Huge story gets little coverage

soxy

Member
The most important news story of 2013 went all but unreported.

Petronas, the giant Malaysian oil and gas company, announced a $36 billion investment in British Columbia. For comparison, that’s larger than the entire GDP of New Brunswick or Newfoundland. They’re going to frack for natural gas, pipe it to the coast and load it into specialized tanker ships for LNG — “liquefied natural gas.” They’ll ship it from North America, where gas sells for about $3.50 per thousand cubic feet, to Asia, where it sells for up to $19. This news was reported precisely once in Canada’s largest newspaper, the Toronto Star. Other newspapers noted it in passing, usually buried in the business section. The CBC reported the announcement and then dropped it, going back to their usual diet of anti-fracking fearmongering.

Compare that coverage with, say, the proposed Canada-Europe trade deal. That proposal got substantial coverage (as it should have). But it’s only worth $12 billion a year.

This fits a pattern. How many Canadians know that the two proposed oilsands pipelines in B.C. — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion — would entail more than $13 billion in construction work?

Petronas plus those two projects are nearly $50 billion right there. Add in TransCanada Pipelines’ proposed $12 billion Energy East pipeline and the Canadian leg of their $5 billion Keystone XL pipeline, and you’re just a touch smaller than Canada’s entire auto industry output.

But that’s just the construction of these pipelines. That’s not what’s going to be shipped through them every year. The oil pipelines, at today’s prices, will pump more than $100 billion a year. And the Petronas gas project, over its lifetime, measures more than a trillion dollars.

Any of these five projects would be the largest public works project in Canada today — and none of them use any Canadian taxpayers’ money. Taken together they represent the largest construction boom in Canadian history, greater than building the Canadian Pacific Railway or the St. Lawrence Seaway.

So why have they received so little coverage?

It’s true, the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines have received enormous attention — but it has all been political coverage, dominated by professional anti-oilsands lobbyists, almost all of whom are paid for by foreign interests to whip up environmental fears. That suits most journalists just fine — it’s more fun to cover a stunt by Greenpeace than to report on a dry economic study. And most reporters aren’t good at math anyways. There are other explanations, too. Most journalists are based in Toronto and Ottawa, and the centre of gravity of these projects is in the west, a place not well-known or well-liked by many reporters. And then there’s the ideological explanation: Many reporters just don’t support heavy industry, and are inherently suspicious of capitalism itself. They are true believers in the superstition that using oil and gas causes global warming, even though the UN itself has reported no global warming since 1998.

But hundreds of thousands of Canadians know how important oil and gas is. It’s what’s lifted Saskatchewan and Newfoundland from economic “have-not” to “have” status. It’s what has lured thousands of Atlantic Canadians west, for the promise to earn six figures. Ask a journalist what the most important story of 2013 was and they’ll tell you it was Rob Ford or Miley Cyrus.

But that’s the difference between the world of work and the world of chatter and gossip :D

copy and paste by the way.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I meet Malaysian visitors through work regularly-Malaysia's a booming place/has been for a while but like Canadians they aren't always comfortable blowing their own horn.

Along those lines I read about the Petronas investment but it was lost in the ever present chatter that surrounds information of all kinds in today's world.

As to being suspicious of heavy industry I think it's a good idea to view any activity with the potential to harm the ecology with skepticism-I certainly do after seeing horrific damage to people's health & well being in other countries.
 
The most important news story of 2013 went all but unreported.

.
Actually it was widely reported on and by local newspapers: Times Colonist and Vancouver Sun http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...+investment+pegged+billion/9004488/story.html

"A year ago, the Harper government and Canadians were fending off cash-rich Asians buying up their country’s oil and gas resources.

Today, concerns have swung in the opposite direction—that Asia’s interest might just be fleeting and unreliable. It might explain why the Harper government (and the media) has refused to be overly excited about the prospect of landing a “gargantuan” $36-billion investment prize."

http://www.straight.com/news/523771...efied-natural-gas-investment-bc-faces-hurdles

In February 2014, the B.C. government is to release details of tax plan for the LNG sector. Major players, including the Petronas joint venture and the Shell-led LNG Canada project, are aiming to make their final investment decisions in the fall of 2014. LNG proponents are reviewing a broad range of issues such as taxation and the challenges in constructing natural gas pipelines from northeastern British Columbia to the northwestern B.C. communities of Prince Rupert and Kitimat.
 
