Skip to main content

Todays Canadian Supreme Court decision gives full title to Yinka Dene of their land. Not all First Nations, just the 6 bands in the Yinka Dene Alliance. This probably means the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal to the Pacific Ocean is Dead. Yes Enbridge can route around the Yinka Dene lands, only to greatly added cost, and more permitting.

Yes permits. I'll refer you to a recent comment by Observerinvancouver

This is definitely an amazingly wonderful (5+ / 0-)

court decision and sure won't help Enbridge but they were pretty close to flatlining any way.

Here is a link to a June 20/14 column in the Vancouver Sun by Vaughan Palmer (pretty much the pre-eminent political columnist in B.C.):

http://www.vancouversun.com/...

He explains the bureaucratic hurdles Enbridge was facing after the federal government gave conditional approval but before this decision today.  

    "The province of B.C. would be responsible for issuing approximately 60 permits and authorizations,” according to the background paper accompanying the press release issued in Ottawa Tuesday.

    "Those would be under more than a dozen pieces of provincial legislation, including “the Forest Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Forest Practices Code Act, Weed Control Act, Land Act, Agricultural Land Commission Act, Fisheries Act, Fisheries Protection Act, Water Act, Environmental Management Act, Wildlife Act, Heritage Conservation Act, Transportation Act, and Industrial Roads Act.”

    Each comes with its own permitting and regulatory processes, many extensive and none automatic, as Environment Minister Mary Polak noted in reacting to the news out of Ottawa.

But wait!  There's more.  Enbridge was looking at years and maybe decades of obstruction with no certainty whatsoever that they'd jump the hurdles successfully.  Heh.  

Which brings me to the Keystone XL, which if you haven't noticed has been locked in purgatory for 5 years.

The Keystone XL Pipeline.

The Tar Sands Partners shelved 2 pipeline proposals to the East Coast in 2008 because of the bad economy, but resurrected both recently, even though the economy hasn't improved. Why? It may be they knew the southern and western routes (KXL & Northern Gateway) were in trouble. These 2 pipelines represent about a million barrels a day and the 2 eastern routes would equal that.

In April of 2013 I wrote on this page:

The 3 Front Battle:
Hundreds of years ago Generals thought of their opponents forces as the left flank, the center, and the right flank. The Tar Sands campaign holds similar to this tenet, they have a western flank, a center, and an eastern flank.

The Tar Sands Partners have met great resistance in the west and more recently have faced increasing pressure in their center, they now have dusted off the Portland proposal and appear to be maneuvering to the east. Throw in Energy East: Are they yielding the western front, or even the Central front? And retreating to the east to regroup?

Prescient?
Getting Tar Sands oil to the Pacific:

Its now clear the Enbridge pipeline proposal is not going thru Yinka Dene land, that idea is DOA. A reroute around the Yinka Dene land may be forthcoming, but the additional length would add significant cost . A reroute to the north doesn't seem practical (See map to right, yellow dashed line), and I have found no indication that Enbridge is considering this route. What Enbridge does appear to be looking at, is bypassing the Yinka Dene Alliance lands with a southern route that utilizes the oldest Tar Sands pipeline opened in 1953, the Trans Mountain/Morgan Kinder. This pipeline is in the process of being doubled up, this would add an additional 500k BPD to the existing 300k BPD capacity that is delivered to Burnaby near Vancouver. The plan is to branch off the Morgan Kinder and head north to Kittimat. While this route avoids the Yinka Dene lands, it goes thru the First Nations lands, and for more than a few years has met great resistance. If the Tar Sands Partners fail to add west bound pipeline capacity, this greatly hampers their ability to get oil to the Asian markets in any significant quantity.

 photo kitimatmap.jpg

Some here at DK used to complain about protesting the KXL because even if "you win", they'll just build another pipeline and or ship by rail car. Horse hockey. The tar sands partners have been trying to build multiple pipelines to the Pacific and the Atlantic for years. They gave up trying to build natural gas pipelines to power the tar sands years ago.

