Common Dreams reports
Environmental and indigenous groups are cheering after Kinder Morgan announced Sunday [April 8] it was halting most work on its controversial Trans Mountain expansion pipeline project, citing continuing opposition. Map of proposed route
"This is a sign that organizing works, and it could well be the beginning of the end for this dangerous pipeline", declared Clayton Thomas-Muller, a Stop-it-at-the-Source campaigner with 350.org.
"This is huge", added British Columbia-based advocacy group Dogwood.
In the company's statement announcing the move, chairman and CEO Steve Kean said Kinder Morgan was suspending "all non-essential activities and related spending" as a result of the "current environment" that puts shareholders at risk.
"A company cannot resolve differences between governments", he added, referencing resistance from B.C. lawmakers that is at odds with support for the project coming from Ottawa and neighboring Alberta. "While we have succeeded in all legal challenges to date, a company cannot litigate its way to an in-service pipeline amidst jurisdictional differences between governments", Kean said.
Unless legal agreements are reached by May 31, Kean said that "it is difficult to conceive of any scenario in which we would proceed with the project". (There are still 18 pending court cases that could thwart the project, the Wilderness Committee notes.)
B.C. Premier John Horgan, for his part, said in a statement Sunday, "The federal process failed to consider B.C.'s interests and the risk to our province. We joined the federal challenge, started by others, to make that point."
[...] Greenpeace Canada's climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema, said:
Investors should note that the opposition to this project is strong, deep, and gets bigger by the day. This announcement shows that this widespread opposition has reached critical mass. British Columbians' desire to protect clean water, safeguard the environment, and stand behind Indigenous communities cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. We encourage Kinder Morgan to shelve this project before the litany of lawsuits, crumbling economics, and growing resistance against the pipeline does it for them.
While the company "looks ready to pack it in", said Wilderness Committee Climate Campaigner Peter McCartney, the opposition is "not going anywhere until this pipeline no longer poses a threat to the coast, the climate, and Indigenous communities along the route".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @05:44PM (41 children)
That pipe will be built.
The Federal government has already approved it and stated that it is in the national interest to build it. The hippies in BC are protesting and have caused no end in delays. The federal government called an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss options.
What we have here is a single Provence deciding the future of the country. That's not how a country should work.
This pipe is also critical for Notley (AB Premeier) to have any chance at re-election, so she is probably willing to go all or nothing to get this thing built -- threatening an inter provincial trade war.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:00PM (7 children)
Do I correctly remember that it's just doubling an existing pipeline?
Unless Canada decides to give up on Tar Sands revenue (oil market collapse), it will indeed eventually happen. Like the one in the US, it just requires the right election cycle.
The existing pipeline will need "improvements" and "repairs" anyway, so putting a new one along the same exact route may turn out less risky for that area than having the old one at full capacity.
It's Canada, they can handle a few extra degrees.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 10 2018, @07:33PM (6 children)
Logistic extraction curves for higher tech "solutions" are steeper on the upside AND downside. The opposition merely needs to delay deployment until the remaining resource, is cheaper to transport via far more dangerous rail car. This makes higher tech exotic oil sources like this more sensitive to delays in construction than old fashioned long production shallow wells from the good old days, which are either developed or empty now, of course.
Also its snarky but resource predictions usually start out ridiculously high and decline to more realistic expectations over time for the usual human factors reasons; the danger of a bunch of financial analyst types slapping each other on the back about billions of barrels is that other people, like pipeline builders, might actually believe their pie in the sky daydreams and when reality hits whoops that billion barrel pipeline isn't needed because better present estimates claim there isn't likely to be a billion pumped or whatever specific number. This is a possible failure mode in a general sense not necessarily in this specific case.
I don't have the detailed financial data on this particular project; I invest mostly in USA energy not foreign, and have a general knowledge of the field but no specific knowledge of this foreign project other than the usual idle gossip and how this could affect domestic production (minimal, AFAIK).
In summary there might be substantially less economically or energetically extractable resource than originally predicted, so no need for a pipeline.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:28PM (5 children)
There is more oil in the oil sands than can ever be extracted without completely fucking up the planet.
Canada has been investing money in oil sand oil extraction since the 70's. This is a mature, proven technology now. The problem is that because Alberta is landlocked, we are pretty much stuck with sending it down to the USA who we don't get a fair price from. We get paid the 'Western Canada Select' price, which is much less than the WTI.
