Suzuki's Funding

This was a great read and I was gonna post in the readers tips.

Looks pretty obvious too me David.

A friend told me this, and maybe someone with more knowledge than I (which means just about all of you) could illuminate me but I was told that we are selling oil to the US at a deep discount.

If this is true, and we are unable, for whatever reason, to build a pipeline to the west coast, then the economics for railing it to the western ports becomes more feasible. Provided that the premium earned is greater than the additional cost of railing it.

Railing it also means a much quicker spool up and getting the oil to new customers

Was Harper was ahead of the game on this? Seems so, as the dirt on Snoozuki is just coming out in recent months.

Really starting to like the slow road to conservativism, actually.

Not only are we selling oil to the US at a deep discount, a lot of it is being shipped to Europe, where the market price is $30 a barrel more than it is in North America.

There's no supply shortage.

Reason for high gasoline prices in the US is because the US dollar has been devalued due to stimulus spending. But, that's the fault of the greedy oil companies ... right?

The Suzuki Foundation is acting the role of 'environmental hustler' on the matter of resource extraction.

With double hulled tankers there is no logical safety reason for bulk carriers to ply the ocean waters.

The long time funding by foreign foundations merely ensures lower employment of Canadians and less domestic wealth creation, in a difficult global economy.

For the Rockefeller Foundation funding Suzuki to turn off the taps to others is a bit rich.

Cheers

Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Typing too fast, should read:

With double hulled tankers there is no logical safety reason for bulk carriers to [discontinue] plying the ocean waters.

Cheers

Hans

My contempt for cry-baby, elitist bullies like David Suzuki knows no bounds.

From the Krause article: “. . . Further, in an open letter sent last week, Mr. Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmentalist, suggested that his foundation is being ‘bullied.’ He also announced that he has stepped off the board of his foundation. ‘I want to speak freely without fear that my words will be deemed too political,’ he wrote.” GAG.

Well, boo-hoo, Mr. Cry Baby. Join the club. Those of us who haven’t swallowed the poisonous Gaia Kool-Aid and other lethal drinks of the “progressives”, are often unable to “speak freely”, lest we be hauled before a HRC kangaroo court or even lose our jobs for having the audacity to hold verboten views.

And this fork-tongued jerk and uber hypocrite has actually said that politicians who don’t bow before His Holiness, Saint Suzuki and do His bidding should go to jail. Mr. Cry Baby doesn’t think that such an authoritarian, non-inclusive, intolerant diktat is “too political”? For a change, maybe this idiot needs to actually watch what he says. (Of course, progressives never believe they need to: they feel fully entitled to spew opposite viewpoints out of both sides of their mouth, with no criticism allowed. What jack a**es!)

Good work by Ms.Krause,about time the light was shone on that hypocrite,Suzuki.

It's interesting to note that many BC'ers who oppose the NG pipeline seem to have no trouble accepting crude oil transported over the various routes by rail.

The work of Vivian Krause,in conjunction with Harper's new legislation regarding environmental assessments,may be a real "body blow" to the enviro-fanatics who would see us living in mud huts.

Chris - I'm in coal, not oil, but might have an explanation. In bulk commodities there are two main parts to the sale, the selling price, and the location. Once the commodity hits salt water the cost of transport becomes cheaper than dirt. Rail is far cheaper than truck transport (on the order of 10x the cost), but far more expensive than supertanker (which is on the order of 10% of the cost). The time it takes to ship at sea is less important than the cost, the buyer factors that into their plans (so coal delivered to Ridley Island in Prince Rupert can get the same selling price as Roberts Bank or Neptune in Vancouver, despite being a day or more closer to the Asian ports). I don't have direct experience with pipelines, but would estimate that they should have operating costs of less than half of that of rail (when dealing with a liquid medium - I'm in coal, remember: getting the medium and maintaining it is another kettle of fish).

