Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 08:39:01 am


Title: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 08:39:01 am
A pretty damning indictment of BC Liberals and, to a lesser extent, Vision Vancouver's policies on housing and crime, from Macleans.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-battle-to-clean-up-b-c/


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 09:23:32 pm
Interesting read.  It's almost like a brochure for a handful of different topics that all need in-depth study on their own.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on February 08, 2018, 11:00:43 pm
Nothing in there was news to me but well written for those not familiar with this quagmire.  I hope to see Christie Clark in handcuffs one day but I’m not holding my breath.

Meanwhile if my parents weren’t in this city I’d be long gone.  I used to love this city but it’s truly a **** hole now.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 09, 2018, 12:06:52 pm
It's a mess that most southern BC residents were well aware of. The Liberals deserve the lions share of the blame but the feds and cities weren't much help either. One wonders whether it was due to monumental incompetence or politicians unwilling to do anything that might affect their own property values. Probably both with the possibility of some plain old corruption thrown in.

Our oldest grandson is in second year engineering at UBC and has been offered a CO-OP job in Edmonton which it looks like he will take. I think him getting out of the lower mainland and seeing what the rest of the country has to offer might be the best thing that could happen to him. We moved back to BC long before the housing market went nuts but Edmonton was very good to us when we lived there during the seventies.

Now our new Premier has decided to start a war with Alberta and the rest of Canada. BC politics.  ::) Is BC the Quebec of the West?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 12:25:57 pm
Nothing in there was news to me but well written for those not familiar with this quagmire.  I hope to see Christie Clark in handcuffs one day but I’m not holding my breath.

Meanwhile if my parents weren’t in this city I’d be long gone.  I used to love this city but it’s truly a **** hole now.

Interesting (if scary) read. I didn't know quite all of what was going on just across the water from me. Maybe once Trump gets impeached we should offer him a job up here. He is an expert on **** holes you know.  :'(
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 12:33:06 pm
It's a mess that most southern BC residents were well aware of. The Liberals deserve the lions share of the blame but the feds and cities weren't much help either. One wonders whether it was due to monumental incompetence or politicians unwilling to do anything that might affect their own property values. Probably both with the possibility of some plain old corruption thrown in.

Our oldest grandson is in second year engineering at UBC and has been offered a CO-OP job in Edmonton which it looks like he will take. I think him getting out of the lower mainland and seeing what the rest of the country has to offer might be the best thing that could happen to him. We moved back to BC long before the housing market went nuts but Edmonton was very good to us when we lived there during the seventies.

Now our new Premier has decided to start a war with Alberta and the rest of Canada. BC politics.  ::) Is BC the Quebec of the West?

I agree that kids should spread their wings a bit before deciding where to settle.  I lived in several places in BC, but always wanted to live in the Lower Mainland; I was lucky enough to get into a reasonably priced place in the suburbs before the prices skyrocketed and so am relatively well positioned, despite a lower-than-middle-class income level. 

It's unclear to me why we're blaming Horgan for a war; Notley decided to go after our wine industry, which hurts her province as much as it hurts ours.  I don't have an issue with a pipeline personally, as long as there is stringent quality control and an enforced obligation that the company pay for clean up of any spills, but if Horgan/Weaver were elected on a Green platform, it's what the people of BC chose, eh?  We're allowed to do that.  Was Notley elected to hinder trade between the provinces?   

And, perhaps Albertans are unaware of the serious ill-effects of the oil industry, and the way in which oil companies have decimated the landscape and then decamped-even prior to the oil industry slump-leaving clean up and remediation to the taxpayer.  It is certainly an aspect that I have rarely seen publicized.   Another low profile side-effect is that people who live near tar sands are physically ill; I only orginally heard about it because a friend is a mortgage broker and was trying to sell the house of a woman who was dying due to her exposure; not surprisingly, the house was hard to sell. 

Perhaps Notley is simply virtue-signalling?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 09, 2018, 01:02:10 pm
Horgan made it very clear that he would do anything he could to stop this pipeline, he is doing just that. I don't blame Notley one bit for hitting back. We don't have the right to block other provinces from getting their products to market.

Canada is shooting itself in the foot. We had a 3.2B trade deficit in December, yet we shoot down Energy East and import 30B worth of foreign oil every year at world price while forcing our own producers to sell our oil to the US at a big discount. Dumb, dumb, dumb. No wonder energy companies are moving their resources and investments south. Contrary to Justin's rosy rhetoric, this is not an investment friendly country for any industry that needs to make a large investment in infrastructure.