Not a good track record. But focusing attention on the Keystone KL as a political tool may be paying off in spades, as we near the end game in the battle to stop the tar sands expansion. Now todays court decision has yet to play out, ramifications are not clear, but the only place left for a new pipeline is the Canadian Atlantic coast, specifically New Brunswick.

 photo transcanada-east-west-map.jpg

Ultimately I feel the chances for stopping tar sands production from expanding is improving each week. If you've read Sun Tzu you'll understand that when 2 of 3 fronts collapse, its time to regroup. As labor costs for skilled labor to work in the tar sands increases, this means another nail in the coffin.

Put it in the books, this turkey is all but done.

3:39 PM PT: 2 important rec list reads on today's court decision in Canada:

By Lefty Coaster

http://www.dailykos.com/...

By Gwennedd

http://www.dailykos.com/...

My own "Fighting the tar sands: Who are the Yinka Dene?"

http://www.dailykos.com/...


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good diary Roger Fox! Lots of info. (18+ / 0-)

    A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

    by Gwennedd on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 03:37:14 PM PDT

  •  This might be a really st00pid question, but. . . (14+ / 0-)

    I live outside of Houston, where the "center" front is planned to come.

    My questions: Why don't the Canadians just build a refinery plant and refine their own dirty oil?

    Just curious.

    All these legal battles for years and years?

    Wouldn't it be cheaper?

    Are the regulations too prohibitive in Canada?

    "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out." Thomas Babington Macaulay

    by Deja on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 03:53:19 PM PDT

    •  They do, sort of. (18+ / 0-)

      syncrude is the number one product.

       photo Albertasyncrude.png

      But they want to expand production 4 fold, they need another 5-8 pipelines like KXL if they want to produce 8 million barrels a day.

      Crude oil is generally refined near where the finished product is sold.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I asked one of my Alberta in-laws why the (9+ / 0-)

      oil companies didn't build a refinery in Fort McMurray, tar sands ground zero.  One of the factors he mentioned was the need for highly skilled engineers, etc. and that that type of person could find work in more congenial places than Fort McMurray.  There were a number of other factors but unfortunately I've forgotten what they were.  Suffice it to say, your questions have been asked.  

      We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

      by Observerinvancouver on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:56:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Logistics. It would be very difficult for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      refineries to keep pace with production and the finished product would still have to be moved out of the area to markets.

      I don't have an exact figure for current production. It seems it would have to be at least as much as the Bakken region in North Dakota/eastern Montana, a million barrels a day. I've seen estimates forecasting five million barrels a day for Alberta tar sands.

      The biggest refineries in the US have a capacity of 600,000 barrels a day but those outfitted for tar sands crude are much smaller. Refining the crude produced in Alberta would require huge quantities of water. That's one reason why you always see it going to coastal areas.

      Refining all of the production into one finished product type wouldn't be commercially viable. For sale, it would have to be refined into a variety of products: gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. It would take a bunch of refineries to accomplish this.

      It would still have to be stored or moved. A bottleneck that slows production can lower the price per barrel on the market.

      •  Good! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Lippman

        Make it has difficult and low-profit as possible, so they'll leave more in the ground!

        "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

        by cotterperson on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 07:58:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Two proposed refineries in B.C. (0+ / 0-)
        A Vancouver-based consortium is proposing a $10-billion refinery for Canada’s West Coast, the second such plan aimed at winning support for processing and exporting petroleum products manufactured from the bitumen in Alberta’s oil sands.

        A group called Pacific Future Energy wants to build a massive plant that could eventually process one million barrels a day, constructed in 200,000-barrel-a-day modules. The $10-billion price tag would cover just the first phase, which could be located in Kitimat, B.C., although proponents prefer Prince Rupert, to the north.

        It is the second West Coast refinery proposal following a similar plan floated by newspaper publisher David Black that would cost $21-billion, plus $8-billion for a pipeline and $3-billion for infrastructure and tankers.

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

        These groups are as deluded as the Tar Sands People who watched "Field of Dreams" too many times - if you build it, they will come. Tar Sands bitumen with no access to markets. Oil refineries on salt water with no feedstock supply. Too much B.C. bud?

