springing from your obsessive anti-US hate, are too easy.
Now for the hard part, the being a real man part. 
1. Explain in detail (with good sources) HOW this depresses oil prices
2. While you are at it, please explain HOW current minimal bombing of ISIS targets depresses oil prices
If you feel I'm holding your feet to the fire, relax. It's  only because I'm holding your feet to the fire 
			
			
			
				Quote from: "Herman"
I was watching Andre Coyne talk about the Montreal mayors rejecting Energy East before the NEB hearings are even held. The issue of no international market access for our number one export is holding this country back. What kind of a country do we have when every regional politician is allowed to put personal selfish interest ahead of the national good. This is why this issue should be left taken right out of the hands of politicians entirely and placed in the hands of an independent body like the National Energy Board.
We used to send crude East via pipeline until the 1970's. Funny, Montreal area mayors don't have an issue with tankers of Nigerian heavy going up and down the St. Lawrence. Energy East would create 14, 000 jobs in the construction phase alone. It would generate tens of billions in revenue and make True Dope's infrastructure plan look like building a kiddie park in a subdivision.  We got to stop letting OPEC and American money brainwash us into believing we cannot do it right.
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Herman"
Lack of market access is half the reason the Canadian energy sector is being hammered so badly in the oil collapse, why investment is being cut so drastically, why investors are staying on the sidelines.
The reason for the oil collapse is there's too much oil in the market. Exporting more oil isn't going to raise the price of it.
All the oil producing nations are hurting because of the low price. New pipelines wouldn't help them either. Only scaling back production will raise the price again. Thanks, Saudi Arabia!
Quote
Russians' Anxiety Swells as Oil Prices Collapse
//http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/world/europe/russians-anxiety-swells-as-oil-prices-collapse.html?_r=0
Quote
Oil's Collapse Hurting US States That Were Counting on $50-a-Barrel
//http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/oil-s-collapse-hurting-states-that-were-counting-on-50-a-barrel
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Romero"
The reason for the oil collapse is because there's too much oil in the market. Exporting more oil isn't going to raise the price of it.
All the oil producing nations are hurting because of the low price. New pipelines wouldn't help them either. Only scaling back production will raise the price again. Thanks, Saudi Arabia!
The reason we can't get a better price is because we don't have access to international markets. The price gap for WCS is widening  in an oversupplied market. The same goes for lighter grades from Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is what happens when one customer dictates what the price you will receive. We need new markets now. A huge shot in the arm for the economy when it is needed most.
			 
			
			
				Here's what access to markets via pipeline for price discounting of oil.
Quote
New pipelines to end Midland crude discount in coming months, analyst says
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/30/new-pipelines-to-end-midland-crude-discount-in-coming-months-analyst-says/
For fuck sakes, let's get on with twinning Trans Mountain and Energy East. We are one of the few oil producers that will not be ramping down much production. Let's secure contracts offshore and build those pipelines while the economy is very weak. Let's stop the discounting that comes from one customer holding us hostage.
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Shen Li"
Here's what access to markets means takes away price discounting.
Quote
New pipelines to end Midland crude discount in coming months, analyst says
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/30/new-pipelines-to-end-midland-crude-discount-in-coming-months-analyst-says/
Thanks for proving my point! That article is from over a year ago. The price of oil is a lot lower now than it was then, isn't it?
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Here's what access to markets means takes away price discounting.
Quote
New pipelines to end Midland crude discount in coming months, analyst says
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/30/new-pipelines-to-end-midland-crude-discount-in-coming-months-analyst-says/
Thanks for proving my point! That article is from over a year ago. The price of oil is a lot lower now than it was then, isn't it?
You don't get my point at all. Lack of market access is putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage. There has never been a better time to build a pipeline and get get international access. Let's see True Dope's infrastructure spending compete with Transmountain or Energy East.
			 
			
			
				Gaining access to international markets for our number one export should be the first priority of any national government. There should be declared a national economic emergency, with targets set for pipes in the ground. Obama has streamlined the process South of the border, so there is no reason it cannot be done here.
			
			
			
				Quote from: "Shen Li"
You don't get my point at all. Lack of market access is putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage. There has never been a better time to build a pipeline and get get international access. Let's see True Dope's infrastructure spending compete with Transmountain or Energy East.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have the most access to international markets by far, yet they're hurting economically too. They're in more trouble than we are!
It's a fact that the countries exporting the most are hurting the most.
			 