The inability to do anything to expand domestic or international markets is having the same effect as Trudeau Sr's NEP and will result in the same animosity between Alberta and the rest of the country.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 01:21:18 pm
Horgan made it very clear that he would do anything he could to stop this pipeline, he is doing just that. I don't blame Notley one bit for hitting back. We don't have the right to block other provinces from getting their products to market.

Canada is shooting itself in the foot. We had a 3.2B trade deficit in December, yet we shoot down Energy East and import 30B worth of foreign oil every year at world price while forcing our own producers to sell our oil to the US at a big discount. Dumb, dumb, dumb. No wonder energy companies are moving their resources and investments south. Contrary to Justin's rosy rhetoric, this is not an investment friendly country for any industry that needs to make a large investment in infrastructure.

I defer to your knowledge; I am not so invested in this that I can really claim expertise on the new policy effects on the oil industry.   It does seem as if Alberta and the Feds poured a lot of money into the oil industry and yet it still tanked, so there doesn't seem to be a really reliable path to success.  And there are downsides that the oil industry and it's supporters rarely talk about; Alberta is now on the hook for billions of dollars to clean up the abandoned oil sites, a situation that the Pembina Institute forecast in 2009.

https://www.pembina.org/reports/toxicliabilityfactsheetfinal.pdf

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/clean-up-liabilities-continue-to-swell-in-alberta-as-first-oilsands-project-is-orphaned

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/estimated-cleanup-costs-for-albertas-mines-jumps-to-232-billion/article34912511/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 09, 2018, 01:40:39 pm
Seems to me, that is Alberta's problem. Maybe if they could get world price for their product, those costs could be covered.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 02:04:40 pm
Seems to me, that is Alberta's problem. Maybe if they could get world price for their product, those costs could be covered.

The Alberta gov was cleaning up abandoned sites when they were getting "world price"; saw a news story about it a year or two before the crash.

And its our country, so its our problem and we are all paying.

Quote
In a news conference in Edmonton, Premier Rachel Notley called the payout “good news” and confirmed the money will be used for remediation of abandoned wells that no longer have corporate owners.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/federal-budget-slashes-drilling-deductions-grants-alberta-30-million-to-stimulate-economy
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 02:20:06 pm
Nothing in there was news to me but well written for those not familiar with this quagmire.  I hope to see Christie Clark in handcuffs one day but I’m not holding my breath.

Meanwhile if my parents weren’t in this city I’d be long gone.  I used to love this city but it’s truly a **** hole now.

It seems politicians are untouchable when it comes to profiting from their position.

 I was interested in the comments about shell companies buying real estate for foreign ownership; I never did think the 10 %+/-  bandied about at various times could have that much of an effect on the housing prices, it makes more sense if it's much higher so hidden foreign ownership seems more possible. Still, the majority of the real estate market are not foreigners, so why are locals supporting ever-increasing prices?  I think the biggest issue is the speculative aspect of buying real estate, whether one is local or foreign.

Also, I have to agree the 15% foreign buyers tax was a joke.  If one is buying or selling million+ dollar properties, $15,000 is merely negotiation.   I think the empty homes tax has a better chance of success in moderating the real estate market, because it's annual and not a one-off payment.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on February 09, 2018, 02:28:17 pm
Also, I have to agree the 15% foreign buyers tax was a joke.  If one is buying or selling million+ dollar properties, $15,000 is merely negotiation.   I think the empty homes tax has a better chance of success in moderating the real estate market, because it's annual and not a one-off payment.

I think the only solution is to ban anyone from buying real estate unless they are permanent residents or citizens who live and work in the country.  The foreign buyer tax was stupid because there are hard-working landed immigrants who are working here, contributing to society and plan on making Canada their home.  It also prevents many companies from making Vancouver home because they would have a harder time attracting employees. 

Corporations should also not be able to own residential properties.  Let the actual people who live and work in Vancouver buy the real estate and watch prices start to tumble. 

Horgan said he won't do that and I wrote my MPP a letter because he's NDP and I supported his campaign, but if the NDP doesn't fix this issue I'm never voting for them again.



 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 09, 2018, 02:37:30 pm
New Zealand banned foreign ownership by non residents last year. Be interesting to see how that turns out.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 09, 2018, 03:17:54 pm

Also, I have to agree the 15% foreign buyers tax was a joke.  If one is buying or selling million+ dollar properties, $15,000 is merely negotiation.   I think the empty homes tax has a better chance of success in moderating the real estate market, because it's annual and not a one-off payment.

15% of $1 million dollars = $150,000. 

That is chump change only to foreign nationals who have lots of money to launder.

In which case, our government is complicit by accepting that money even if it is collected as a "tax." 