      •  IIRC tar sands is @ 1.7mbpd (0+ / 0-)

        maybe closer to 2... 1.9

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:41:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a large quantity that has to go somewhere because (0+ / 0-)

          if it stays put, production slows or stops.  The first shipments to Europe are already there.

          http://www.euractiv.com/...

          •  2 yrs ago their #1 product was syncrude (0+ / 0-)

            ...and it still may be. Bitumen goes to the Great Lakes & Cushing Ok, IIRC some goes to domestic production.
            Problem is not a lot of western EU refineries have the cat cracker capacity for bitumen.

            The light sweet tar sands syncrude is a perfect match for those EU refineries.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 11:24:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The fossil fuel industry owns Alberta but... (12+ / 0-)

    ...they don't own the Canadian government or the First Nations government.  In another lifetime I almost went to Alberta to work in the oil fields.  Sorry Albertans you'll have to play with your oil alone, specially if Keystone is stopped as it will be.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:27:04 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Roger. (4+ / 0-)

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

    by HoundDog on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:24:02 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for reproducing my comment. I (10+ / 0-)

    think there is an aspect of the Court's decision that you haven't considered.  You say several times that (theoretically) Enbridge could go around Yinka Dene territory.  However, this decision is going to impact almost all the land in B.C. that isn't covered by existing treaties.  That is basically land in northern B.C. east of the Rocky Mountains (Treaty 8 lands) and a few small reserves in southern B.C.  There is nowhere Enbridge can get around this decision.  

    Also, I'm not sure the Enbridge pipeline was going to go through the lands affected by this decision.  I think they're further south than the proposed pipeline route.  

    One of the First Nations affected by the pipeline route are the Haisla.  Enbridge blotted their copybook big time with the Haisla a few years ago.    Here is a link to an article about Enbridge's minions cutting down some culturally modified trees in Haisla territory.  

    http://thetyee.ca/...

    And here is a link to a letter they sent to Enbridge.  

    http://haisla.ca/...

    A devastating smackdown.

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:27:12 PM PDT

    •  I took the narrow view (5+ / 0-)

      Yes, this decision sets a precedent that could in the future, be applied to all First Nations. In fact I would expect so.

      I'm writing a dairy saying this pipeline and the tar sands are doomed, but I didnt want to exaggerate too much.

      A southern route:

       photo kitimatmap.jpg

      Stay closer to TransMountian initially, stay south of Yinka Dene lands, then jog north to Kitimat.

      Thanks.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  TransMountain proposes to twin pipeline to Burnaby (0+ / 0-)
        The Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) is a proposal to expand the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system between Edmonton, AB and Burnaby, BC. It would include approximately 987 km of new pipeline, new and modified facilities, such as pump stations and tanks, and the reactivation of 193 km of existing pipeline. The Westridge Marine Terminal would also be expanded.
        http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/...
        CALGARY -The National Energy Board (NEB or the Board) will hold an oral public hearing to consider a proposal to expand the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system. The Board’s Hearing Order, released today, outlines the key steps and deadlines for the hearing.

        The Board will hear Aboriginal traditional evidence during August and September 2014 and the oral hearing will begin in January 2015.

        http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/...

        Also referred to as Kinder Morgan pipeline as it bought out Trans Mountain. The NEB website has the application, maps, FAQs, etc. etc. The Marine Terminal reference is the giveaway that the product will be exported by tankers - through Burrard Inlet, i.e. the body of salt water separating Vancouver and North Vancouver/West Vancouver and the North Shore mountains!

  •  There's a certain lack of logic here (4+ / 0-)

    Even assuming all this takes place and no more pipelines go in, that doesn't magically shut down the tar sands because they are in production now. It may put a crimp on increasing annual production, but what did you think was happening right now with current production, that it's just been sitting there for 40 years waiting for pipelines to come in?

    To put it an analogous terms, it's like an existing Wal-mart is trying to get a bigger street pushed through a neighbourhood because with more traffic the Wal-mart can expand from it's current size to one of the super-sized stores. Just because the neighbourhood stops the bigger street from coming through doesn't make the Wal-mart go away.