And for those out east who ask why we don't ship more across the country instead of straight north-south or to the nearest point - the above is your answer. From Alberta it's usually far less expensive to rail to Vancouver, tanker through the Panama Canal and deliver to Toronto and unload than it is to rail it across the country.

I diverted from my starting point - for the producing company an agreed upon price will usually be lower for a high volume and high certainty sale. The reason that coal power plants and built right beside the coal mines that power them (even when they're owned by different companies/government) is that they are willing to buy the entire output. Could the coal mine make more money by selling elsewhere? Likely. But there's a risk associated. The guaranteed sale, high volume, low profit per unit route is how companies make the most money over time. It's why Toyota is worth more than Aston-Marten or Bugatti. It's why the US refineries get such a good price for our crude: they buy so much of it contracting on such a regular schedule transferring along proven routes that they are effectively a guaranteed sale. Keystone XL is a means of adding a higher volume to the lower risk sales category, so it would help keep the prices along this route low.

Thank god someone is outing that some enviromentalists are nothing more than political lobbyists.

C_Miner, thanks for the info. I've been wondering for years why there is no West-East pipeline.

The Greens, backed by US foundation cash targeted the North Coast over twenty years ago not due to strategic brilliance but just greed for preserving forests.

The Tides Foundation puppet Mayor of Vancouver is now seeing the real alternative potential for loading from rail or pipeline in "his" Port and is now saying that he will fight it.

Ironically, the Ports of Seattle or Tacoma would likely pick up the slack and load Canadian Oil for shipment to Asia.

This will all be moot come November.

Over the past week I have been reading a lot of Vivian Krause articles on her website ..... she's very good ..... she has an open and accurate approach that is highly credible .

The left, always the tolerant ones eh?

Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes

http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/

Thanks C_Miner! I would still very much like to see a cost-benefit analysis

Maybe if you're not doing too much this weekend?

Thanks C Miner, I learned something today.

This just gave me an idea for a weekend detective project.
Here in Powell River, the Library has several "protest" DVD s about the pipeline. I aim to find out who paid for the production, and ask that they be clearly labeled if foreign funding was involved.

Nothing makes me happy like old hippies with egg on their faces.

dwright

My thanks too, C_Miner! Knew zip about this before your post.

There are more than s few things that must be looked at with Mr. Suzuki's foundation.

First and foremost in my mind is the 'program expenses' as listed in;
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/donate/financial-information/

Fully a third of the expenses are for 'communications' for both years are in this category. That doesn't seem right to me,because the CRA rules say that any 'communication' expenses must not have anything that could be considered a solicitation for donations. It could be above board,but....

Another possible violation of CRA rules concerns Mr. Suzuki's 'save Santa's workshop' solicitation. When this BS appeared it did not let you know that you were buying a symbolic gift and would only receive an e-mail until AFTER you went through the purchasing procedure.That is just wrong. CRA rules state this;
" A charity must be truthful in its solicitations and its disclosures about its fundraising or finances to avoid the harm that results from deceiving the public or stakeholders (including donors)."

OK,one more thing that may apply directly to the post here that states, " the only place that U.S. foundations have heavily funded Suzuki’s work is on the strategic, north coast of B.C.,".
The CRA states that:
" Registered charities must not misrepresent:
which charity will receive the donation;
the geographic area in which the charity operates, and the amount and type of its work;"

I believe that means that you cannot solicit funds to "keep Canada green" and then focus your attention to one area,like northern B.C.,for example.
This site explains some of the charity guidelines.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-028-ddn-eng.html#d5

I do think that Mr. Suzuki is feeling some heat from the gov't,but it would be nice to know if the maggot is actually under the microscope (or magnifying glass,even better).

Look out Soozie here comes them Revnooers - tax audit commin'

One thing's for certain. The Income sure beats the hell out of studying fruit flies. His lifestyle sure has a large carbon footprint.