That is the problem with the tax: morally it is just the government cashing in on known money laundering. 

They know it, we know it, everyone knows it and yet it continues because it is profitable.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 03:33:45 pm
15% of $1 million dollars = $150,000. 

That is chump change only to foreign nationals who have lots of money to launder.

In which case, our government is complicit by accepting that money even if it is collected as a "tax." 

That is the problem with the tax: morally it is just the government cashing in on known money laundering. 

They know it, we know it, everyone knows it and yet it continues because it is profitable.

It's not just foreign nationals who have "chump change".   Someone of my slight acquaintance talked about being paid to take 100,000s of thousands of dollars to the currency exchange places, laundering for biker gangs.  Perhaps they've moved up to casinos too. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 11:50:20 am
For me the most interesting part was this:
Quote
A trove of incriminating paper trails only now coming to light shows Clark’s Liberals knew very well what was happening.

For now, the job of sorting everything out has fallen mostly to David Eby, B.C.’s 41-year-old Justice Minister and Attorney-General. Two months ago, in a speech at a conference co-hosted by Transparency International Canada and the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform, Eby described Vancouver and British Columbia in the most accurately unflattering terms.

“We knew there was something strange going on, but, my God, we had no idea it was this big,” Eby said. British Columbia had become reduced to “a jurisdiction where the rules do not apply to white collar crime, fraud, tax evasion and money laundering, where even if the rules do apply, enforcement is absent.”

Over the past 10 years, the B.C. Securities Commission had collected less than two per cent of more than a half a billion dollars in fines levied against a rogue’s gallery of fraudsters, swindlers and ripoff artists.

I recall reading somewhere before that BC was "the wild west" when it came to law and enforcement when it came to a variety of white collar crime.  And I've always been highly suspicious of the relationship between the BC Liberals and big business-- in particular the mining industry. Things like their dogged determination to get the Prosperity Lake mine approved on behalf of the developer, or the complete lack of consequence in wake of the Mount Polley mine disaster, definitely make me wonder. Hearing that the government only bothered to collect about 2% of the fines they've levied in the past 10 years raises more questions.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 02:05:55 pm
It's unclear to me why we're blaming Horgan for a war;

Because he started it.

Notley decided to go after our wine industry, which hurts her province as much as it hurts ours.   

I think Albertans can probably survive just fine without BC wine.   It was a well-chosen target for retaliation because it has a high profile in BC, but relatively modest in terms of actual economic significance.  Except here in Kim Country, where this has been a big topic on the radio every day for the past week. 


if Horgan/Weaver were elected on a Green platform, it's what the people of BC chose, eh?  We're allowed to do that.  Was Notley elected to hinder trade between the provinces?   

Was Horgan?

The BC election was run after the Kinder-Morgan expansion was already approved by the federal government, so if BC voters thought that electing Horgan was going to reverse the approval, they got suckered.

Horgan's review is a stall-tactic.  He knows he can't overrule the federal government but is hoping to delay the project enough that the industry gets fed up and quits.


Perhaps Notley is simply virtue-signalling?

Absolutely.  She has to be seen to be standing up for Alberta's oil industry.  If not, she will be crushed in the next election, and BC can deal with Jason Kenney instead. If you think Notley is being unpleasant about this, just wait until you see Kenney.

And Horgan is also virtue-signaling here, as he's trying to be seen standing up for the environment after disappointing green (and Green) voters on the Site C Dam.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on February 10, 2018, 02:24:04 pm
I think the trad war is hilarious...   

BC wants to ensure oil is properly cleaned up....    Alberta wants none of it...   bans BC wines!   Albertan buiseness folks have invested MILLIONS into BC wineries...   LOL

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/british-columbia-wine-alberta-owners-penticton-produced-1.4524867

Of course, they wouldn’t ban BC beer...   since AB beer is dog ****.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on February 10, 2018, 02:45:17 pm
I think the trad war is hilarious...   

BC wants to ensure oil is properly cleaned up....   

BC does not give a **** about oil being properly cleaned up. BC wants no pipelines. Period. End of story. Not with a hundred conditions, or a thousand or ten thousand. The only pipelines they want are the ones bringing oil and gasoline they themselves use.