    •  I used the word expanding (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northerntier, Albanius

      in relation to tar sands production.

      Perhaps you failed to notice that wonderful qualifier before you wrote your comment.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:00:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  heres your logic (0+ / 0-)
      Ultimately I feel the chances for stopping tar sands production from expanding is improving each week.
      I mean logic fail.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:07:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Additionally, (3+ / 0-)

      With production costs skyrocketing, some industry analysts, who are smarter than you or I, have wondered publicly how the tar sands make a profit when their oil is discounted as much as $50 per barrel.

      At a time when US liquids production is at an all time high driving prices down (see WTI), the Bakken is cranking out a better product, this holds the line on price increases, which is a bad thing for tar sands producers.

      If these conditions worsen, expanding production wont be a concern, they will just close down production if they arent making a profit. Further evidence: Partnering oil companies are bailing, selling their interests in Alberta. 3 so far in 2 years.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:26:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ding ding ding... (0+ / 0-)

        This is it.  Existing tar sands projects can remain viable with oil going for $60 a barrel (possibly less), but new projects can't be justified with crude under $80 to $100/barrel.   No problem today, but this could change fast with lower domestic demand thanks to improved efficiency, higher domestic production and, perhaps most important, higher interest rates in the not-too-distant future (which suppress prices of storable commodities like petroleum).

        •  Some of those existing projects (0+ / 0-)

          cost 60-$65 to produce.

          If WTI is $96 and tar sands is discounted $50..... the tar sands it will be left in the ground.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:25:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  True, but to profitize Alberta (0+ / 0-)

      tar sand they need a quick way to Texas.  Or some other port.  Lacking that...  well... they're pretty much left holding their ass.
      Chalk this up as a win for the 99%.  Up here in my NY-21 "we" (not me) stalled B.P. for years in their attempt to construct a Wind Farm where it wasn't wanted.  BP got tired of the constant delay tactics, tucked tail and pulled up stakes.
      It's these "little" victories against the seeming Behemoths of Corporate America that give the "little people" hope that their voice still counts.  And builds jomentum toward the next battle.  Likely in a neighborhood near yours (reader).  Chalk up a win for the 99%.

      Follow Connect! Unite! Act! MeetUp events! For live podcasting of your Event contact winkk to schedule.

      by winkk on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:42:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stopping a wind farm helps fight tar sands how? nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        There's no such thing as a free market!

        by Albanius on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 10:25:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If nothing else that's deliciously ironic (0+ / 0-)

          I can see how some people want * no * power /electricity generation (because when it comes right down to it, every source has an environmental downside, so fair enough).

          However, posting about it on the internet - which uses as much power as global aviation - is very, very strange!!

          •  Hahaha, well put! ;) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            To be fair, they didn't say that they want no power/generation. Perhaps they're envisioning some sort of fairy-dust based power that has no environmental impact? Nah, that's not true, fairies are mass-raised in factory farms for their dust, it's a brutal industry....  ;)

            In reality, I'm sure they're thinking, "Oh, they'll just build something else, somewhere else, that's better" without thinking "what". But the reality is, of course, every plant of every type has impact. You can't reasonably just shove the problem off into some other corner of the world and say, "I can't see it any more, so problem solved!"

            It's the same with oil, and something that often puts me at odds with others here on DK. People want to just block off access to certain oil reserves. Because hey, you might damage the environment there. Um, where are these places on Earth where oil production doesn't damage the environment? I always ask, where do you want your oil from - deepwater oceanic drilling? South American rain forests? The Niger Delta? Middle eastern despots? The arctic? Tar sands? Siberia? Where is this magical place where oil comes from without impact, that you're fine with drilling in? There will always be someone to produce it as long as you keep buying it. So the only solution, and I really stress that only, is to reduce demand. And that's where the focus needs to be. Research and incentives for efficiency and new technologies. But with that comes the acknowledgement that the world doesn't turn on a dime, that these things take decades to have a big impact, and in the meantime, we can't just shut down the planet.