That is why we want to build the pipeline. If we can get the oil to the ocean, then we can fetch international prices. The difference is billions of dollars annually.
For the record, I don't think that we should be banking on oil for the provence's future. Unfortunately, that is the horse that we are hitched to. I was against more pipelines (unless they ship oil to the Canadian refineries out east). I don't think we should be plundering the planet for a buck.
However, this pipeline went though due process, and was ultimately approved. The time for protesting is over. Your voice was heard, and you lost. Get over it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:49PM (3 children)
Since you made the mistake twice: France has Provence, Canada has provinces.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:12PM
Thanks!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:47AM (1 child)
People don't know this about Canada. But the truth is, HUGE parts of Canada are French. They call it French Canada. Because of the tongue. They speak French. And they're GREAT KISSERS!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @07:13AM
where the Oral Herpes outbreak in Quebec started.
Oh you poor fools, allowing that man into your country to swap spit with your women!
Alas.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dw861 on Wednesday April 11 2018, @04:49AM
Would that that were true, but the proposal did not go through due process.
Unlike in Alberta, in which there were/are Treaties with Indigenous peoples, in BC there were (virtually) none, and only a few agreements via the contemporary Treaty Process.
In the absence of Treaties, contemporary courts have ruled that First Nations title exists here in BC. The courts have also ruled the Crown has an obligation to consult with First Nations regarding all developments affecting their traditional territories. "Approval" or not, those meaningful First Nations consultations have not taken place. Trudeau will have to openly acknowledge that he is ramming a project through and harming local Indigenous interests, in the national interest.
Any one of the existing court actions can torpedo this proposed pipeline twinning project and ensure that it never takes place. Looking at the last 30 years of Supreme Court rulings re BC First Nations, I would not bet my money on the company or the federal govt.
Possibly Kinder Morgan is just posturing at present. But the reason why their posturing is so convincing, is because those who truly understand all the moving parts to this controversy, appreciate that while the Federal Govt has approved the project, it has little local social license. The Federal Crown has limited options to ram something down the Provincial Crown's throat. Recall that there is a 'notwithstanding clause' in the constitution, to allow provinces to bypass Federal dictates. If you can think of any examples to prove me wrong, I'd be keen to hear of them.
No matter what happens, the Liberals are screwed in British Columbia. They cannot escape from this controversy unscathed.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:02PM (4 children)
What, you're telling me a federal government that legislates pronouns doesn't have enough oomph to push through a pipeline that one province is stonewalling on? Or is Dear Leader just so gutless he's trying to find a way to do it without pissing off the greener of his voters?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:44PM (3 children)
Dear leader is as gutless as his father: the reason we now have to print EVERYTHING in English AND French....waste of money and paper.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Troll) by Snow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:34PM (1 child)
Don't forget Ojibwe. We must not discriminate against the First Nations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @12:04AM
Fuquing alt-right Canucks! Why don't you move to America?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 11 2018, @12:24AM
Troll?
Prove me wrong: how is he not gutless: he passes marijuana law because he doesn't want to break the law?, but he won't pass election laws because he knows its good for the liberals and it's safe.
He's a bleh politician, even if he is a nerd.
Prove me WRONG! If not, re-mod me, coward!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:07PM (2 children)
For the recent pipeline in the USA, George Soros funded all sorts of "environmental" and "tribal" opposition because he had huge investments that would be favored by having the fuel travel by rail.
The fact that trains crash (and then leak) decently often is of no importance when there is money to be made.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:52PM
Tesoro and one other company quietly applied for a license to build a huge oil terminal at the Port Of Vancouver. It would be shipped in by rail then loaded on barges then shipped somewhere else that I don't recall, maybe the refineries in California.
Just after their permit application a derailment in Quebec killed over 50 people.
The whole time this controversy was presented as a Washington-only issue despite the Columbia River's south shore being in Oregon.
A letter to the editor from an oil terminal supporter disingenuously pointed out that the trains would only go 10 MPH through Vancouver. How about the rest of the trip?
There was a derailment in a park on the Columbia River.
The fight went on for years. My understanding is that the last election got an anti-oil-terminal person in a position to deny the permit.
The last I read in http://www.columbian.com/ [columbian.com] was that the project had been cancelled.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @12:24AM
Except with bitumen, when trains crash, they don't have to leak.
CN [theglobeandmail.com] (a railway) developed one method on purpose, and UoC [thestar.com] researchers Wang and Gates found another one by accident. In the future, spills shall be swept up.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:42PM (10 children)
I look at it as "the people are starting to be heard above the road of corporate lobbying money".