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/12/20131231-093734.html

So this is where you got that info Soxy.
EZRA LEVANT.... yup I should have known.
This guy is a clown....

lol,

and here is a "cut and paste" comment published below the story by EZRA LEVANT :

"It's had minimal coverage because it's far from a done deal. Right, Ezra? Did you forget to mention that Petronas has been desperately trying to break up and sell Progress energy...and not finding buyers? Interest in LNG is sporadic. This may all work out, and Petronas may turn out to be a good partner for BC. However, to whine about this not being a big news story is simply another example of the breathtakingly low regard you have for your readers and their ability to fact check"
 
"professional anti-oilsands lobbyists, almost all of whom are paid for by foreign interests to whip up environmental fears." The question one should always ask is "Who benefits?" or perhaps in these cases it should be "Who benefits the most?" So....who would benefit most--those well heeled anti oilsands lobbyists :rolleyes: or huge oil companies....hmmmm.
T2
 
A clown to you and the lefty whiners that reside here perhaps. You didn't comment on it until after you deduced the author...lol....truth hurts perhaps. Actually I got it from the Fort McMurray Today.

No I didn't wait ... I can spot his "truths" a mile away.
I follow his crap because he influences people I care about....
I'm far from a lefty... more right then you would think.
I like to see how the theory matches up with reality.
So far it's not working like it was suppose to.
My favorite saying lately is ....
Trickle down economics would work if it weren't for the sponges at the top.
I'm for free markets but they must be on a level playing field.
So far I'm not seeing that.
I have watched "Adam Smith" quotes twisted to suit peoples agenda.
 
I like to see how the theory matches up with reality.
So far it's not working like it was suppose to.
My favorite saying lately is ....
Trickle down economics would work if it weren't for the sponges at the top.

Exactly - once again it's a plan for socialized risk and privatized profits!

How will this project benefit the BC and Canadian economies? Especially considering B.C. taxpayer subsidized hydro (to operate the LNG compressor plants) and the new labour laws from the Harper Government allowing Petronas to import foreign workers and pay them 15% less than Canadian employees. Under the Harper/Clark/Petronas plan, we will see many of the touted jobs going to foreign workers while the forecast profits flow out of Canada, along with the energy resource.
 
FYI Foxsea they dropped the "pay them 15% less" rule and added the "OK to hire criminals, unless your a stripper" rule.
This Government sure does some wacky things.
Could it be in their rush to change laws and rules they don't actually think things through?
Bunch of checker players when the game is chess.
 
Bunch of checker players when the game is chess.
And just to drive this point home have a look at this.

BXjq_4SCIAAi8UC.jpg
 
Ezra Levant may be some what on the "Wacky" side but he does draw attention to some interesting facts. For me I am really curious as to why there is so much anti from the U.S.A. about the tarsands while in their own country systems all OK. Fracking, stripping, burning and selling coal to other countries that have no qualms about the pollution they are producing, and burning of fossil fuels down south has not been reduced but is on the increase.
None of any of this is right, tarsands included but why the special focus here?
 
Cherry picking but that's okay. I see this article as a wake up call to get some responsible journalistic responses to Levants concerns. Its not about fracking, coal or fires in Australia or checkers. I am so damned sick of seeing that fat slob Ford and his antics plastered on my PC, TV and newspaper. And nevermind about this global warming hoax. Tell that to the Xue Long and Akademik Shokalskiy and the people in Ontario and the Maritimes digging out and no power for days and days.
 
" And nevermind about this global warming hoax" Ha ha ha ! In 2 years we reach the tipping point--no going back after that point but hey! buy into the Conservative agenda of delay and delay and delay and about doing anything about global warming, suppress those pesky scientists who risk their jobs to speak up about climate change(they are obviously being paid by foreign interests) all is good.
T2
 
Ezra Levant may be some what on the "Wacky" side but he does draw attention to some interesting facts. For me I am really curious as to why there is so much anti from the U.S.A. about the tarsands while in their own country systems all OK. Fracking, stripping, burning and selling coal to other countries that have no qualms about the pollution they are producing, and burning of fossil fuels down south has not been reduced but is on the increase.
None of any of this is right, tarsands included but why the special focus here?