            That is all to say, I really don't like NIMBYers.   ;)  It's fine to oppose something you think is wrong, admirable, actually, but you better have an alternative, and not just general handwaving. You need specifics. Specifics you can look at in the eye and say, yes, I support that instead. Don't want a wind farm near you? Fine. Drive down to an alternative proposed site, walk among the plants and animals there, take a good look around, talk with the locals, and say, "Yes, I'd rather it be here." If you can do that, you're alright in my book. If you can't, you're part of the problem.

            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

            by Rei on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 05:34:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well yeah, I agree that they do want power (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rei

              just the magical (and completely non-existent) kind that has no environmental downside.

              As you nicely point out.

              And functionally, blocking the Alberta TarSands essentially means that the Houston area refineries that have been "upgraded" to handle this shit are not going to shut down.

              Instead, they will most like ship in similar product from the Venezuela equivalent of the Alberta Tar Sands.  and based on the past record of oil companies in South America, the damage to the environment is going to be much, much worse.

              But heck, it's not in our backyard so who gives a fuck?

              •  Or, it just could be that Fracking (0+ / 0-)

                is bull$h!t technology that should be brought to its knees.  Everywhere.
                How does stopping a Wind Farm where it don't belong fight the tar sands battle??  Just another chess board piece toppled.  Just a big win for the "little people" wishing to maintain their neighborhood.  The people that stopped the BP wind farm up here aren't against BP or Big Wind.  They were against BP popping up unsightly wind mills in their 'Vacation Destination' where most live 12 months a year.  A drop dead gorgeous view where Lake Ontario becomes the St. Lawrence river.
                Now, there are PLENTY of locations up here in the middle of nowhere where BP could plant their farm.  Plenty.  But, for some reason they opted to plant them in front of $500,000 homes in a vacation destination.  The residents said no thanks.  It took 5 or 6 years, but BP finally said, ok, fine...  Fine, indeed.  Vacation destination saved for future generations.  One of the few wins where "Quality of Life" actually beat Big Corp.  And, for those Pro Wind At All Costs crowd...  the electric generation wasn't needed.  We have plenty here thanks to three Nukes.  This was Big Corp in the "person" of British Petroleum looking to generate some dollars by selling their Wind Power to the Grid.  There is no need here for electric power.  We got plenty.  The residents told BP to take their wind mills down toe road to some spot - or State - that might actually need the power.  Big Wind is less an "alternative power source" than it is a money sucking machine, selling their power to a "Grid" forced to buy what they selling.  Doesn't matter that their electric power ain't needed.  The "Grid" forced to buy it anyway.  At least here in NY.  I'm sure there is a need somewhere in the Lower 48 where Wind Power would be welcomed.  It wasn't needed here and wasn't welcomed.  Good on those fighting the good fight for five years to stop BP from ruining a nice view in a nice vacation destination simply so BP could suck money from the "Grid!"  Jeebus all to hell, we already pay a UK company for our electric power up here.  We don't need another one sucking money from the Grid - no matter how "Green" and "Clean" their power is.
                When - and if - these big green wind machines can operate on their own - absorbing all the costs associate with generating power "the old fashioned way" -- when Big Wind operates on the same level playing field as the Dino plants -- then maybe the U.S. of A. can "Go Green" with Big Wind.  But, when some foreign company comes over here and starts popping up windmills to suck money from the Grid - you and me - and calls their little swindle operation "Green Power!" well...  I just don't get the same warm and fuzzy Greeniacs get.

                Follow Connect! Unite! Act! MeetUp events! For live podcasting of your Event contact winkk to schedule.

                by winkk on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 07:54:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your "middle of nowhere" is somebody (0+ / 0-)

                  else's backyard.  Or maybe even front yard.

                  So if it's not you screaming about it, it will be somebody else.

                  But in the bigger picture - that's largely what "green" energy in the USA is - namely, displacing rare earth mining and the massive pollution that accompanies it, and that type of thing, to Asia and other 3rd world countries where it's out of sight.