Corporations are starting to get screwed a bit like the people they've been screwing: do THEY like it?
I was raised Conservative, voted Conservative in the past, but corporations now have too much power. Time to take some of that power away. (But not with the recent governments we've had: they like corporate money too much).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @07:47PM (9 children)
Exactly. The gas & oil companies are aghast at the idea that BC doesn't want their money, while BC residents look at the massive ecological disasters that oil spills create and, wisely, choose not to push their luck with another environmental-disaster-looking-to-happen. Sure, the odds of an oil spill might not be huge, but when one does happen -- and they happen too often -- the plants and animals and their environment are f--ked.
The gas & oil companies have zero interest in the future or the environment; the honchos there today want money now and let someone else, even if it's just their successors, worry about the dealing with the spills when they happen. Good on BC for telling them to stuff it.
(Score: 1) by dwilson on Wednesday April 11 2018, @12:30AM (2 children)
Pipeline-protesting has been in the news up here in canada for several years now, for various different pipeline projects. I've often wondered why the companies behind the pipelines don't take the following approach...
"So, you don't want a pipeline through your area, and you cite fear of a breach leading to a spill leading to an ecological disaster? Fair enough! If you're that worried about the safety of pipeline technology, we won't build it. INSTEAD, we will send the projected daily capacity of the pipeline through your area by tanker truck. On your roads and highways. Every day, for a month. Let us know when you want the (-far- more) dangerous trucks to stop moving the product, and we'll talk about the much safer (and cheaper, for everyone) pipeline we'd like to build..."
- D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @07:41AM (1 child)
Because:
1/ that would be very expensive and pointless to do.
2/ Lawsuits would stop it instantly.
3/ It would only take a couple of sympathetic local cops to put every one of those trucks off the road for as long as the cops feel like. There isn't a truck on the road that a cop can't find a fault in if they want to.
4/ I cannot think of any tactic more well designed to kill a company than to align every possible enemy against it by acting as such an arrogant bully.
(Score: 1) by dwilson on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:41PM
In no particular order...
point 4: Humans suck at assessing risk. A tactic like that would help to get the point across, that a pipeline, while dangerous, really is the least-problematic option when compared to moving product by truck. Or by train, for that matter. I'd expect their PR department to stress than point.
point 2: Lawsuits may be filed instantly, but unless you can point out which existing laws they are breaking by doing so, I don't expect they'd go anywhere. The lawyers would win, as usual...
point 1: Expensive, yes. Pointless? Not if it gets their point across. And if anyone has money to burn, it's the energy companies.
point 3: 'cops'. RCMP? not so much. unless the trucks are speeding or breaking other traffic laws, they won't give two fucks. The DOT, aka commercial vehicle enforcement cops? Sure, if they look hard enough they can find a fault in any trucker's rig. But DOT is federally directed, and in most of these cases the federal government has given it's blessing to the pipeline projects, it's (very) localized opposition, amplified entirely out of proportion by the internet and non-local bandwagon support, that's causing the problems. The DOT won't give two fucks.
- D
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @07:21AM (3 children)
I can't remember which province it was in, but they had a huge ecological disaster after some trailing ponds got compromised and leaked all sorts of toxic sludge into some river up there a few years back. Oil pipelines aren't that different as far as the maintenance concerns go. Unless it is proven that the mining company or oil company have not only paid ahead, but set aside a minimum amount as well as a fixed percentage of their profits towards maintenance and post-production ecological restoration, we shouldn't be allowing them to do ANY of these things, given that it can poison whole communities for miles around a spill site or downstream of a waterway if not properly cleaned up before the pipe or storage ponds being unmaintained and fail.
(Score: 3, Informative) by https on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:30PM (2 children)
That would be British Columbia - the Mount Polley mining disaster. Oh, and we just recently discovered that our previous government administration, a bunch of honest politicians*, tried to keep the lid on the fact that fracking companies have built almost 100 dams in the province without any meaningful oversight, environmental impact assessments, or engineering reports - the last because they weren't actually engineered. Making a safe ten metre high dam does not happen by guess and by golly.
So, yeah, the citizens are pretty much fed up with corporations having more rights than people, and being told that the environment and their health are expendable. And, seeing that Quebec managed to shut down the Energy East pipeline has given new hope.