You should have seen all the tides and avaaz terrorists prowling around the Saanich Gulf Islands riding last election. It was quite shocking actually. A green party sign went up right in front of the wreckage of every destroyed NDP/CPC sign.

dwright from Powell River.....
I didn't know there was another conservative soul in our "green" town.
Don't get me started about THE LIBRARY let alone what might be in it....anyway, good luck on your detective work on the videos. This is Watermelon land, my friend. Tread carefully.

I used to think Suzuki was useless but I guess I have to admit that he is a useful idiot.

C_Miner, Chris, there's one other thing to consider. The rail lines to Vancouver are already loaded. And with the new container port in Prince Rupert, those will be as well.

There's a direct illustration of your cost of transport, C_miner. In the early 1970s, France was considering the future of its electricity supply. The Franco-Belgian and Lorraine coalfields were depleting, so most of the coal would have to be imported, primarily through Marseilles. Instead of building a fleet of coal plants, France went nuclear. The cost of shipping the coal and building all the necessary rail infrastructure up the Rhone valley was simply too high.

@ cgh
France going Nuclear was smart, as Britain has found to their dismay, that wind power is unreliable and two very cold winters in a row have left them in electrical dire straits. Now they are running cables to France in order to augment their needs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8538523/Eurotunnel-to-carry-electricity-from-France-to-UK.html

Germany is also having second thoughts regarding wind power for the same reason.

Shipping by rail as the coal guy mentioned, is HUGELY more expensive than pipeline.

As an analogy, imagine getting water somewhere say your house, from the filtration plant, do you want to ship it by pipe, or by bottle/tanker truck?

Both work, but once you have a pipe, the truck is hopelessly outclassed. So much less fuss, bother, cost, maintenance , it's not even close, heck it's not even on the same planet. So once you have a pipe, that's where you are selling to, because NOTHING else can compete.

This is why Obama's pipeline decision is so cretinously stupid. By building a the US pipeline first they would basically "capture" the Canadian oil, and make any other place a poor, far distant sale, and make building a Western pipeline an uneconomic decision ( why build it when you are already selling it all south) but by allowing/FORCING a pipeline to the west coast to be built they've opened another market up and ALL western Canadian oil is potentially more expensive and exposed to international prices.

Hey, it's GOOD for Canada, but from the US perspective it's so abysmally stupid as to defy belief.

Shipping by rail as the coal guy mentioned, is HUGELY more expensive than pipeline.

As an analogy, imagine getting water somewhere say your house, from the filtration plant, do you want to ship it by pipe, or by bottle/tanker truck?

Both work, but once you have a pipe, the truck is hopelessly outclassed. So much less fuss, bother, cost, maintenance , it's not even close, heck it's not even on the same planet. So once you have a pipe, that's where you are selling to, because NOTHING else can compete.

This is why Obama's pipeline decision is so cretinously stupid. By building a the US pipeline first they would basically "capture" the Canadian oil, and make any other place a poor, far distant sale, and make building a Western pipeline an uneconomic decision ( why build it when you are already selling it all south) but by allowing/FORCING a pipeline to the west coast to be built they've opened another market up and ALL western Canadian oil is potentially more expensive and exposed to international prices.

Hey, it's GOOD for Canada, but from the US perspective it's so abysmally stupid as to defy belief.

CGH- the major west coast coal ports are undergoing expansions not in capacity (though a bit there too) but mostly in faster unloading of trains and loading vessels. Physical room on the ground isn't what the port wants, they make their money by rapid turnover (like Walmart, or Safeway) and anything that reduces the stock they need to maintain on hand is a plus for them. There's more capacity coming available for the west short ports long before we'd need to twin any of the main lines.

Fred - As I said I know little about piping, we briefly looked at it for a local application but it came in as more expensive than conveyors (which were a known quantity). The main disadvantage of both systems is that you have all your capital cost up front and the ongoing operation is relatively cheap. This is rail's current advantage, the lines are already there, so the costs before you can use it are ongoing maintenance instead of a huge capital outlay(yes, I know you know this already, it's background for the other readers). The rest of your post is bang-on. There's a reason we use pipes to take the high volume stuff (water, both fresh and waste) to and from our houses, it's just the cheapest, easiest, and safest way to do it.