			
			
				Quote
Saudis unveil radical austerity program
Saudi Arabia unveiled spending cuts in its 2016 budget, subsidy reforms and a call for privatizations to rein in a yawning deficit caused by the prolonged period of low oil prices.
The Gulf kingdom has kept oil production at high levels in an attempt to force out higher-cost producers, such as shale, and retain its market share. But this year's deficit ballooned to $97.9 billion, or 15 per cent of gross domestic product, as oil revenues fell 23 per cent.
Seeking to ward off future fiscal crises, the ministry of finance confirmed wide-ranging economic reforms, including plans to "privatize a range of sectors and economic activities".
Riyadh would revise energy, water and electricity prices "gradually over the next five years" to optimize efficiency while minimizing "negative effects on low and mid-income citizens and the competitiveness of the business sector," it added.
//http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/29/saudis-unveil-radical-austerity-programme.html
If only Saudi Arabia had access to international markets, eh?
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
You don't get my point at all. Lack of market access is putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage. There has never been a better time to build a pipeline and get get international access. Let's see True Dope's infrastructure spending compete with Transmountain or Energy East.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have the most access to international markets by far, yet they're hurting economically too. They're in more trouble than we are!
It's a fact that the countries exporting the most are hurting the most.
Romero you are missing the entire point. We are paying international prices for imported shit from countries in Central Asia, North Africa and Nigeria while at the same time our crude faces the biggest discounts we ever have faced. And that includes Saskatchewan's crude too. Instead of a tanker moratorium on the North West Coast how about a tanker ban on incoming crude? Let's put Canadians interests first for a change.
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
You don't get my point at all. Lack of market access is putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage. There has never been a better time to build a pipeline and get get international access. Let's see True Dope's infrastructure spending compete with Transmountain or Energy East.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have the most access to international markets by far, yet they're hurting economically too. They're in more trouble than we are!
It's a fact that the countries exporting the most are hurting the most.
Romero you are missing the entire point. We are paying international prices for imported shit from countries in Central Asia, North Africa and Nigeria while at the same time our crude faces the biggest discounts we ever have faced. And that includes Saskatchewan's crude too. Instead of a tanker moratorium on the North West Coast how about a tanker ban on incoming crude? Let's put Canadians interests first for a change.
That's because Homoero has his ass up Islamofascists ass. What is good for Canada, not good for intolerant misogynistic homophobes. When our interests conflict with those animals, count on Romero to throw us under the bus just like the Montreal area mayors. Get it now?
			 
			
			
				Just need to impose dumping duties or a tariff on imported oil. 
Wonder what the profit picture looked like for the members of Opec prior to the prices falling, compared to what the profit picture looks like now with increased production at a much much lower price? I can imagine they made a much higher profit at lower production.
			
			
			
				Quote from: "Romero"
Quote
Saudis unveil radical austerity program
Saudi Arabia unveiled spending cuts in its 2016 budget, subsidy reforms and a call for privatizations to rein in a yawning deficit caused by the prolonged period of low oil prices.
The Gulf kingdom has kept oil production at high levels in an attempt to force out higher-cost producers, such as shale, and retain its market share. But this year's deficit ballooned to $97.9 billion, or 15 per cent of gross domestic product, as oil revenues fell 23 per cent.
Seeking to ward off future fiscal crises, the ministry of finance confirmed wide-ranging economic reforms, including plans to "privatize a range of sectors and economic activities".
Riyadh would revise energy, water and electricity prices "gradually over the next five years" to optimize efficiency while minimizing "negative effects on low and mid-income citizens and the competitiveness of the business sector," it added.
//http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/29/saudis-unveil-radical-austerity-programme.html
If only Saudi Arabia had access to international markets, eh?
That's not a good analogy for not building infrastructure in Canada. I don't how Saudi Arabia allocates spending, but I doubt it's very transparent. What I do know is that most types of crude in Canada are discounted about $10 a barrel due to our lack of market diversification. Every single dollar lost represents a substantial loss to the Canadian economy. Any argument against Energy East cannot be made on economic grounds.
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "kiebers"
Just need to impose dumping duties or a tariff on imported oil. 
Wonder what the profit picture looked like for the members of Opec prior to the prices falling, compared to what the profit picture looks like now with increased production at a much much lower price? I can imagine they made a much higher profit at lower production.
You are speaking my language kiebers. We have some of the biggest proven reserves of crude in the world, but we import expensive foreign shit while we sell our own supplies at super discounted rates. I wish Canada and the states would get together and say no to imports of crude. Make a unified crude market and screw those countries that I am trying to forget I was ever there.
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Herman"
Instead of a tanker moratorium on the North West Coast how about a tanker ban on incoming crude? Let's put Canadians interests first for a change.
I agree!
			 
			
			
				Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "kiebers"
Just need to impose dumping duties or a tariff on imported oil. 
Wonder what the profit picture looked like for the members of Opec prior to the prices falling, compared to what the profit picture looks like now with increased production at a much much lower price? I can imagine they made a much higher profit at lower production.
You are speaking my language kiebers. We have some of the biggest proven reserves of crude in the world, but we import expensive foreign shit while we sell our own supplies at super discounted rates. I wish Canada and the states would get together and say no to imports of crude. Make a unified crude market and screw those countries that I am trying to forget I was ever there.
That sounds all good and everything, but the reality is there are so many interests besides Homoero that do not want Canadian crude receiving fair prices on the open market.
			 
			
			
				What Romero does not get is that a pipeline already has customers before it is built. It's not like China building ghost cities.  China and Japan have both invested in our resource sector. They know Canada would be a reliable exporter if we only had the infrastructure to do the job.
			
