New posts

Water that burns

Oct. 17, 2013, 10:07 p.m.
Posts: 1023
Joined: May 23, 2006

Right on!

War on Fracking

“Taking away someone’s opinion is no different than sewing a man’s butthole shut.”

Oct. 18, 2013, 4:48 a.m.
Posts: 18443
Joined: May 29, 2004

Right on!

War on Fracking

So the destruction of property as a means of getting your way or proving your point gets a "right on"?

How cute and ironic. I'll have to remember this one.

PS. The only reason that oil and gas companies are getting "evicted" from some sites is that they refuse to pay the ransoms demanded by some individuals just to be there. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

Oct. 18, 2013, 7:44 a.m.
Posts: 16061
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

But then again, it was a peaceful protest until the RCMP showed up and started lobbing rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. Destruction of property didn't happen until the jackbooted thugs began their over the top response to the protesters.

Also an inconvenient truth. Peaceful protest is still legal in this country, Harper hasn't been able to change that … yet.

Kn.

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.

When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.

Oct. 18, 2013, 7:51 a.m.
Posts: 113
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

ransoms? it's our land (or First Nations), not the frackers

Oct. 18, 2013, 9:56 a.m.
Posts: 5322
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

PS. The only reason that oil and gas companies are getting "evicted" from some sites is that they refuse to pay the ransoms demanded by some individuals just to be there. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

How dare they demand fair compensation from one of the most profitable industries on the planet for assuming almost all of the risk to their environment. The nerve.

It's a bit like sympathizing with a bully because he got toilet water on his hands while giving a smaller kid a swirly.

Oct. 18, 2013, 12:23 p.m.
Posts: 1431
Joined: Aug. 6, 2009

I'm in NB right now visiting my folks, and had to take a detour yesterday to get around a sympathy blockade by the local First Nations band.

As I understand it, the land in question in this case is not reserve land, but Crown land that the local band considers to be theirs, and would like to reclaim somehow.

They certainly have the right to protest against fracking, but they have no legal right to prevent the exploration company from accessing their equipment, regardless of any "eviction notices" that the band council has issued.

Oct. 18, 2013, 1:03 p.m.
Posts: 18443
Joined: May 29, 2004

How dare they demand fair compensation from one of the most profitable industries on the planet for assuming almost all of the risk to their environment. The nerve.

It's a bit like sympathizing with a bully because he got toilet water on his hands while giving a smaller kid a swirly.

Wait,what?

This was supposed to be about the environment.

So it is about money after all. Of course the media won't report that, and no one else will publicly admit it.

Oct. 18, 2013, 3:17 p.m.
Posts: 5322
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

Wait,what?

This was supposed to be about the environment.

So it is about money after all. Of course the media won't report that, and no one else will publicly admit it.

My comment was in response to your comment, you were the one who claimed that this was about money. Remember?

PS. The only reason that oil and gas companies are getting "evicted" from some sites is that they refuse to pay the ransoms demanded by some individuals just to be there. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

My comment was simply to point out that if your accusation that_ it was_ about money, was true, it's not outrageous for the people who will be living with the consequences of an accident to demand fair compensation from one of the most profitable industries on the planet.

Oct. 18, 2013, 5:54 p.m.
Posts: 18443
Joined: May 29, 2004

My comment was in response to your comment, you were the one who claimed that this was about money. Remember?

My comment was simply to point out that if your accusation that_ it was_ about money, was true, it's not outrageous for the people who will be living with the consequences of an accident to demand fair compensation from one of the most profitable industries on the planet.

Considering they brought guns and pipe bombs to threaten a seismic company to stay off land that they don't even have claim to,but want,you know damn well this is about money. They want a piece of the action, I understand that…but the typical line is that folks are against hydrofracking for environmental reasons.

Funny, I breifly searched Google and couldn't find what their objections are over this project. I find that rather curious.

Oct. 18, 2013, 6:11 p.m.
Posts: 3512
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Tying up this project is a ridiculous exercise in futility. The company has every legal right to be there, as it is on crown land, and since the general practice up until now in other jurisdictions AND in NB has demonstrated the right of the province to determine who has access to crown land and the resources found below. Those licenses have been granted, and the bands have no right to prevent the oil and gas companies from accessing their equipment.

The concerns they claim to have can be resolved peacefully in court, through discussions, and appropriate negotiations - violence isn't the answer.

Since the companies in question have been prevented access to equipment that they own, I do believe the police were right to intervene and allow that access. The violent nature of the clash simply lends credibility to the government and oil companies position.

Oct. 19, 2013, 2:39 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Aug. 27, 2007

Tying up this project is a ridiculous exercise in futility. The company has every legal right to be there, as it is on crown land, and since the general practice up until now in other jurisdictions AND in NB has demonstrated the right of the province to determine who has access to crown land and the resources found below. Those licenses have been granted, and the bands have no right to prevent the oil and gas companies from accessing their equipment.

The concerns they claim to have can be resolved peacefully in court, through discussions, and appropriate negotiations - violence isn't the answer.

Since the companies in question have been prevented access to equipment that they own, I do believe the police were right to intervene and allow that access. The violent nature of the clash simply lends credibility to the government and oil companies position.

Don't know about that one… I dont think the government or oil companies will ever be credible, especially when it comes to stuff like this. Also don't think the cops have don't a very good job in handling the situation… If anything, they've probably only made things worse/escalated things…

www.ryanrose.ca

Yeah?

Oct. 19, 2013, 2:53 a.m.
Posts: 34160
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

Does this mean that we'll have tankers going to Kitimat?

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells

Oct. 19, 2013, 7:15 a.m.
Posts: 113
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

Does this mean that we'll have tankers going to Kitimat?

did you listen to the throne speech?

Oct. 19, 2013, 7:43 a.m.
Posts: 3512
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Does this mean that we'll have tankers going to Kitimat?

Why don't you, the electorate in BC, lobby Christy Clarke to charge a through-put tax based on volumes of oil transported through pipelines containing bitumen? Use that fund to employ native Canadians to patrol the pipeline looking for leaks, and provide them with the training to clean it up.

Oil and gas companies would pay such a tax, willingly, if it brings the impass to an end AND doesn't bring the profitability of the project down below what they'd see selling to America. Get her to stop talking royalties and create a regime of her own, and create some certainty that you won't be left holding the bag if there's a problem.

Oct. 19, 2013, 8:15 a.m.
Posts: 13932
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

Why don't you, the electorate in BC, lobby Christy Clarke to charge a through-put tax based on volumes of oil transported through pipelines containing bitumen? Use that fund to employ native Canadians to patrol the pipeline looking for leaks, and provide them with the training to clean it up.

Oil and gas companies would pay such a tax, willingly, if it brings the impass to an end AND doesn't bring the profitability of the project down below what they'd see selling to America. Get her to stop talking royalties and create a regime of her own, and create some certainty that you won't be left holding the bag if there's a problem.

I don't really get why you're against a royalty, but for a through-put tax.

But either way, I'm for it. Tax it and bring down either property or gas tax, or fund translink, or fund healthcare…. 20 bucks a barrel to start?

Forum jump: