Trans Mounta in Pipeline Project Maybe Dead

[thodisipagal]

For good or bad, SCC ruling on beer seems to indicate that Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline project maybe dead. I will not be buying KM stock.

In beer ruling, Supreme Court delivers reminder Constitution does not cast provinces as junior partners in federation: Chantal Hébert
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...ovinces-as-junior-partners-in-federation.html

Andrew Coyne: Supreme Court beer ruling ties the constitution in knots, and the economy with it
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/and...constitution-in-knots-and-the-economy-with-it

Supreme Court beer ruling could apply to Alberta-B.C. pipeline war, experts say
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/busin...lberta-b-c-pipeline-war-experts-say-1.3892709

 

[thodisipagal]

Perhaps you could give us some legal reasoning on why this means TransMountain may be dead? All I’m seeing from the articles you have linked is speculation by journalists, and none of them appear to go as far as you do with their interpretation of the decision. Please enlighten us

Two disclaimers:

1) I believe in individual freedom and hold selective libertarian view that individual freedom is the hallmark of a free society. Therefore, I was not pleased with the unanimous SCC Comeau ruling on importation of beer from Quebec to New Brunswick, notwithstanding s. 121 of Constitution Act 1867 that protects free transport of products from one province to another. But I accept that I do not possess the jurisprudence insight the nine SCC justices have, nor can I read their mind.

2) Other than speaking to federal and provincial jurisdiction over interprovincial works as provided for in ss. 91 and 92 and to Aboriginal rights as provided for in s. 35 of Constitution Act 1867, I have taken no explicit public position, one way or the other, on Trans Mountàin Expansion (TMX) project. I still do not have a public position, other than trying to add light, rather than heat, on procedural distinction related to law-making (parliament) and policy-making (government), BC government's concerns over potential impacts of TMX on its s. 92 jurisdiction (which includes forestry, mining, the environment, health, public security, taxation, education, among others) and Indigenous group's concerns over potential impacts on s. 35 Aboriginal rights. For any inter provincial project to be constructed, the project requires two levels of approvals -- overall project approval at federal level upon the conclusion of rigorous federal environmental assessment and adequate Aboriginal consultation and, at provincial level, a host of permits and authorizations to allow impacts on their s. 92 jurisdiction.

With respect to the SCC beer ruling, it appears to foreclose Premier Notely's threat of restricting oil supply to BC because that would be a punitive measure against BC. The ruling appears to be pursuant to s. 92A(2) which prohibits punitive trade measure by one province against another. Therefore, I think BC will immediately challenge Alberta's punitive legislative measure in a court of law, effectively killing TMX project because the legal wrangling would take a long time to untangle and will undoubtedly go much beyond Kinder Morgan's self imposed deadline of May 31.

Also, the beer ruling is about provincial jurisdiction over transportation of products from one province to another. BC government has declared that they will submit a reference question to BC Court of Appeals, the highest court in BC, over BC's jurisdiction over BC's right in restricting flow of bitumen from Alberta to BC by the end of this month. That's another legal wrench in the viability of TMX project that will not likely be untangled by May 31.

Based on the above, it looks increasingly unlikely that there will be Kinder Morgan investors' confidence for much longer to keep the project alive.

Comments welcome. I have no horse in this race. I will take no personal offence, as long as dialogue remains respectful and free of insults and invectives.

Edits (Correction/clarification):
SS. 91 and 92 of Constitution Act 1867.
S. 35 of Constitution Act 1982.

 

[Abbott_]

SCC
Case in Brief: R. v. Comeau
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/37398-eng.aspx

Please see last paragraph.

" ... The Court concluded that section 121 prohibits laws restricting inter-provincial trade, but only where restricting trade is the laws’ main purpose. If section 121 were understood to guarantee free inter-provincial trade, it would have far-reaching effects on agricultural supply management, public health prohibitions, environmental controls, and similar schemes. Section 121 lets provinces enact these types of measures, as long as their main purpose is not simply to prevent the importation of goods from other provinces. "​

Similar interpretation voiced in the CTVnews article you cited ?

 

[wetnose]

We haven't had good experiences with previous oil spills:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada...rine-spill-compensation-years-after-incidents

All it takes is one bitumen laden tanker to crash into the Stanley Park Seawall and Vancouver is done. That shit sinks. Kinder Morgan/Alberta is going to say: Ooops not our problem, talk to the tanker company. Owner of tanker goes bankrupt and we get slammed with a $5 Billion dollar cleanup bill, plus uncountable lost tourist revenues.

 

[storm rider]

We haven't had good experiences with previous oil spills:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada...rine-spill-compensation-years-after-incidents

All it takes is one bitumen laden tanker to crash into the Stanley Park Seawall and Vancouver is done. That shit sinks. Kinder Morgan/Alberta is going to say: Ooops not our problem, talk to the tanker company. Tanker company goes bankrupt and we get slammed with a $5 Billion dollar cleanup bill, plus uncountable lost tourist revenues.