			
			
				Let's build the extension of Energy East that would run through Quebec to New Brunswick and the slaeazebag mayors of Montreal we put raw sewage in the pipeline. Mean while our airhead PM says  "Canadians know that what it takes to grow and prosper isn't just what's under our feet, it's what's between our ears."
Doesn't our PM know Canada's resource industries are a source of innovation and high tech jobs, much like Silicon Valley in the U.S., which he praised in his speech?
Maybe he needs to read up on Canada.
Quote
Denis Coderre. What a maroon, to quote Bugs Bunny.
Yes, Montreal's Mayor Denis Coderre says the Energy East project is bad.
Alberta's official opposition Brian Jean says Coderre is playing politics and not listening to the science about pipelines, the safest way to transport oil.
Jean points out Quebec gets billions upon billions from equalization and a lot comes from the West and the oilpatch.
It is a point also made by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and it happens to be true.
Jean also says the sewage-dumping Coderre is being hypocritical.
And what does Coderre do?
He acts like an ass, uncorking the endlessly repeated punch line that's just not funny anymore.
Yes, Coderre wants to take a moment to laugh at "a guy like Brian Jean" for talking about science.
"These are probably the same people who think the Flintstones is a documentary."
It is a most curious rebuttal.
And who are these people? Supporters of Wildrose? Supporters of Energy East? Albertans? Westerners? Conservatives? Me and you?
Who are these people? Does anyone in the Montreal press bother to ask Coderre?
I first heard the Flintstones line when Liberal scrapper Warren Kinsella took aim at Canadian Alliance leader's Stockwell Day's creationist beliefs about 15 years ago.
"I just want to remind Mr. Day that the Flintstones was not a documentary."
OK, at least I know where that one was going.
Then again, last year, Coderre said the former Conservative government "think the Flintstones was a documentary" because they didn't want the mayor dumping sewage.
Jean, who was in the House of Commons across the aisle from the Liberal Coderre, says the mayor was always about "personal attacks and gutter politics."
"I've seen Coderre float up and down through the sewers. I'm not going to float with him in any gutter. Ever."
The Wildrose leader does uncork a line but it makes sense.
"Perhaps if Energy East carried raw sewage he could get behind it," says Jean.
Still, Jean insists he doesn't want Coderre's sliming to become a debate on national unity.
"We need to take the politics out of pipelines," he says, talking about political opposition on Energy East.
"It's not about science, it's about political extortion. And political extortion is not Canadian."
Jean says the pipelines should be "a nation-building exercise just like the railroad."
Good luck with that.
On Friday, Premier Notley visits Toronto and Ontario's Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Wynne doesn't insult anybody but Alberta still hasn't passed Go on Energy East.
The Ontario premier talks about pipelines and jobs and how Alberta's climate change plan "makes the national conversation about emission targets and pipelines that much easier."
But still Ontario doesn't back Energy East. Not yet.
Ontario government officials refer your scribbler to the province's six principles on pipelines.
They also send your scribe to an Ontario Energy Board report commissioned by the province and released this past summer.
It says "there is an imbalance between the economic and the environmental risks of the project and the expected benefits for Ontarians.
"The economic benefits for the province are likely to be modest.
"The big beneficiaries for pipelines are those jurisdictions that put the product into the pipeline and those that take it out.
"There are a number of risks we are concerned about."
Doesn't sound like champagne-popping prose.
On Friday, Wynne goes after those who want to hear something specific and not the usual political speak.
"We have to work together and if that's painful in terms of the amount of time it takes then that's too bad because that's actually the time that it takes."
Meanwhile, Jean says he kind of liked the Flintstones as a kid.
"We all know the Flintstones is just a little cartoon that's not real," he says.
"Let's concentrate on what is real — the need to build a pipeline."
And anyone in the politically correct going after goofy Coderre? Don't wait up.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/23/montreal-mayor-denis-coderre-slimes-people-like-wildrose-leader-brian-jean-as-pipeline-debate-heats-up
			 
			
			