* "An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought." The BC Liberal Party (no relation to the Liberal Party of Canada) is stunningly and blatantly owned by corporate interests. It's not a wonder that they were turfed.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by dwilson on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:55PM (1 child)
Genuinely curious here, can you dig up anything on which fracking companies, and which dams / where they were built?
I ask because I used to work for a hydraulic fracturing company in Alberta, and we had precisely Fuck All to do with infrastructure. The customer (company owning the well and lease) hired us to come in and frac. A 'frac' consisted of pumping x amount of water/sand at y concentration with z concentration of chemicals a,b and c, and pressures d, e, and f for certain depths in the well. Was there water in tanks/ponds on-site? customer owned/organized it. Changes needed to be made to the lease to accommodate our equipment? Customer organized/paid for it. We showed up with our equipment, chemical, and sand (sometimes the customer handled the sand, as well), pumped the job we'd agreed to pump, and left. Literally -everything- outside that narrow remit was the customers responsibility. And that wasn't just us, that was industry standard for frac companies, canada-wide.
So I have a fairly hard time believing any frac company, anywhere in canada, would be building dams or worrying about ponds or environmental impact assessments or anything like that. that's the customer's concern, not ours. Blame the well owner if you want, leave the service companies out of it.
- D
(Score: 2) by https on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:06PM
Pardon me for not knowing the fine details of your industry's subcontracting methodologies. Leaving the service companies out of it is a distraction at best, but for now I'm going to resist jumping to "disingenuous". Did you never ask, "where did all that water come from"? Maybe you really are ignorant of the implications.
Here in BC, Joe Sixpack asks, why these dangerous dams gotta be built? Previous administration's answer: blah blah fracking blah blah economy blah blah. How did Joe even find out abut all this blah blah Sir the microphone is still on.
And here's your homework [thetyee.ca] started for you.
Last fall I had to go through the BC mountains and once we got off the beaten path, every creek and river had shitloads of hoses and pumps taking it all away to... somewhere. While weird, I didn't think on it much since I had more pressing concerns at the time. Only later did the penny drop.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:48PM (1 child)
Why do conservatives prefer to endorse the profit motives of big businesses, fossil fuels and not, say, land conservation or the will of the regular people?
why are they against solar power and windmills? if power generation is still turning the lights on, why the entrenched favoratism with industries that might not be the best business decision as a whole? Certainly oil companies favor oil policy that benefits them; but the conservative mindset is very hard to understand when a different type of big business may emerge--that even does the same thing but with less mess--yet they are against it because of eco hippies or something?
That is foolish. there is money to be made if that's what its all about. if its about a fear of change, the climate is changing, but I guess it doesn't change fast enough to cause fear.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:34AM
For conservative politicians, it's about collecting the lobbyist money, whoever is paying.
Corporations are trying to keep flogging their horse, and will until it is dead and longer.
Smart conservatives will trek out new ways to make money, but the old money dies slowly.
It's like the only reason Microsoft is still viable is because of all the money they have in the bank: they can lobby HARD, they can last out hard times, they can force their will.
On an equal level Microsoft would have died looong ago and we'd ALL be using Linux.
Money talks for a long time, even once most people have stopped listening.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @07:06PM (3 children)
Alberta premier Notley says she "will do whatever it takes" to get the pipeline pushed through. Those are the words of a fanatic/lunatic/fascist. What if it takes a tanker spill or two? What if the effects of extracting the dirtiest oil in the world become apparent? I guess "whatever" means whatever.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:26PM (2 children)
"Miz Premier, we will only vote for this project if you eat this live kitten on national TV."
"...Dammit."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @10:46AM (1 child)
Can I at least have some soy sauce to dip it in?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:12PM
https://giphy.com/gifs/futurama-swim-popplers-e4lyLoT5zGHdK [giphy.com]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)
The Federal government has also said it supports Indigenous rights and the rights of all Canadians, yet sadly that is only the case when it is convenient for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @10:41AM
And there is such a thing as expropriation. And it happens because the rights of the many outweigh the property rights of the few. Otherwise you could stop a highway by buying some strategic land in between. The same thing applies here. If you don't want a pipeline, stop the demand for oil. Problem solved?
(Score: 3, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 10 2018, @11:19PM (6 children)
Strange for a person who chose a nick of Snow to be so resigned to the burning of such costly hydrocarbons and the loss of snow and ice that will cause.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @05:02AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @04:00PM
More and more I wonder if you are a really advanced chatbot. The first proper AI but still too stupid for really basic reading comprehension.
If you're on the autistic spectrum maybe say so and people will cut you some slack. That is a phrase which means they won't criticize you for every mistake.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @07:25AM
Although really wishing that that white skin meant they were of proud Aryan stock instead of a Mongrel that will be tricked into helping with the purge before becoming a victim of it themselves :)
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:27PM (2 children)
Like I said above, I was against the pipeline, but the decision was made to build it, so it's time to move on. I'm not militantly against it. I realize the the oil sands will continue to produce for the foreseeable future weather or not additional pipeline capacity gets built.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday April 11 2018, @05:44PM (1 child)
I do not share that view. We're pretty close to the Year of the Electric Car. Possible that it never happens, and that there's a breakthrough with some engineered strain of bacteria that makes producing biofuel extremely economical, or some other advance gives a big, long term advantage to combustion, but I'm betting on electric. 30 minutes of recharging to go only 200km does not work for road trips, or sustained use such as a delivery vehicle, but it's close. If that range was increased to 1000km, or the recharge time was reduced to 10 minutes, and the batteries last at least 10 years, that would more than do it. Maybe 500km is enough range. Tesla getting their production problems sorted out might bring the electric car as soon as next year.
One of the most frustrating things is it's so easy to get another 10% or more just with better aerodynamics, stuff like adding skirts to the rear wheels and smoothing the underside of the car, but the auto manufacturers won't do it because the first is "ugly", and the second is very much out of mind because it's out of sight.
Anyway, I'm thinking we're going to see a mass movement from combustion engines to electric motors sometime in the 2020s. Transportation takes about 1/3 of the oil produced, and if that demand rapidly drops thanks to a shift to electric, the economic case for those oil sands may no longer exist.
In the meantime, like others in the oil business, pipeline operators have shown reckless disregard for safety. Though it hurts them more to lose 100,000 barrels in a leak than to maintain their pipelines, and I'm talking just the value of the oil that was spilled, never mind the costs of the cleanup and the lawsuits, they keep cutting corners and cheating on maintenance. Oil is such a rich source of energy, everyone can afford such waste, and people have been sloppy about it.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @06:54PM
I'm with ya man! Electric cars are the future.
It takes time for everyone to buy a shiny new electric car. It also takes time for the electrical grid to build up enough renewable energy to power them. Airplanes will need hydrocarbons for quite some time. Petrochemical usage is significant.
It's going to take time though.
(Score: 2) by https on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:13PM
Tell that to Quebec.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:02PM (1 child)
When they say it is "trans mountain", that means it is only pretending to be a mountain. Adding some bulges sticking up does not really make a pipeline into a mountain.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:13PM
Came to the valley down from the hills.
Said that it was no longer pristine and natural.
Tried to lay more pipe below the existing one.
Rule 34.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:24PM (6 children)
Hmm, must be a political article about something in parliament. Or are we still on the ground in a war somewhere?
Oh, no wait "forces" is a verb.
Kinder Morgan as opposed to meaner Morgan? Okay who is this about
Oh, it's a company.
Normally I argue for capitalization in headlines but blarg.
P.S: Can we stop naming companies after people? Cf. Chase Morgan Bank
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:20PM
Why do I need to chase Morgan Bank?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:08PM
Follow the money. That is where you will find the real story. My bet Bill Gates. He owns a good majority of the rail roads in canada. His buddy mr Buffet owns a good majority of the ones in the US. Guess how they want canada moving oil around. Big hint it is not by pipeline.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:57PM (2 children)
It's pronounced like "in" is pronounced.
Kinder Eggs are hollow chocolate candies that contain a plastic capsule with a children's toy inside.
Kinder Eggs aren't sold in the US because they present a choking hazard to small children. However Nestle sells a spherical hollow chocolate toy in the US that contains toys that are just as bad a hazard.
But that's OK because Nestle is one of the biggest companies on the planet.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)
Kinder Eggs are nice. They're not called Kinder because they're nice. They're called Kinder because they're for children. Very sad our children are growing up without wonderful German toys & candy because of BURDENSOME REGULATION!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:15PM
This is actually the closest your posts have come to outright Informative.
Ooh, so close, but you just had to blow that load all over the bed.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 11 2018, @07:20AM
Trans mountain pipeline: a pipeline into which you put transsexual mountains.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday April 11 2018, @09:15AM
Folks, Kinder Morgan is a tremendous company. I'm a big fan and also an owner. They have a great future. Because if Canada doesn't let them do their pipelines, they can run them through America. So long as they build with AMERICAN STEEL!