OK to be blunt.....how many personal water craft that are piloted by people that are not professionally trained run their boats into the Seawall...or say the Lions Gate bridge....or ANY structure around Vancouver in general?How many of the massive container ships that both enter with and leave with cargo do the same?

When was the last time an oil tanker ran aground in the waters surrounding Vancouver or struck something like a bridge or another large ocean going vessel?

How many dead killer whales have washed up on the beech that have been killed via an impact with a large vessel such as a cruise ship/oil tanker/cargo ship?

Got any hard figure or statistics?Please contribute them.

The oil tankers/cruise ships and the cargo ships have been operating in the Vancouver harbours for decades and there has never been a horrific incident like the Halifax Explosion.

Opposition to the KM pipeline expansion is just NIMBY'ism plain and simple.54% of BC residents support the pipeline and 38% strongly oppose it....with the other 8% that are on the fence and undecided.

Horgan has taken this stance because he is being propped up by the Greens which allowed him to hijack the BC government and circumvent the electoral process via a coalition government.

SR

 

[wetnose]

Don't need stats because guess what - we just need 1.

Spout all the probabilities you want but all it takes is just 1 tanker to run aground.

That is the same rationale why we don't put nuclear stations in the middle of downtown Toronto.

Is Kinder Morgan going to cover our losses?

Is Alberta going to say "Oh shit, we feel bad, here's $10B to clean it up. Also here's another $80B to cover your tourism losses."

Didn't think so.

 

[mower]

Don't need stats because guess what - we just need 1.

Spout all the probabilities you want but all it takes is just 1 tanker to run aground.

That is the same rationale why we don't put nuclear stations in the middle of downtown Toronto.

Is Kinder Morgan going to cover our losses?

Is Alberta going to say "Oh shit, we feel bad, here's $10B to clean it up. Also here's another $80B to cover your tourism losses."

Didn't think so.

Exactly! The risk is definitely not worth the reward here.

The only people that benefit from this would be Alberta

 

[thodisipagal]

OK to be blunt.....how many personal water craft that are piloted by people that are not professionally trained run their boats into the Seawall...or say the Lions Gate bridge....or ANY structure around Vancouver in general?How many of the massive container ships that both enter with and leave with cargo do the same?

When was the last time an oil tanker ran aground in the waters surrounding Vancouver or struck something like a bridge or another large ocean going vessel?

How many dead killer whales have washed up on the beech that have been killed via an impact with a large vessel such as a cruise ship/oil tanker/cargo ship?

Got any hard figure or statistics?Please contribute them.

The oil tankers/cruise ships and the cargo ships have been operating in the Vancouver harbours for decades and there has never been a horrific incident like the Halifax Explosion.

Opposition to the KM pipeline expansion is just NIMBY'ism plain and simple.54% of BC residents support the pipeline and 38% strongly oppose it....with the other 8% that are on the fence and undecided.

Horgan has taken this stance because he is being propped up by the Greens which allowed him to hijack the BC government and circumvent the electoral process via a coalition government.

SR

Let's be fair.

1) Opposition to this project was a key plank in BC NDP's 2017 election platform, which was made public long before Horgan received Greens support in forming government. Yes, both parties oppose the project, but NDP's opposition was not triggered by the Greens.

"The Kinder Morgan pipeline is not in BC’s interest. It means a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic. It doesn’t, and won’t, meet the necessary conditions of providing benefits to British Columbia without putting our environment and our economy at unreasonable risk. We will use every tool in our toolbox to stop the project from going ahead." - Page 62 of BC NDP election platform. (Note: I don't want to post the link to the political platform of a political party, lest it would be considered promoting and favoring a party. That document is in public domain and can be easily found by googling).

2) BC government is not a coalition government of NDP and the Greens; it's a minority NDP government propped up by the Greens from outside the government.

 

[westwoody]

So much criticism of First Nations and BC wanting to make money from the pipeline.
Yet money is all Alberta cares about.

 

[badbadboy]

So much criticism of First Nations and BC wanting to make money from the pipeline.
Yet money is all Alberta cares about.

and yet, when we show concern for our local waters with proof of Kinder Morgan's pathetic environmental history; it's all glossed over and we are expected to take one for the team meaning Confederation.

Retaliations like turning off the oil taps just prove to me that Alberta would prefer to bully us into an agreement we don't want and their version of Confederation essentially has a veto over BC's environment and it's not an equal Confederation.

I hope Horgan has the kahoonah's to follow this to the end with a Supreme Court Ruling. We need to be able to have the final say as to what industry is located where and how it will be managed. Not just some rubber stamp from Houston or Ottawa saying how things will be done in our backyard.

 

[westwoody]

I see lots of boats hit logs and rocks in the Gulf Islands.
Squeezing a tanker through there is cringeworthy.

If anyone actually watches orcas you can see many of them with scars from boats. Some have chunks missing from their dorsal fin from propeller strikes.

 

[cumberland69]

Don't need stats because guess what - we just need 1.

Spout all the probabilities you want but all it takes is just 1 tanker to run aground.

That is the same rationale why we don't put nuclear stations in the middle of downtown Toronto.

Is Kinder Morgan going to cover our losses?