				An audit says the NEB is not doing enough to follow up on project recommendations. In social media I have mo doubt this will be exploited as saying pipelines can't be built safely because federal departments cannot do their jobs. It's very deceiving because like railways the actual safety compliance is carried out by the carriers themselves. I see this report as an excuse to hire more people at the NEB, which I'm ok with as long as we can get critical infrastructure in the ground.
Quote
A federal audit released Tuesday says the National Energy Board (NEB) needs to do more follow-up on pipeline projects that it is monitoring.
For its part, the NEB said it had identified the "same areas for improvement" and has an action plan to address all of its findings by the end of 2016.
"The NEB absolutely enforces and monitors all companies' compliance with pipeline approval conditions and has complete confidence that compliance with pipeline approval conditions is appropriately and comprehensively evaluated by NEB staff and Board members," Peter Watson, NEB chair and CEO said in a statement. "The audit makes recommendations regarding the documentation of this work and the NEB took immediate action after speaking to the CESD [Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development] last year to begin rectifying this issue."
READ MORE: NEB monitoring of pipeline safety still inadequate
Michal Moore, professor of energy economics at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, says the report does two important things.
"The first one is that it highlights the absolute critical need we have for safe and well-performing infrastructure across the entire nation," Moore said. "The second is the issue of whether or not we can adequately oversee and make sure the standards that we set for this infrastructure can be met. And it's pretty clear that if we don't put the money into it and if we don't invest and constantly upkeep the infrastructure and make sure that it's overseen, we'll have errors and we'll have spills and the public safety will be compromised."
Moore believes that one of the biggest challenges is that rules need to be clearly defined and observed, but also enforced with the proper risk of punishment.
He also feels that agencies like the NEB need to be properly staffed. He points to the fact that hiring and retention are a challenge to every public agency, including the NEB.
Moore suggested action should be on behalf of all of Canada, and "not eight of 10 provinces or not a system of cities against the federal government."
"This is going to have to solved by exerting  federal authority on those projects or those issues that are clearly benefiting Canada as a whole and should not be subject to what is known as the tyranny of the minority."
Effects of social media on public policy
The report comes in the wake of heated debate over the proposed Energy East pipeline, which has largely been fought in the forum of public opinion.
Moore said these discussions need to move away from social media and move into forums that offer the opportunity for reasonable consideration with decisions based on expertise.
"Trying a case or trying as issue in social media where one person's opinion instantly goes viral and becomes the opinion of (many) is not very useful as far as good public policy."
Moore said this is reflective of a bigger issue.
"We've come to a crisis point: the issue of national infrastructure safety approval  or pipeline approval  is colliding against a distrust or a mistrust of government authority that we have to solve before we can move ahead."
What's next?
Moore is optimistic that the new chairman of the NEB will be responsive to the audit and expects that they will work with the new government to ensure they have the proper tools, including staffing, to ensure that the recommendations of the audit can be met.
Chris Bloomer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) agrees with Moore that there needs to be more trust and confidence of the whole process around the industry.
CEPA's membership includes 98 per cent of all the pipelines' capacity in Canada, and Bloomer pointed out that their goals align with public opinion—and with the NEB's—when it comes to safety standards and expectations.
"Our goal is to have zero incidents on our mainline pipelines with our membership – which we achieved last year."
Bloomer said the report is not about the industry's performance, that in fact the pipeline is compliant. The report is more about the NEB closing off files, tracking things and other matters. His conclusion is that it's not that the NEB is not doing those things, but that they are not doing them as efficiently as possible.
Government reaction
Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, thanked the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for her work on the report in a Tuesday statement.
She said the government will ensure the recommendations are addressed.
"Our economy and the environment go hand in hand," McKenna said. "This report is an objective and independent analysis of the efforts that the Government has made to protect the environment and outlines the importance of fostering sustainable development going forward."
Reaction from the Opposition
Approval conditions for federally regulated oil and gas pipelines can cover a wide range of topics. Companies often agree to protect critical animal and plant habitats, provide economic opportunities for Aboriginal groups, and maintain safety and engineering standards for the pipeline itself before they get the go-ahead from the NEB.
It is the NEB's job to ensure that companies are sticking to these conditions as they build and operate a pipeline. In about half of the cases the audit examined, that wasn't happening.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2479129/pipeline-audit-reflects-crisis-point-alberta-policy-expert/
			 
			
			
				If Energy East gets put in the ground in the next four years Trudeau will look like a contemporary John A. MacDonald. The twinning of Trans Mountain would be nice too.
			
			
			