I still think a better response would be banning aircraft fuel from the existing pipeline on some environmental pretext or another. Of course, BC can always import it in big tankers. I'm sure highly flammable jet fuel won't be any kind of hazard to their ports.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2018, 09:10:00 pm
They already shot down a jet fuel pipeline to YVR, so of course it has to be brought in by truck and barge.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 10, 2018, 09:24:54 pm
Trucking and barging jet fuel would be a waste given that they actually pipe it directly: https://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/transmountain_jetfuel.aspx

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2018, 09:33:36 pm
Trucking and barging jet fuel would be a waste given that they actually pipe it directly: https://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/transmountain_jetfuel.aspx

I'm a little behind the times, it was an expansion and relocation that was opposed and held up for several years. I now see that it was approved last year and will be operating in 2019. Of course the cost of the project will now be double.
https://biv.com/article/2017/06/new-150-million-jet-fuel-pipeline-project-underway

No worries though, the increase in cost will just be added to your plane ticket.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 11, 2018, 01:14:13 am
Oh no, an extra buck for my next trip.

Whatever will I do?

I know, I’ll buy a cheaper Gray Monk merlot rather than a more expensive La Stella.  But just this one time because La Stella is stellar.

Oh, I suffer. 

Or maybe I can switch to a nice vegatarian meal and skip some Alberta beef to save a few bucks....



eta: ok, price check on the wine. Gray Monk merlot is $21 a bottle compared to the $90 for the La Stella. Will have to do a tasting to see if the extra $70 is worth it.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2018, 09:40:14 am
Oh no, an extra buck for my next trip.

Whatever will I do?

I know, I’ll buy a cheaper Gray Monk merlot rather than a more expensive La Stella.  But just this one time because La Stella is stellar.

Oh, I suffer. 

Or maybe I can switch to a nice vegatarian meal and skip some Alberta beef to save a few bucks....



eta: ok, price check on the wine. Gray Monk merlot is $21 a bottle compared to the $90 for the La Stella. Will have to do a tasting to see if the extra $70 is worth it.

The point is this nonsense just drives prices up and discourages investment. Rejoice, you might get your wine cheaper because BC producers have just lost their second biggest market. I'm sure they are ecstatic about that. Then again, the government will probably put our prices up because of the revenue they are losing.

https://country105.com/news/4012951/alberta-beef-boycott-would-have-been-banning-our-own-product-b-c-cattlemen/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4010495/albertans-are-b-c-s-3rd-biggest-tourism-spenders-could-trade-war-put-that-at-risk/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2018, 10:27:48 am
Just listening to Micheal Campbell this morning. He made the point that by having to sell our oil to the US at up to $30 a barrel less than world price, that is a $70M gift we are giving American consumers and business every day. That's $2.5 billion a year. In the mean time, we spend 30B a year on foreign oil at world price because we can't build a pipeline in our own friggin country.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2018, 01:22:24 pm
I think the trad war is hilarious...   

BC wants to ensure oil is properly cleaned up....    Alberta wants none of it...   bans BC wines!   Albertan buiseness folks have invested MILLIONS into BC wineries...   LOL

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/british-columbia-wine-alberta-owners-penticton-produced-1.4524867

Of course, they wouldn’t ban BC beer...   since AB beer is dog ****.

You think those Alberta owned wineries don't pay BC business taxes, as well as employ local people and suppliers and their employees who also pay BC taxes?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on February 11, 2018, 02:28:38 pm
Whatever will I do?
Too many people BC seem to admire Trump for his f-everyone else, screw your neighbors approach to diplomacy and a complete ignorance for facts or logic. Which is kind of ironic since most people in BC claim to despise the guy while they imitate him.

The core of this issue are the principles of confederation. BC joined the union and has benefit immensely and that means it has a moral and legal obligation to reciprocate. This means living with the risks that come with shipping goods from other provinces.

It is also ironic that all of oil/gas spills off the coast in the last few years have come from non-oil related shipping - something that accounts for >85% of the traffic in the port of Vancouver even when the pipeline expansion goes ahead.

This will get nasty before it ends. The federal government has a lot of power to force the BC government to comply.  The question is whether it will feel compeled to use it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on February 11, 2018, 02:57:44 pm
Saying BCers admire Trump is asinine and a red herring.  What the hell does Trump have to do with anything?? ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on February 11, 2018, 03:09:28 pm
Saying BCers admire Trump is asinine and a red herring.  What the hell does Trump have to do with anything??
The comparison is not wrong even if you dislike it. Please explain why the f-you approach that many in BC take towards Alberta is any different that the f-you approach that Trump takes towards the US trading partners? Don't bother trying to claim that the "environmental" reasons claimed are any less bogus that the "dumping" claims the the Trump administration loves. They aren't.

You also ignored the more important part: BC joined the confederation and has benefit immensely and that means it has a moral and legal obligation to reciprocate.

If BC refuses to honour the constitution we will have a situation where the federal government will be forced to resort to extraordinary measures such as freezing all of the accounts of the government of BC. Many in BC may think they can shrug off bans on wine or loss of jet fuel shipments but these actions are just to make a point. The nuclear option exists and the sane people would look for a compromise that allows the pipeline to get built instead of pushing for a crisis where the nuclear option looks viable.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on February 11, 2018, 03:11:02 pm
Saying BCers admire Trump is asinine and a red herring.  What the hell does Trump have to do with anything?? ::)

I'm a BC'er and I would have to look hard to find a Trump supporter anywhere I've been, so yeah, total red herring.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on February 11, 2018, 03:47:37 pm
The comparison is not wrong even if you dislike it. Please explain why the f-you approach that many in BC take towards Alberta is any different that the f-you approach that Trump takes towards the US trading partners? Don't bother trying to claim that the "environmental" reasons claimed are any less bogus that the "dumping" claims the the Trump administration loves. They aren't.

You also ignored the more important part: BC joined the confederation and has benefit immensely and that means it has a moral and legal obligation to reciprocate.

If BC refuses to honour the constitution we will have a situation where the federal government will be forced to resort to extraordinary measures such as freezing all of the accounts of the government of BC. Many in BC may think they can shrug off bans on wine or loss of jet fuel shipments but these actions are just to make a point. The nuclear option exists and the sane people would look for a compromise that allows the pipeline to get built instead of pushing for a crisis where the nuclear option looks viable.

Yeah I don't think any bank accounts are going to be froze. But you are mostly correct that the federal government has the legal upper hand here, what it will boil down to is if they think it is worth spending the political capitol to use that upper hand.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 11, 2018, 08:51:16 pm
Too many people BC seem to admire Trump for his f-everyone else, screw your neighbors approach to diplomacy and a complete ignorance for facts or logic. Which is kind of ironic since most people in BC claim to despise the guy while they imitate him.

The core of this issue are the principles of confederation. BC joined the union and has benefit immensely and that means it has a moral and legal obligation to reciprocate. This means living with the risks that come with shipping goods from other provinces.

It is also ironic that all of oil/gas spills off the coast in the last few years have come from non-oil related shipping - something that accounts for >85% of the traffic in the port of Vancouver even when the pipeline expansion goes ahead.

This will get nasty before it ends. The federal government has a lot of power to force the BC government to comply.  The question is whether it will feel compeled to use it.

Weird that you use my post for your post.

I support the TMP.

I also support BC wine, AB beef, site c dam, solar and wind projects, natural gas plants and electric vehicles.

If such support eventually turns the oil sands upside down, well, that is something for those people to think about.

As for the feds having lots of power to use. Ok, fine, explain what power they can use and how this will effect future relations, impact future elections, etc because the fed Liberals make these calculations just like the fed CPC and NDP.

But then, it should be no surprise that the NDP governments from two provinces are going about in the mutual destruction of each’s economy: that’s what the NDP do. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on February 11, 2018, 11:54:17 pm
Weird that you use my post for your post.
Misunderstood your point.

As for the feds having lots of power to use. Ok, fine, explain what power they can use and how this will effect future relations, impact future elections, etc because the fed Liberals make these calculations just like the fed CPC and NDP.
Well, if BC breaking the constitution leads to Alberta doing the same they will really have no choice but to stand up for the constitution and demanding that everyone stop because that is the only position that can be logically sustained. More importantly, if BC is allowed to block pipelines then you will see resource investment in Canada plument to new lows as international investors look for some nice authoritarian regimes (the bribes may be costly but the projects can at least go ahead once they are paid).

In any case, the BC economy is largely based on real estate and completely dependent on outside money to keep the hamster wheel turning. If there is any sort housing bust BC will be begging the feds for help.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 12, 2018, 12:12:15 pm
Yes, if the money laundering flow from Asia dissipates and the locals notice increasing interest rates then BC is n for big time trouble.

Of course, then BC may have to raise the money lost from declining property transfer taxes with pipeline land lease costs, I suppose. 

Section 92 of the Constitution: Seems what the Constitution gives it can also take away. 

If only our politicians would behave themselves then we all could have nice things.

Instead, the poop show will continue at the loss of jobs and higher taxes.  Again, this is the way of NDP governments and the feds are not helping.

The wreck of BC has just begun and who woulda thunk that the corrupt BC Liberals were just the appetizers.



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on February 20, 2018, 05:10:36 pm
15% of $1 million dollars = $150,000. 

That is chump change only to foreign nationals who have lots of money to launder.

In which case, our government is complicit by accepting that money even if it is collected as a "tax." 

That is the problem with the tax: morally it is just the government cashing in on known money laundering. 

They know it, we know it, everyone knows it and yet it continues because it is profitable.


Your post here resonated with me when I read it and and I've been waiting anxiously to see what the budget would look like.  By increasing and expanding the foreign buyer tax to include Nanaimo, Victoria and Kelowna, it looks like the NDP is set to profit as much as possible from all that ails the province.

What a joke, I know Weaver was for banning foreign ownership, I wonder if this will create a rift between them.



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on February 22, 2018, 11:43:10 pm
Good move by the BC gov’t to get a judicial review to say yay or nay to the question of jurisdiction.

Alberta claims a win.  Lol

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wine-boycott-ends-1.4547754
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2018, 06:37:37 am
What a joke, I know Weaver was for banning foreign ownership, I wonder if this will create a rift between them.
Banning foreign ownership is pointless unless something is done about the use of companies to hold real estate while hiding the true owners.
I like the fact that the tax is based on income taxes paid in BC (I think it should be based on income taxes paid in Canada though).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 23, 2018, 08:48:45 am
Tax returns are done by CRA, do provincial governments have access to your federal tax info?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 23, 2018, 09:23:41 am
The feds and BC have an agreement where the CRA administers the income tax for BC.

They share information which allows BC to administer the MSP assistance up to this point.

So yes BC does know who is paying BC income taxes and how much and can match it to individual physical addresses. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on February 23, 2018, 09:30:50 am
The feds and BC have an agreement where the CRA administers the income tax for BC.

They share information which allows BC to administer the MSP assistance up to this point.

So yes BC does know who is paying BC income taxes and how much and can match it to individual physical addresses.

Provincial tax is a percentage of federal tax so it would be easy to figure out how much federal tax was paid. I was referring to the actual return details. BC for instance would not be entitled to the tax information of an Ontario resident buying property in BC.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 23, 2018, 10:04:49 am
See page 80(86 on the PDF) here: http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2018/bfp/2018_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf#page86

It is a separate system I guess to keep those MSP jobs going. 

People will need to provide information (SIN, worldwide income etc) so this will be interesting to see how effective it is.

I understand one form of exemption is a long term lease (presumably month to month but on a yearly basis) which will hurt the cottage onwers from the ROC. 

But from the BC NDP pov these are foreigners too. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on February 23, 2018, 02:05:33 pm
Provincial tax is a percentage of federal tax so it would be easy to figure out how much federal tax was paid. I was referring to the actual return details. BC for instance would not be entitled to the tax information of an Ontario resident buying property in BC.

BC has been assessing its own tax rates on taxable income since at 2000. 

But BC gets the CRA to administer/collect it for them so it has to accept the federal definition of taxable income.

This last point is very important because Andrew Weaver was making idiotic statements (doesn't he always?) about taxing lifetime capital gains on principal residences above $750,000.

"Well, fine Mr. Weaver, but that means you will have to break the BC/CRA tax administration agreement so do you have anything to say about the impact of that"  said no journalist ever because journalists are as dumb as our F'ing politicians.



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 11:22:51 am
Alberta now threatening to turn off the gasoline tap. BC gas prices could go over $2.00 a litre if they do. I say good on them, is BC part of Canada or not?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 09, 2018, 11:29:10 am
MacLean's has a very funny article posted today comparing Notley's feeble attempt to appear tough to Trump.  She's trying to out Kenney Kenney and she's coming across sounding ridiculous.  She needs to stop pretending she's NDP.

From the article, this is hilarious:

Quote
Had she extended the act a few more beats, it might’ve sounded like this:

British Columbia is treating us very bad, and everyone is laughing at us. And we are tired of being laughed at. And I think if they don’t want our beautiful, beautiful oil, maybe we should just stop letting them have it altogether. We will put legislation on my desk soon to do just that, maybe next week. They won’t like that, believe me, but British Columbians and so many other people cannot keep doing the things they’re doing. It isn’t just Alberta first, really it’s Canada first. Without pipelines, we don’t have a country.


ETA - I also agree with the jist of the article.  She's doing this to get a better approval rating, and like Trump, it's nothing but cheap talk.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 11:40:37 am
Lougheed did it during the NEP dispute with Ottawa and it worked. There is bipartisan and popular support for this in Alberta.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 09, 2018, 11:54:42 am
She won't do it for the same reason Trump won't.  It'll hurt her province just as much.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 09, 2018, 02:41:09 pm
Lougheed did it during the NEP dispute with Ottawa and it worked. There is bipartisan and popular support for this in Alberta.

And BC buys gas from Washington if this happens.

I read that 60% of goods to Alberta come through BC ports.   BC turns away any ships at the ports that have goods that have Alberta as their destination.   

A “trade war” would be sheer stupidity.  Good luck with that Alberta...