Is Alberta going to say "Oh shit, we feel bad, here's $10B to clean it up. Also here's another $80B to cover your tourism losses."

Didn't think so.

Never heard of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station?

 

[Addison Cortez]

So much criticism of First Nations and BC wanting to make money from the pipeline.
Yet money is all Alberta cares about.

if that were true the taxes wouldn't be the way they are..

 

[thodisipagal]

There really isn’t much of a comparison, constitutionally speaking, between an individual’s right to bring beer across provincial borders, and the power of the federal government to regulate pipelines. You are right about one thing. The Horgan government is only trying to create uncertainty. They will lose in court. But creating uncertainty and delay is all he is trying to accomplish to keep his government alive.

I think it will come back to haunt the BC economy and the Canadian economy. For all you globalism haters, it’s a reality, and global capital tends to favour certainty in investment. There is a big discount for political/investment risk and Canada is about to become very risky if this project doesn’t go ahead. Trudeau knows that.

The SCC beer ruling has no bearing on federal government's power to regulate interprovincial pipelines. Neither does the ruling prevent free transport of products from one province to another (as provided for in s. 121), as long as the purpose of the New Brunswick law that restricts importation of beer is limited to "solely as a way to collect funds, [and] protecting local industry" and not solely intended to punish another province. This aspect of the ruling, in my opinion, is relevant for TMX project as it seems to foreclose Premier Notely's punitive legislative measure restricting oil flow to BC intended solely to punish British Columbians. On the basis of this precedent-setting ruling and on the basis of s.92A(2), which prohibits trade discrimination by one province against another, in my view, BC will immediately take Alberta to court and will likely win the case.

I recognize that pursuant to s. 91 federal parliament has the law-making jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, shipping and coast, which are all directly relevant to TMX project. If BC challenges these federal jurisdictions in a court of law, I think BC will lose that case.

But, TMX will still likely not survive. The province has legislative jurisdiction over "generally all matters local" [s. 92(16)]. Plus, provincial governments own most natural resources and provisions for exploitation of these resources include measures to protect the environment. I think this goes directly into the core of BC's opposition to TMX, as there are provincial jurisdictions potentially impacted. Would BC win the case if it asserted its legal rights and obligations to its citizens within the province? I don't know. But I think they stand a good chance.

BC's concern is simple but strong: in case of bitumen spill, it's the Burrard Inlet that would be devasted, not Athabasca River or Rideau Canal.

 

[Abbott_]

^
The pissing contest begins.

_
Reminiscing ~

Ever_heard of the Mackenzie Valley pipe?

"It was just a farce the way they wasted their time doing all these studies and all these meetings all over the North," Gruben said.
"They wasted so much money and time. By the time they said it was a go, it was too late ... all the [natural gas] prices had gone down."​

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/mackenzie-valley-gas-project-no-more-1.4465997

 

[badbadboy]

The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel

The Behaviour and Environmental Impacts of
Crude Oil Released into Aqueous Environments November 2015


https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/OIW%20Report_1.pdf

The National Energy Board (who approved the pipeline) didn't endorse this report because it would be unfair to Kinder Morgan. The truth hurts when faced with a legitimate panel of scientists who actually study these issues.

It's a lengthy report that has content about DilBit and how it is next to impossible to remove from an aqueous environment because it sinks to the bottom rather than float like traditional lighter Oil Spills.

Even if you are pro pipeline, open your mind and read sections of the report as they pertain to the west coast.

One spill similar in size to the Kalamazoo River Oil spill will fuck Burrard Inlet for generations. Seven times todays' tanker traffic under two bridges navigating around other ships, pleasure craft, Sea Buses etc is a recipe for disaster. These tankers do not stop on a dime.

 

[80watts]

Nice report. Different people will interpret it in their own ways.

Its all about risk assessment.

 

[badbadboy]

Nice report. Different people will interpret it in their own ways.

Its all about risk assessment.

The irony is it was commissioned by the Petroleum Industry and the Pipeline Companies. While open to interpretation, it does indicate that the collective "we" do not have the science to effectively clean up the mess made from a dilbit spill.

National Energy board did not publish the report because it would be unfair to Kinder Morgan. :decision:

 

[licks2nite]

The best solution to any problem is a viable alternative. "Energy East", a pipeline that is already partially constructed would refine dibit in central and eastern Canada. Coastal water spills would be non existent. Jobs provided in existing Canadian refineries and fabricating plastic parts from by-products of refining. All for Canadians, many of whom today can't afford to own an home, struggle to pay rent on time and sometimes sleep in the streets at night. The current regime with Kinder Morgan will burn dilbit directly into the Asian atmosphere while Canadian environmentalists will crow about a miniscule reduction of "carbon" at home.

 

[treveller]

The SCC ruling on beer sales has simple application to the Kinder Morgan fuss.

Alberta can't legally cut off oil to BC because the purpose would simply be punishment.

BC can can regulate dilbit transport in BC because the purpose is environmental protection which is in provincial jurisdiction.

At the end of the day it should be for the courts to decide. Anyone who opposes that is trying to undermine the rule of law because they are afraid of the possible result.