Chris in the Bridge - I don't think it can be done. The analysis, that is. My knowledge of the appropriate laws and jurisdictions just isn't up to it. To explain what I mean, look at how easy of a time Newfoundland should have had selling Labrador power to the Northeast states. There's only 1 other province in between. Look at who is actually making the most profit off of it (last I had heard it was Quebec, has that changed?) There's also a political liability in building the infrastructure through potentially hostile regulatory regimes within Canada. A railway can transport just about anything, and the people of the province will use at least some of its capacity. A pipeline can only transport one thing at a time, and is usually designed to only transport one class of product. There's no benefit of the in-between provinces to allow the pipeline through.

Also there's the question of where the final product is needed. The refinery should be close to transport infrastructure that can quickly get the completed product to final market. There's a reason that there's more than one bakery in all of Canada to distribute all of the baked goods across the country, and that reason is that the product degrades constantly over time after it's been produced. Similar the difference between crude oil and diesel/plastic or metallurgical coal and coke. Given all of the different grades of fuels, plastic stock and oils to be produced (and then stored or shipped), I don't know if Canada can effectively be a refining power.

As I've said before,can you say Saudi Arabia and whose king that Obama bowed to? Thats who doesnt want the XL pipeline.The king and Warren Buffets railroads.

C_Miner and others, thank you for the interesting information regarding the various methods of transporting commodities.

Vivian Krause is a Canadian hero. David Suzuki should receive what he advocated for politicians that do not believe in his money making scam.

Canada doesn't sell oil to the Americans at a discount in a literal sense. There are about a dozen different prices paid for crude based on the content of the barrel of crude. ie the sweet crude coming out of southern Sask receives a much higher price than the heavy oil coming from Fort Mac. Top that all off with the bottleneck in Cushing, Ok where inventories periodically exceed 20 million barrels.

People assume that a west coast port will automatically mean Brent Crude price for western Canadian oil. Not necessarily true. It depends what the receiving refinery will be willing to pay. It is a open market and bidding changes all the time.

dwright & bosco.. and then there were three.

good read...thanx to all contributers

For those of you not old enough to know, or even be alive at the time, a West to East Canadian pipeline was being considered until all talk and planning ended with the NEP. Beneficiaries of no pipeline being built included LPC friends such as K.C. Irving:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._C._Irving

Access to Western Canada oil, refined by multinationals companies in ON and QC, would have effectively ended his regional monopoly.

Moving oil by rail to the west coast means moving it to Prince Rupert. Not only is the track overloaded with container, coal and lumber rail traffic, it runs alongside the Nechako, Bulkley and Skeena rivers all the way to the coast. And when I say alongside, I mean directly beside the river. In one case the Skeena was filled in with rock to build the rail line. Not only that but it crosses hundreds of fish bearing streams over old, albeit, constantly maintained bridges. How can this possible be more environmentally safer than a brand new, high tech pipeline.

Donna Laframboise at No Frakking Consensus also has some excellent comments on Dr. Fruitfly.

Would a scientifically rigorous organization have the owner of a PR firm as its chairman?

His letter claims that “the Foundation brings science and solutions to environment problems” and that it carries out “science-based research” (my italics). But if that is the case why is there not a single prominent scientist amongst its guiding lights?

The chairman of that 12-member board is about as far from being a scientist as one can imagine. He is, in fact, a professional spinmeister. According to his bio on the Foundation website, James Hoggan is the president and owner of “one of Canada’s most successful public relations firms”. Yeah, that’s who’d I’d pick as chairman if I wanted to be considered scientifically rigorous.

Suzuki would like us to believe that stepping away from the Foundation that bears his name will put meaningful distance between him and it. But that’s hard to swallow given that his wife is now the president – and that two of his five children are still members of the board.