Why all the focus on tarsands? good question ....
Some think that if we expand the tarsands it will be game over for the environment.
US Coal is being shut down and that sector is looking for new markets in China.
Lots of plans to ship it but the people that are near those plans are fighting every step of the way.
That's why Vancouver Port expansion is so important to the US coal sector.
They think it's a slam dunk with Harper at the controls.

The pipeline to the east is also being fought by the US port city that it ends at.
Keystone is dead till the next US election.

We all know that business as usual just doesn't cut it anymore.
Tarsands is the "line in the sand"

Soxy I don't think you understand that picture I posted.
That's not cherry picking the data that's the new PM of Australia statement.
He is a well known climate change denialist.
He was the one that took the facts from the wildfire records to prove a point.
The problem is, his checker move gives more weight to climate change then not.
The chess player pointed out the 160 year trend in wildfires.
Not to bright, and for a world leader that's not good.
I expect those that don't understand the difference between weather and climate to say crap.
But for a world leader like Abbott (Harper's new pal) it's not creditable.
Just like that crack smoker out east. (Harper's other pal)

Many of us with Conservative values are sick and tired of this BS we are being subject to.
And yup I'll call a spade a spade even if he is passing himself off as a Conservative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why all the focus on tarsands? good question ....
Some think that if we expand the tarsands it will be game over for the environment.
US Coal is being shut down and that sector is looking for new markets in China.
Lots of plans to ship it but the people that are near those plans are fighting every step of the way.
That's why Vancouver Port expansion is so important to the US coal sector.
They think it's a slam dunk with Harper at the controls.

The pipeline to the east is also being fought by the US port city that it ends at.
Keystone is dead till the next US election.

We all know that business as usual just doesn't cut it anymore.
Tarsands is the "line in the sand"

The tarsands is at risk of becoming a stranded asset.
A 2010 M.I.T. report looked at the oil sands with CO2 emissions constraints. When caps are implemented in the developed countries, Canadian bitumen production drops by nearly 65% from the industry reference projections while bitumen upgrading capacity must move to the developing countries (China in the case of the Northern Gateway proposal). If CO2 emissions caps are implemented worldwide then the carbon intensive Canadian bitumen production becomes essentially non-viable, even with carbon capture and storage. The main reason for the demise of the oil sands industry with a global CO2 policy is that the demand for oil worldwide drops substantially. Demand can be met with alternative fuels and oil resources that entail less CO2 emissions in the production process.

The world's major institutions are sounding the alarm that to preserve a safe climate much of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves have to stay in the ground . In the last two years this includes the United Nations, the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and international financial giants like Citi, HSBC, and UBC. The American Securities Exchange Commission recently required companies to report their carbon risk to investors. Pension funds with assets of $3 trillion have demanded top coal companies explain what happens with their coal assets as the world acts to stop a climate catastrophe from unfolding. Large investors are demanding that fossil fuel companies stop exploring for more fossil fuel resources since they aren't going to be able to burn everything they already have. Investors are demanding dividends instead.

In global finance there are concerns of a carbon bubble because of the trillions of dollars of fossil fuel reserves that can't be burned. The share prices of the companies that hold these reserves will fall dramatically as investors realize which ones are likely to become stranded assets. The companies with share prices most at risk are the ones with the most climate polluting reserves like coal and dirty oil such as the Alberta tar sands. The Harper government has identified the tar sands as a time-sensitive resource and so has pulled out all the stops to expedite development.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt183.pdf
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...arning-bc-and-alberta-carbon-bubbles?page=0,0
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis?CMP=twt_gu
 
Our complex fishing regs including warnings to check on line for up to the minute changes (for god sakes) before going out fishing is a reflection of a desperate attempt to halt the collapse of the fishery on this coast. Same applies to all ocean fisheries everywhere. Collectively, globally, humans have become a planetary wrecking ball. Plugging the ozone hole ...we just got lucky. (Yup, human caused). Now there are dead zones in the ocean (oxygen depletion) as well as plankton killing ocean acidification. Even the atmosphere is changing and there can be no surviving a tipping point there. We can not breathe co2....gives us 3 minutes. It really ain't nor can it be business as usual.
"There are more jobs in renewable energy than in oil, gas, and coal combined"

http://grist.org/business-technolog...ble-energy-than-in-oil-gas-and-coal-combined/
 
Back
Top