Connect with us

Opinion

U. N. allows landlocked countries access to tidewater by road, rail or pack mules.

Published

6 years ago

3 minute read

 

The U.N. convention has that land-locked countries have access to tide water. Yes by road, rail or pack mule. So if Alberta was to separate would we subsidize pack mules to haul our oil to the coast.

We have the roads and the rail already, so separating from Canada would leave pack mules as our last obligated option.

After the previous federal government failed to build a pipeline with an Albertan, Prime Minister Harper in charge. A Quebecois, Prime Minister Trudeau, had the federal government buy a pipeline for Alberta to have greater access to tidewater.

After years of talks and court cases the pipeline is progressing, even though it is believed that a huge number of Canadians, outside of Alberta, wish it wouldn’t. If Alberta was to separate why would Canadians proceed with a pipeline for Alberta to ship oil to other countries.

We can continue being part of Canada, work to finish the pipelines, expand rail service for oil shipping to Thunder Bay for tanker shipping to refineries in New Brunswick.

“Desperation” is oozing out of the pores of Alberta like many dying one industry towns only in a faster rate. How many communities disappeared when their single industry collapsed, and they never tried to diversify? How many gold rushes, coal mines, forestry, fishing, manufacturing, tobacco and trapping centres have disappeared while others morphed into more diversified centres?

There was a time when my investments in energy gave me a great return and now other investments out perform those. Our Premier wants control of our pensions and I hope that never happens. C.P.P. is a great investment tool with a history of great returns. The Alberta pension has a less than stellar history but the last few years have seen positive returns. My biggest fears would be having this premier throw all pension funds into the energy sector.

Perhaps he will invest in pack mules when he becomes Prime Minister and President of the Republic of Alberta? It appears to me, that seems to be his goal, isn’t it?

The province is suffering the death from a thousand cuts and that will be blamed on past provincial government and current federal government, not the current provincial government and the past federal government, which the Premier was a big part of.

If the Premier invests in pack mules would the farmers reap the rewards by growing the feed? Probably not.

Where are the adults anyways?

 

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 3 years ago

The city is growing? The population isn’t, so is it growing?

Garfield Marks / 3 years ago

Dear Council; Reinstate the Arterial Road connection from 22 St. & 40 Ave. to Molly Banister

Opinion / 3 years ago

Molly Banister extension is before council again on Monday for the umpteenth time. Exhausting.

Daily Caller

Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting

Published on June 19, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

It comes as a surprise to many Americans when they learn that the vast majority of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court are decided unanimously. Far too often, these unanimous decisions receive scant attention in the press due to their lack of controversy.

Such is the case with a key 8-0 decision the Court published May 29 that could help Congress and the Trump administration meet their goals to streamline permitting for energy projects in the United States. The decision narrows the scope of application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law whose environmental review provisions have been systematically used – and often abused – by climate alarm groups and plaintiff lawyers for decades to impede the progress of major projects of all kinds.

The case at hand involves the Uinta Basin Railway Project, which will transport oil produced in Utah’s Unita Basin and connect it to the national railway network so it can reach national markets. Because the rail line would parallel the Colorado River for roughly 100 miles, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that the project’s developers would have to conduct a second, expanded environmental impact study under NEPA to try to assess nebulous potential impacts to air quality – often taking place thousands of miles away – or from a possible oil spill, rescinding a key permit that had been issued in 2021 by federal regulators.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

It is key to note that that permit was issued by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) along with a 3,600-page environmental impact statement to comply with NEPA. In the conduct of the environmental review, the Wall Street Journal wrote that STB and the company assessed “the railway’s potential effects on local water resources, air quality, protected species, recreation, local economies, the Ute Indian tribe and much more.”

But for the plaintiffs and the D.C. Circuit Court, 3,600 pages of thorough scientific analysis just weren’t enough. They filed suit, complaining that the study didn’t try to assess potential impacts that might happen on dozens of other rail lines hundreds of miles distant, or, even more absurd, assess potential pollution in “environmental justice communities” as far away as the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

If delay was the goal, the plaintiffs got a win, halting progress for four years. That is a sadly typical outcome for cases involving energy-related projects such as this one.