But what’s happening is politics.  Victimhood is popular with Alberta voters and Notley is playing it up.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 09, 2018, 04:46:21 pm
A “trade war” would be sheer stupidity.  Good luck with that Alberta...
You misunderstand the point. The federal government has approved the pipeline and BC is not constitutionally allowed to stop it. However, the federal Liberals would rather not pay the political cost of enforcing its jurisdiction. The point of any actions by alberta are to create as much chaos as possible in order to force the feds to get off the fence and enforce its jurisdiction.

BTW: BC politicians are the 'Trump-style' self-centered SOBs in this drama because they seem to think they can be part of the Canadian confederation without having to make concessions to the other partners. Anything Alberta does is in response the SOBs in BC that created the mess in the first place.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 06:05:01 pm
And BC buys gas from Washington if this happens.

I read that 60% of goods to Alberta come through BC ports.   BC turns away any ships at the ports that have goods that have Alberta as their destination.   

A “trade war” would be sheer stupidity.  Good luck with that Alberta...

But what’s happening is politics.  Victimhood is popular with Alberta voters and Notley is playing it up.

Do you seriously think ships carry cargo that is destined for Alberta only? Start screwing with shipping companies and they will just go to Seattle. Seattle will jump for joy as BC shoots itself in the foot yet again.

When Lougheed cut back production during the NEP, Prince Indigeous' old man got the point pretty quick.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 06:12:50 pm
She won't do it for the same reason Trump won't.  It'll hurt her province just as much.

It's hurting her province already, that's the point. They have to sell their oil to the US at a 30% discount because they can't access any other markets.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 09, 2018, 07:34:02 pm
Do you seriously think ships carry cargo that is destined for Alberta only? Start screwing with shipping companies and they will just go to Seattle. Seattle will jump for joy as BC shoots itself in the foot yet again.

When Lougheed cut back production during the NEP, Prince Indigeous' old man got the point pretty quick.

Sure...   good luck with your markets when zero oils flows through pipelines in BC.  If they thought not being able to expand oil exports was bad, wait until BC puts a big plug in the existing pipeline.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 08:00:15 pm
Sure...   good luck with your markets when zero oils flows through pipelines in BC.  If they thought not being able to expand oil exports was bad, wait until BC puts a big plug in the existing pipeline.

It's not my oil, I'm a British Columbian born and bred but I'm a Canadian first.

BC get's most of it's refined petroleum products from Alberta, US refineries take up the slack. When a Washington State refinery goes down for maintenance, it has the same effect on BC gas prices as an Alberta refinery going down. BC is dependent on Alberta and the US for most of its petroleum products. BC has one refinery. Put a plug in the existing pipeline and it will be dependent on other countries for all of its petroleum products. You like three bucks a litre for gas? Fill your boots. Shut down the port and YVR because ships and aircraft can't get fuel. Fill your boots.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 09, 2018, 08:41:33 pm
It's not my oil, I'm a British Columbian born and bred but I'm a Canadian first.

I wasn’t saying “your” as in Wilbur.   The universal “your”. 

Quote
BC get's most of it's refined petroleum products from Alberta, US refineries take up the slack. When a Washington State refinery goes down for maintenance, it has the same effect on BC gas prices as an Alberta refinery going down. BC is dependent on Alberta and the US for most of its petroleum products. BC has one refinery. Put a plug in the existing pipeline and it will be dependent on other countries for all of its petroleum products. You like three bucks a litre for gas? Fill your boots. Shut down the port and YVR because ships and aircraft can't get fuel. Fill your boots.

All irrelevant....    if Alberta turns off the taps to BC, then BC gets American gas and turns off the existing pipeline.  A trade war is sheer stupidity.  BC already took the high road by not retaliating and allowing the courts to settle the jurisdictional issues.  Notley is posturing for the election. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 09:26:47 pm
I wasn’t saying “your” as in Wilbur.   The universal “your”. 

All irrelevant....    if Alberta turns off the taps to BC, then BC gets American gas and turns off the existing pipeline.  A trade war is sheer stupidity.  BC already took the high road by not retaliating and allowing the courts to settle the jurisdictional issues.  Notley is posturing for the election.

American refineries are strapped as well. If you think they can automatically ramp up enough capacity to replace Alberta product you are dreaming. Why do you think gas prices don't go up and down with oil prices? We are paying as much for gas in BC as we did when oil was over $100 a barrel. Refinery capacity. There are two reasons more refineries aren't being built. One is lower mainland style nimbyism and the other is why would an oil company spend a billion bucks building a new refinery if it means they just get less money for their product. They tailor their refinery capacity to meet demand while getting the maximum amount for what they produce. That's why prices rocket  up whenever a single refinery on either side of the border goes off line.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2018, 09:34:36 pm
BTW, how are you planning to get all that American product, with those tankers you seem to hate or some kind of pipeline?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 09, 2018, 11:51:13 pm
My support for the TMX is waivering thanks to Kenney.