				Trudeau is neither a supporter nor an opponent of our number one export and the tens of thousands of mortgage paying jobs that come with it. One can say what they want about the previous government, but they were supporters of ALL heavy industry in Canada, which is what a federal government should be doing. Gawd knows Chretien was.
Quote
The headlines from the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week made Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seem like a burly defender of oil development: "Trudeau tells off Leonard DiCaprio," "Trudeau urges DiCaprio to tone down criticism of Canadian oilsands."
The Hollywood actor and environmental extremist – who last year mistook an Alberta chinook for a "terrifying" global-warming disaster – had told the forum earlier in the day "enough is enough." We must rapidly end our use of fossil fuel (and convert, one presumes, to celebrity hot air).
Later, at a private dinner thrown by China's wealthiest man, Jack Ma of the Alibaba Group, Trudeau is alleged to have confronted the star of Titanic and The Revenant and backed DiCaprio off.
All the glowing headlines were based on reports from "a senior Liberal official," so I suspect it's closer to the truth that Prime Minister Selfie asked DiCaprio if the star would mind the two of them taking a pic together on Trudeau's smartphone.
But even if the PM did get gruff with Leo, it was only to point out that the new Liberal government in Ottawa and NDP government in Alberta were deeply committed to the environment, too. Couldn't fellow "greenie" DiCaprio, please, wait to see how tough Trudeau and Premier Rachel Notley were prepared to get with the oil companies before attacking our oilsands?
Frankly, though, how Trudeau stands up to Leonardo DiCaprio is of less interest compared to how stands up to Denis Coderre and other politicians like the Montreal mayor. Last week, Coderre announced he would oppose the Energy East pipeline because it was too environmentally risky for his city.
Just where does the Trudeau government stand on the 4,600-kilometre pipeline, or on pipelines in general?
It's very difficult to tell.
On Friday, Trudeau's parliamentary secretary, Toronto MP Adam Vaughan, gave an interview to CBC. Coming the day after Coderre's contemptuous dismissal of Energy East, Vaughan's answers were anything but reassuring.
He was asked over and over what the federal government's position was on the pipeline. That shouldn't be hard. Trudeau himself has said several times he is in favour.
Trudeau's support comes with major conditions. But the new PM has said time and again he supports the all-Canadian line that would take oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and a port in New Brunswick.
But Vaughan couldn't give the CBC even a qualified "yes."
The Harper government had given the regulatory process a bad name, Vaughan bobbed. As a result "people" have lost faith in the review process, he weaved. The new Liberal government promises to come up with an environmental assessment Canadians can be proud of, Vaughan ducked. Can't say what will happen until then, he danced.
What's doubly troubling about the downtown Toronto MP being the government's spokesman on pipelines is that two years ago when he was running in a by-election for his seat, Vaughan was strongly against all pipelines.
The former Toronto city councillor and former CBC reporter even ducked out on an all-candidates forum rather than explain how his anti-oil views clashed with his national leader's.
During the by-election, Vaughan wondered how the NDP (his main rivals) could be against Keystone but not Energy East (as he was), since "Energy East is projected to increase oilsands development 30% more than the Keystone XL pipeline."
Vaughan was against them both and now he's Trudeau's right-hand on the pipeline file.
After meeting with Coderre on Tuesday, Trudeau said "my responsibility as prime minister is make sure that on national projects we're behaving in a way that both contributes to the economy, to a secure environment (and) to bringing people together..."
Oh, that clears things up. Thanks.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/26/trudeaus-pipeline-policy-far-from-clear
			 
			
			
				Even Alberta's two big city leftist mayors are stating the obvious to people like the mayors of Montreal, Burnaby and Christy Clark. Politics have no place in critical infrastructure projects.
Quote
Speaking to reporters at the legislature after he and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi met with the NDP cabinet, Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson said local politicians have to think about what's best for the country.
"Just imagine if we were trying to build a railroad 100 years ago and mayors were saying no. What kind of country would we have?" said Iveson.
"It's incumbent on all of us to try to work toward yes. Bring the concerns forward, have them addressed duly through the regulatory process. But politicizing this is not good for the country."
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/calgary-and-edmonton-mayors-decry-politicizing-of-pipeline-debate
			 
			
			
				The perfect storm may be upon us.
 
A volatile mix of low oil prices, a low loonie and an enviro-movement that appears to be getting more air time than those who champion the energy industry.
Whether it's the predictable anti-industry lobby groups or opportunistic politicians beyond Alberta's borders, their chorus is growing louder.
Those who defend the economic engine of our nation – yes, the oilpatch still retains that title – appear to be dismissed far more easily than those who oppose them.
Never mind that those standing up for oil come from a variety of political stripes and backgrounds. From Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall to Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi to Wildrose Opposition Leader Brian Jean.
Even the oft-reluctant Alberta NDP is growing a spine against those who criticize our energy industry.
So, while it's trendy to preach of a world without oil and coal and all things remotely harmful, a quick reality check proves the notion foolish.
A responsible and prosperous energy sector benefits everyone.
It's farcical that Montreal's mayor can gang up with other like-minded Quebec politicians to block a pipeline to get Alberta's oil to the East coast.
But, at the moment, it's trendy to wrap oneself in the cloak of enviro-protector and ignore the economic reality facing Alberta and Canada as a whole.
When it comes to Canada's energy industry, environmental prudence is paramount.
But dismissing any and all pipelines will not only hurt Alberta, but all of Canada.
We can paint it however we choose, but Canada is - and likely always will be - a resource economy dependent on the ability to export.
Putting roadblocks around that for regional political gain does a disservice to all Canadians.
The future of pipelines appears more questionable each headline.
But one thing is for certain.
The phone booth must be overflowing with self-serving, self-professed enviro-superheroes who have no issue castigating Alberta for their own political gain.
			
			
			