In their unanimous opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices state, “The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”

As I’ve written in previous stories, the vast majority of delays in permitting processes stem from provisions contained in major federal statutes designed to protect the environment and endangered species. In addition to NEPA, these laws include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Among them all, none has been more broadly abused and misinterpreted by activist courts than NEPA.

In its analysis of the decision, the Institute for Energy Research says, in part, that the “decision means that agencies can approve projects like pipelines, railways, and dams and not be mandated to consider distant environmental effects of the projects, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, that had stopped or delayed fossil fuel projects from moving forward, particularly during the Biden administration.” But, the author cautions, “the Uinta Basin Railway project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles within Colorado,” despite the ruling.

The good news is that even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court appear to be developing a growing awareness of just how absurd some of the claims made in lawsuits like this case really are. The unanimous nature of this decision inspires some sense of hope that the Trump administration can succeed in some of its efforts to reform the system and put an end to some of the most unjustified delays.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

International

Judiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’

Published on June 18, 2025

By

Former President Joe Biden salutes the departure party before boarding Special Air Mission 46 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Jan. 20, 2025. 
By Staff Sgt. Gabrielle Winn | U.S. Air Force photo

From The Center Square

By

No obvious solutions emerged during a congressional hearing Wednesday on how to hold those accountable for the alleged cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental and cognitive decline, but witnesses had some suggestions for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

Republicans have been adamant for some time that Democratic lawmakers, the prior administration, the legacy media and those closest to Biden conspired to hide the former president’s mental and cognitive decline from the American people. More recently, allegations have surfaced that some of Biden’s staff or potentially others may have used an autopen – a machine that can replicate signatures – to sign official documents for Biden without his knowledge or consent.

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Wednesday’s witnesses agreed that further investigation needs to be done into these questions. Republicans also explored what can be done after the fact and how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing into those questions Wednesday’s boycotted by all but one Democrat.

Republicans didn’t miss the opportunity to call them out for it. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-MO, said Democrats’ absence and their failure to call any witnesses to testify was “deeply disappointing” but “not surprising.”

“Their absence speaks volumes – an implicit admission that the truth is too inconvenient to face,” Schmitt said. “This de facto boycott is not just a refusal to participate. It’s a refusal to serve the American people who deserve answers about who was truly leading their government.”

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Much of the hearing’s discussion revolved around proper uses of the autopen, which witnesses testified can only be rightfully used when the president specifically delegates its use to the user. The committee also discussed Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which talks about succession in the case of a president becoming unfit or unable to fulfill the role. The amendment authorizes the vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet to declare the president unfit, though that declaration has to be validated by a vote from Congress in order to have any effect.

What’s missing, however, is a clear manner of recourse for lawmakers or the public if those around the president fail to act despite plain signs he is incapable of holding office. Republicans wanted to know what they could do to prevent the alleged conspiracy from simply fading into history without consequences for any involved.

“As a government, it is imperative that we have clear contingency plans when emergency strikes, and yes, it is an emergency when we have a sitting president who is unable to discharge the duties of that office,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.

He asked witness Theo Wold, a visiting fellow for law and technology policy with The Heritage Foundation and who worked in the previous Trump administration, if any criminal statutes could be applied to those who are found to have participated in the alleged cover-up.

“In this case, some have suggested that there may be potential crimes committed by members of the Cabinet for failing to act basically, suborning perjury, forging, forging government documents, impersonating a federal officer, making false statements, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, wire or mail fraud…  Do you think there’s any application of any of those criminal statutes to the circumstances of the Biden presidency?” Cornyn asked.

“There very well could be,” Wold said, but he added that it would be “a question for a prosecutor to take up in their discretion.”

While witnesses agreed that anyone participating in a cover-up should be held accountable, the solutions for doing so weren’t as clear as recommendations for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, didn’t see an obvious method of redress for what already happened but suggested that Congress perhaps require greater documentation of presidential actions going forward.

Wold provided additional suggestions, such as a revival of discussion around “other guardrails” that can be imposed on the 25th Amendment. There was lively debate toward the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency about adding a mental health professional to the White House medical team or “whether the surgeon general should oversee the inclusion of medical reporting as part of… the 25th Amendment,” according to Wold. But he said there hadn’t been serious discussion since on how to improve the amendment. He also agreed with Sen. Katie Britt, R-AL, that some of the terms in the amendment, like “unable,” should be more clearly defined.

Continue Reading

Trending

X