                  •  Oh, there's a big ol' Wind Farm (0+ / 0-)

                    not 12 miles from my house on some farm out in the middle of nowhere.  You almost have to look for it to see it.  Not blocking anyone's or otherwise being a nuisance.  Now, is it close to someone's backyard?  Or front yard?  Don't know.  Maybe.  It's way off the highway behind a line of trees.  For most, out of sight, out of mind.  Nobody has a problem with that.  But "just becuz they can" isn't a good enough reason to pop these things up just anywhere.  Good on them for keeping BP out of their backyard!  Plenty of farmers with backyards that don't care.

                    Follow Connect! Unite! Act! MeetUp events! For live podcasting of your Event contact winkk to schedule.

                    by winkk on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 09:37:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary Roger (as usual for you) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, northerntier, cotterperson

    It explains a rather complex situation so well. Thank you.

  •  Excellent diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeterHug, Wreck Smurfy, cotterperson

    If, as you say the only place left for a new pipeline is,  pretty much, St. John,  New Brunswick I suspect there will be a great deal of pushback if they try to go ahead with a pipeline there.
    Maybe it would even lead to a joining of forces of the anti-tar sands and anti-fracking forces - specifically the Mi'kmaq as well as non-native foes of fracking who have been very active in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

    Different battle of the same war, I guess.

    Thanks for this informative diary and the inclusion of the maps. After driving around NB and Nova Scotia, I'll never look at an Irving sign the same way. They are everywhere up there...don't know what the latest is, but they hired SWN to test drill wells on the Elsipogtog reserve near Rexton NB, leading of course to the encampment and ultimately the RCMP "incursion".

    •  Thanks, if the West Texas Int benchmark (0+ / 0-)

      stay low for 3-5 years, while skilled labor for working at the tar sands remains tight ....

      Where does that put the tar sands partners in 3-5 years?

      In other words, if oil prices stay low and productions costs stay where they are or increase for tar sands.......

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:20:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a really novel idea . . . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    . . . . Why don't the Koch Billionaires build a refinery on site and transport the refined products instead of trying to dilute that crap with Benzene and other carcinogens and trying to transport that.
    Seems to me to be a wonderful solution to their dilemma.  Or they could leave the sludge in the ground and go do other things, like endorse solar or wind power.

    •  Syncrude is the #1 tar sands product (0+ / 0-)

      Oil is usually refined near its point of sale. But yeah, I hear ya.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:16:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is NOT good (0+ / 0-)

    With no pipeline the stuff will be shipped by rail. The cost to ship other commodities will increase as the railroads will prefer the long unit trains that are simpler to handle. And there will be more Lac Megantics.

    •  Anything that stalls their (0+ / 0-)

      Mission: To F*ck the Rest of Us  is a win.  Shipping by rail was last on their list.

      Follow Connect! Unite! Act! MeetUp events! For live podcasting of your Event contact winkk to schedule.

      by winkk on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:52:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A LOT if us are fighting Oil Trains ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight

      we started a new group, People of Albany United for Safe Energy (PAUSE) to prevent Albany NY from becoming the next Lac Megantic, a few months ago and already have moved the city, county and state governments to respond.

      We have to cut all the tentacles off the fossil fool octopus, whichever we can reach.  Every victory helps energize people fighting their own tentacle.

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 10:32:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Basically all this does is shift the profits (0+ / 0-)

      to a different set of 1%ers.

      Until demand is squashed, product is going to get to market.    You'd think that'd we would have learned that from 2 or 3 (or more) generations of the drug wars, but it seems like no, we haven't.

    •  At the end of the day (0+ / 0-)

      the tar sands partners want to produce 6-8 million barrels a day, they could build a whole new rail line to Texas, and buy 10's of thousands of new tank cars to ship it.

      I wonder if the railroads are willing to do all that for free ?

      Because tar sands oil is sometimes heavily discounted ($30-$50) from the West Texas Int oil benchmark ($96) it appears they are willing to sell tar sands for little or no profit.

      As a long term plan little or no profit might cause the tar sands to stay in the ground, skilled labor is in shortage at the tar sands, costs are rising sharply and the most cost effective method to move the bitumen is by pipeline.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:39:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site