				The economic engine of Canada is under attack from big money NGO's and opportunistic politicians. We handed a life preserver to the auto sector when it was in trouble, but we throw a boulder to the energy sector.
Quote
The perfect storm may be upon us.
A volatile mix of low oil prices, a low loonie and an enviro-movement that appears to be getting more air time than those who champion the energy industry.
Whether it's the predictable anti-industry lobby groups or opportunistic politicians beyond Alberta's borders, their chorus is growing louder.
Those who defend the economic engine of our nation – yes, the oilpatch still retains that title – appear to be dismissed far more easily than those who oppose them.
Never mind that those standing up for oil come from a variety of political stripes and backgrounds. From Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall to Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi to Wildrose Opposition Leader Brian Jean.
Even the oft-reluctant Alberta NDP is growing a spine against those who criticize our energy industry.
So, while it's trendy to preach of a world without oil and coal and all things remotely harmful, a quick reality check proves the notion foolish.
A responsible and prosperous energy sector benefits everyone.
It's farcical that Montreal's mayor can gang up with other like-minded Quebec politicians to block a pipeline to get Alberta's oil to the East coast.
But, at the moment, it's trendy to wrap oneself in the cloak of enviro-protector and ignore the economic reality facing Alberta and Canada as a whole.
When it comes to Canada's energy industry, environmental prudence is paramount.
But dismissing any and all pipelines will not only hurt Alberta, but all of Canada.
We can paint it however we choose, but Canada is - and likely always will be - a resource economy dependent on the ability to export.
Putting roadblocks around that for regional political gain does a disservice to all Canadians.
The future of pipelines appears more questionable each headline.
But one thing is for certain.
The phone booth must be overflowing with self-serving, self-professed enviro-superheroes who have no issue castigating Alberta for their own political gain. 
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/22/rachel-notley-and-her-know-it-all-gang-dont-foster-long-term-relationships
			 
			
			
				The federal government announced new rules regarding pipeline approval. It will delay final decisions. I don't have any other details yet. But, I will predict that we still won't have access to tidewater for our number one export before the next election. I sure hope I am wrong.
			
			
			
				Trudeau's gotta show leadership by trying to stop being so nice. Enough of it!
The election's over. He's gotta man up.
He's in this public image mode schtik.
Quit tryin' ta win a popularity contest and get on with governing.
But if you look at world leaders who get a lot of respect, many people don't like them.
ie - Vladmir Putin, The PM of Israel, The Prime Minister of Iran.
They're all considered assholes. sonofabitches actually.
Trudeau's gotta do what he's gotta do, otherwise he risks being devoured in the political arena.
			
			
			
				Anyways, Justin's Dad, PET, was a sonofabitch.
The people in Alberta hated him for his National Energy Plan.
Many people in Quebec hated him for brutally putting down the FLQ & putting Rene Levesque in his place.
Yup, he was one sonofabitch - but that's what kept him in power for 16 years.
Junior should learn some of his Dad's moves and Machiavellian methods of governing.
			
			
			
				There will not be new pipeline in the ground before the next federal election. The tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and the thousands of good paying jobs from the construction phase will not materialize. Eastern Canada will continue to import oil from places like Nigeria because our inept PM cares more about regional IOU's than the national interest.
It's time for Alberta to start exploring different options including joining the US. 
Quote
Canada doesn't need a more transparent pipeline review process. It has one of those already.
What it needs is politicians with more courage to push through projects that receive approval from the National Energy Board (NEB).
On Wednesday, federal Liberal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr released some interim measures for reviewing the Trans Mountain and Energy East pipeline projects. They won't help a bit to get needed pipelines built.
Carr's six interim guidelines are reminiscent of British Columbia's five hoops through which Alberta and oil companies must jump to get permission to build a pipeline to the West Coast.
I have called the B.C. criteria, introduced in 2012 in connection with the Northern Gateway approval process, the "moving goalposts."
The conditions were designed intentionally so they could never be satisfied. Whenever Alberta or Gateway's owners, Enbridge, got close to meeting one or more of the conditions, the B.C. government could change the requirements slightly and never have to say "yes."
The federal Liberals' interim measures are very similar.
British Columbia required a comprehensive environmental review, full participation by and benefits for First Nations and a "fair share" of fiscal and economic benefits for their province.
Carr insists Trans Mountain and Energy East may only move forward after there have been "deeper consultations with Indigenous peoples," better analysis of environmental impacts and appointment of "a ministerial representative to engage communities ... potentially affected by the project" and ensure those communities are happy.
B.C.'s conditions were political cover and so are the Trudeau government's. They are so broad and so ill-defined that the Liberals could easily use them to deny construction permits to Kinder Morgan (Trans Mountain) and TransCanada (Energy East), no matter how many conditions the companies satisfy.
Public opinion polls, not technical or scientific reviews, will determine whether the pipelines Alberta needs will proceed. If loud environmentalists and trendy editorialists continue to oppose pipelines out of alarmism over climate change, Carr, Trudeau and the Liberals will simply say "sorry, our conditions haven't been met. You can't have your pipelines."
This is all about politics and nothing about "restoring public confidence in the environmental review process" as the prime minister and Natural Resources minister claim.
The Northern Gateway review was the most extensive in the history of Canadian pipelines. After nearly three years of review and nearly 2,000 public submissions, the NEB approved the project to carry Alberta bitumen to a tanker port on the B.C. coast – with 209 conditions attached.
But that wasn't good enough for the goalpost-moving B.C. government or for the extremely well-funded environmental activists opposed to the project. So even without a Parliamentary motion, back in November Trudeau effectively killed Northern Gateway by directing his Transportation minister to impose a tanker ban on the West Coast.
Gateway might get built, but the oil couldn't go anywhere. So it is unlikely investors would ever spend the money to construct it.
No matter what the Liberals do to change the NEB process, some provinces and most eco-activists will remain opposed to every pipeline. It's not the possibility of a pipeline leak or a tanker spill they're truly worried about. They're opposed to what's in the pipeline – oil, a carbon-based fuel that they worry will cause dangerous climate change.
There is no way any review process can satisfy these extremists.
That's why Carr's and the Liberals' interim measures are a fraud. So long as Quebec and B.C. remain opposed to pipelines (and so long as the Liberals want votes there more than in Alberta), all the new measures do is give Ottawa a convenient tool to kill the projects.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/27/new-initiatives-are-so-ill-defined-the-liberals-could-deny-permits-no-matter-how-many-conditions-are-met
			 
			
			
				
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12642893_1641982562718905_1586839440996194602_n.png?oh=c740283c86fa4673141388d77e0feb9b&oe=57354BD6%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hp%20...%20e=57354BD6%22%3Ehttps://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12642893_1641982562718905_1586839440996194602_n.png?oh=c740283c86fa4673141388d77e0feb9b&oe=57354BD6%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
			 
			
			
				New climate tests for pipelines are unnecessary
Quote
The federal government is about to roll out new regulatory requirements for Canada's energy industry. e new rules will require the environmental reviews of pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals— critical energy infrastructure projects—to consider the greenhouse gas (GHGs) e ects of those projects.
The move to have pipelines and LNG terminals pass climate change tests raises many questions. How will the tests be conducted? What will be the standards that proposed projects must pass? Will the tests result in "social license" for projects?
But most importantly, are these new regulatory requirements necessary? Do pipelines and LNG terminals increase emissions enough to realistically effect climate change? The answer to these last two questions is no.
Contrary to much of the environmental ire levelled against Canada's oilsands, the GHGs produced by extracting oil from them represents but a sliver — 0.1% — of global emissions.
Even expansion of the oilsands would likely have a minimal impact on GHGs. In 2014, when the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that oilsands production would increase by more than three million barrels a day over the next 25 years, the now executive director of the IEA said, "the emissions of this additional production is equal to only 23 hours of emissions of China—not even one day."
And that was probably an understatement. According to recent reports, China has been burning up to 17% more coal a year than had been thought, with early estimates indicating that China likely released about 900 million metric tons more CO2 from 2011 to 2013. To put this into perspective, Alberta recently placed a cap on oilsands emissions equivalent to 100 million metric tons.
Given that the total impact of the oilsands on emissions is relatively low, the effects of any one pipeline would be even smaller. Climate scientist Paul Knappenberger gives us a sense of just how small of an impact a single pipeline would have on emissions.
For his congressional testimony on the Keystone XL pipeline, Knappenberger used estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the additional emissions that may result if the pipeline gets built.
Using a climate model developed with the support of the EPA, Knappenberger calculated that "the average temperature rise works out to less than 0.00001 C per year. That is 1/100,000 of a degree."
In fact, transporting oil by pipeline may actually lower GHG emissions. In its review of Keystone XL, the U.S. State Department found that, depending on the scenario (only rail, rail/pipeline or rail/ tanker), transportation alternatives to Keystone XL could increase annual CO2 emissions from transport by 27.8% and 41.8%.
It's not only pipelines that will be subjected to climate change tests, so too will LNG terminals. British Columbia's LNG industry has already been hampered by costly regulatory delays, which may result in the province forgoing export revenues of $22.5 billion per year in 2020, rising to $24.8 billion per year in 2025 if the industry does not get o the ground. The new regulatory requirements may only further the delays.
Again, the irony here is that natural gas has the potential to significantly reduce GHGs by displacing coal-fired electricity in places such as China, which consumed more than 50% of global coal consumption in 2014. In the United States, switching from coal to natural gas for electricity is estimated to be responsible for 19% of the reduction of CO2 emissions that has taken place in the U.S. since 2007.
			 
			
			
