20 comments on The Round-Up: June 27th 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
20 comments on The Round-Up: June 27th 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
May issue is out at
http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/prb/english/View.asp?x=449
The number of wells drilled in canada is dropping fast... if canadian ng production goes down 50% then their ng export will go down 100%, or even more on account of tar sands... canada might even become an importer. The us wants more tar sands production, if they get it they will need to replace the 15% of ng imports that used to come from canada.
Stoneleigh we all appreciate your work. Sometimes what can we say? We are in the dome (doome) car watching the freight coming at our train and the engineer is an idiot.
Re: NG production. Those of us sucking on the pipe must be concerned. It is almost laughable to see the debate in Toronto about WHERE to locate a NG generating station when the debate should be WHY. Even though I support the aims of the Clean Air Alliance, their stand on NG generation is totally off base. They know there will be a supply problem but seem to be intent on convincing themselves that there won't be. As has been discussed on TOD and elswhere most environmentalists seem to think that tinkering with renewables will permit a future life like the past. I guess we passangers are idiots too. Now where did I put my charcoal BBQ?
I wish we could afford the life we are living.
Quebec approves Gros Cacouna LNG terminal
The federal government has a marine protected area under development to protect marine mammals around Gros Cacouna, so the regulatory approvals process might be complicated.
Yeah, that's an ugly story. As the NDP warned last July, if these LNG plants start running for export to the US, and Russia closes the tap, the NAFTA stipulations still hold, and Canada has to make up for the difference
NAFTA remains a poorly understood contract. It is laden with well-hidden booby traps, and no, Canda cannot get out of the deal. There is a paragraph that says it can do so with 6 months notice, but that's just there to hide reality. The Canadian government, if it would want to abrogate, would instantly face multi-trillion dollar lawsuits by American corporations and governments. And these would be held in US courts.
This really is an important point, and it appears likely that natural gas could be the first test of NAFTA versus Canadian sovereignty under conditions of insufficient supply.
The funny thing about this story is that there is a second prospective terminal near Lévis (Rabaska, south shore Québec city)so we may end up with not one, but TWO terminals importing gas from Russia...is there a driver on this train???
PS. many thanks Stoneleigh, for your efforts, much appreciated!
Polar Bear, do read the article I quoted before, would you?:
Selling Canada by the cubic foot
Rabaska is but the second part, and it's located way closer to population centers than any US project ever COULD be. One mile max from downtown Quebec City. Google 'Jaques Levasseur' for details.
But there is a third one, on the Saguenay river: Grande-Anse.
That makes three LNG terminals in a province that needs no LNG at all. But Quebec is bankrupt, and it's all signed and sealed anyway.
Strange, though, isn't it? All these things are decided, and no-one knows they are. Ours Polaire seems to be informed, mentions Rabaska, but doesn't even know that Grande Anse exists.
By the by: For anyone reading the TOD Canada Round-Ups: DO leave your comments, let Stoneleigh know what you think of what you read, whether it be appreciation or utter disgust, but speak out!!!!!!!
Guilty as charged!! I did not read your linked article. Must admit to being overwhelmed by the quantity of information available on this site sometimes...
As for Grande-Anse, first I hear about it indeed... will have to check it out, thanks for the tip!
It's really remarkable that the NAFTA treaty seems to have an implicit assumption that supplies of materials face no limits whatsoever. Economic treaty indeed. But I'm not clear on how far the requirements go for maintaining export levels...if Canada runs out of something, are we supposed to buy it somewhere else and ship it to the US?
As a Canadian, I will note that the Americans have had no trouble ignoring NAFTA or asking for a re-write when it didn't suit their needs. Many lawsuits against the US were won (decisions promptly ignored by the US governments/industries who had lost, of course) despite being held in courts/tribunals stacked with US judges. It is possible to get a fair trial and legal ruling in US courts; what has been impossible is getting those involved to acknowledge the rulings when they lose.
But if NG supplies become tight and Canada stops exporting so much, and the US sues, the advantage there is it will take many years to go through the cases, appeals, rulings, etc. And with each passing year, with declining resources available, it would become more apparent that the conditions of the treaty are impossible. I'm no legal expert, but I do know that it's difficult to legally enforce something that is impossible.