				The anti-science True Dope regime.
Quote
Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau loves to pontificate about how his government intends to respect the regulatory process when it comes to new pipelines from Western oil elds to refineries and ports on the East and West Coasts.
He insists that in order to "rebuild the public confidence" needed to "get new pipeline construction approved," Canadians "have to have faith the National Energy Board (NEB) is considering all the facts."
More importantly, governments have to respect that when the NEB says no, that means no. His government would never disrespect the regulatory integrity of the board by approving a pipeline the board had rejected.
Hmm. But isn't the flipside equally true?
If, as Trudeau has claimed, it is nothing but "playing politics" for a government to override the NEB and push through a pipeline against the regulator's objections, wouldn't it be equally disrespectful of the process for the Liberals to reject a pipeline that has been approved by the board?
If Canadians are to have their faith in the impartiality of the NEB restored, isn't Trudeau bound to accept its conclusions one way or the other?
During his swing through Alberta this week, the new PM was asked time and again whether his government would approve the Energy East pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick if the NEB greenlights it. And each time, Trudeau refused to give a straight answer.
He insisted he didn't want to undermine the NEB's work. But Trudeau wasn't asked whether he would approve Energy East regardless of what the NEB concludes.
Taking a stand right now one way or the other about the line — either in favour or against — might be interfering with the assessment process.
But simply stating that his government will accept whatever recommendation the NEB eventually dispenses would seem to show exactly what Trudeau claims to want — complete faith in the unbiased, independent review process based on fact.
To have the NEB approve Energy East or Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver and then have the Liberals reject the lines would be based every bit as much on politics as Trudeau claims the former Tories' pro-pipeline stances were.
If the regulatory process is to be truly independent, Trudeau has to say now that his government will abide by whatever decision the NEB ultimately makes.
That is the question he failed to answer during his Alberta swing.
So excuse Albertans if they fail to have any more faith in the regulatory system under Trudeau than Liberal voters claimed to have under the Harper government.
Cabinet's biases and Liberal party re-election calculations will ultimately decide whether vital pipelines get built or not, which means the regulatory process is as meaningless under the Liberals as Trudeau insists it was under the Tories.
Perhaps that's why a Mainstreet Research/Postmedia poll of over 3,000 Albertans on Wednesday found 68% of provincial residents think Trudeau is doing too little to get the new pipeline approved. (Fifty-one per cent say the same thing about the provincial NDP government.)
Maybe other Canadians nd Trudeau's psychobabble reassuring. But forgive Albertans for being skeptical.
			 
			
			
				A good editorial about True Dope's waffling on Energy East(as well as several other things) at a difficult time.
Quote
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces a simple question he still hasn't answered.
Does he think it's good for Canada to be able to get its landlocked oil and natural gas resources to global markets or not?
We think it's obvious it's a good thing, important for the Canadian economy and thus a necessary thing that any responsible federal government would support.
But what does Trudeau think? at's crucial.
If he thinks it's important, then whatever regulatory regime he establishes for approving pipelines — such as Energy East — will have the ultimate goal of ensuring they are as e cient, safe and responsive to community concerns as possible. But if he doesn't believe it's important for Canada to be able to get its natural resources to world markets, then he'll create a regulatory process where it's impossible, in realistic terms, to get any pipeline approved.
In our view, that would be an insane public policy.
It would amount to Canada willfully shooting its own economy in the foot.
Trudeau had an opportunity to clear this up last week during his meeting with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, where he announced a federal aid package for that hard-hit province.
Trudeau was asked by the Calgary Sun's Rick Bell if his cabinet would approve the Energy East pipeline if it receives a green light from the National Energy Board, after meeting all its conditions and environmental assessments.
Trudeau's answer wandered all over the map without ever answering the question.
That means we still don't know how he views the key issue of using pipelines to get Canada's oil and gas resources to market.
By contrast, U.S. President Barack Obama has made it crystal clear he approves of pipelines — save for the Keystone XL, but that's another editorial entirely.
Obama has publicly boasted that since he became president, the United States has laid enough new oil and gas pipeline to more than encircle the Earth and that it still needs a lot more to get all the new oil and gas production his policies have helped to develop to market.
America's president, at least, understands the importance of pipelines to the U.S. economy.
It's worrisome that our prime minister doesn't seem to understand this about Canada's economy.
			 
			
			
				Quote
Suncor Energy CEO Steve Williams said the meeting was "very encouraging" and Trudeau listened to industry concerns about the price cycle of oil and market access during the roundtable, which included senior executives from Shell, Husky, Cenovus and other major firms, along with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr.
Trudeau was also well-received at the second roundtable, which included representatives of the companies that provide goods and services to the oil and gas companies.
"It was a very good meeting. Informative on both sides, and I see the prime minister ... understands the importance of the oil and gas industry to Canada, not just Alberta," said Ian McConnell, a vice-president at Core Laboratories. 
"Getting access to markets is important and he understands that. From what he told us today, he's in favour of pipelines because it benefits all of Canada."
The head of the the Petroleum Services Association of Canada says Trudeau seems prepared to act as the champion for getting Alberta's oil to market. 
"He appreciates it, he knows that it's not an easy task, but he's going to take it on for us. So we really appreciate that," he said.
Alberta will get nearly $700 million in federal infrastructure money "immediately." Ottawa also plans to grant the $250 million requested by Alberta under the fiscal stabilization fund.
//http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/trudeau-oil-gas-executives-calgary-meeting-prime-minister-1.3433311
			 
			
			
				Does that one have an ISIS-held area IP?
			
			
			
				^^That's all fine and good that our pm exchanged pleasantries with industry heavyweights, but an answer to this simple question would be the best assurance he could give not only industry, but the Canadian economy as a whole.
As for caring? You decide.
Question to the pm: If the National Energy Board green-lights the Energy East pipeline, will your cabinet approve it?
PM's answer:
"We're in a situation where we're not going to predict or shortcut any of the processes going through," Prime Minister Trudeau tells us.
More stickhandling, but no answer after that. It's good that he is fast tracking the $700 million for infrastructure the previous government set aside, but Canadians need to know if he will respect the scientific findings of the NEB.