Which sux because I’m now getting desperate and looking at GM Bolts and Hyundai Ioniq’s.

Which goes against my nature since I’m currently driving a 2014 model (325hp ICE)  which I prefer not to replace until at least 2026 because I’m a cheap accountant.

But, you know, f^ck Kenney so....
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 08:34:09 am
My support for the TMX is waivering thanks to Kenney.
His rhetoric may be over the top but what are the alternatives? Sit by quietly until Kinder Morgan gives up due to excessive bureaucratic delays? Remember that delay = win for Horgan and other pipeline opponents. So raising the stakes now before it is clear that it is necessary is a rational strategy. Also, in the world of Trump too many people seem to naively believe they can be arrogant SOBs and others will be polite. When it comes to being arrogant Trump-like SOBs is was the BC politicians who started the fight. If Alberta responds with the same kind of behavior the ultimate blame rests with the BC politicians who started it with the "do whatever we can to block the pipeline" rhetoric.

Which sux because I’m now getting desperate and looking at GM Bolts and Hyundai Ioniq’s.
Sure - hedge your bets with an ICE vehicle that can play at being an EV. These types of cars are the future but they will still need a reliable source of gasoline.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 09:28:32 am
That might solve your personal transportation but if the NDP and Greens had their way a few years ago there would be no Peace project and we would be importing power to run your EV.

Just about everything we consume comes to us in something powered by a Diesel engine. What about them?

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 10, 2018, 10:21:25 am
Ultimately this is a clash of views on the future.

In one corner are the enviro-freaks who are panicking and would destroy economies because of their belief that the future looks so doomsday. They will do their best to bring unrefined granola bars to everyone within a 100km radius).

On the other side are the entrenched industrialist who will do anything to maintain their current position. They will sink to new lows in corruption resulting in poorly conceived projects.

Those who see mostly positive change that will undermine the entrenched interests while serving the fruit picker fantasies can just watch this poop show from the sidelines and hope that switchng over to decent EV’s will be enough to dampen oil demand to send a message to the crazies in Saudi Arabia and Alberta to go hump themselves while allowing enough clean oxygen to fill the fruit pickers brains to enlighten them.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 10:34:14 am
It's hurting her province already, that's the point. They have to sell their oil to the US at a 30% discount because they can't access any other markets.

We have the coast and we can make things way worse if this turns into an all out war.  It'll hurt us and it'll hurt them, that's why I think Notley is stupid to turn this into a trade war. 

She knows she'll never win against Kenney and she's desperately trying to out-Kenney Kenney.  In turn she's making this issue more contentious than need be.

Horgan is protecting our interests.  The locals here overwhelmingly don't want the expansion and I don't blame them (us).  I certainly don't want to see a 7 fold increase in tankers in Metro Vancouver. 

Burnaby is the next municipality over from me.  It doesn't matter how rare oil spills are, a 7 fold increase = 7 times more likely to happen.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 10, 2018, 10:36:35 am
MacLean's has a very funny article posted today comparing Notley's feeble attempt to appear tough to Trump.  She's trying to out Kenney Kenney and she's coming across sounding ridiculous.  She needs to stop pretending she's NDP.
(...)
She's doing this to get a better approval rating, and like Trump, it's nothing but cheap talk.

She's not playing games, this is a matter of political survival.  Alberta voters will not accept their premier standing by while Horgan and Weaver delay the pipeline expansion into oblivion.  She can either fight BC on this, or she can step aside and let Kenny do it.   Either way, Alberta isn't going to stop fighting on this issue.

What needs to happen is the federal government needs to step in and enforce their jurisdiction over this and remind Horgan that this pipeline expansion has already been approved.  It's sheer political cowardice from the federal government that is allowing this dispute to go on.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 10:41:34 am


What needs to happen is the federal government needs to step in and enforce their jurisdiction over this and remind Horgan that this pipeline expansion has already been approved.  It's sheer political cowardice from the federal government that is allowing this dispute to go on.


Which is why Horgan has turned the issue over to the courts.  Meanwhile Notley started turning it into a war which is where I can't support what she's doing.

Just because the federal government approved it doesn't make it legal.  What if we had a different government that didn't approve it and Alberta fought the decision?

Jurisdiction issues go to court, that's the democratic way.

Trudeau's government is bought and paid for by the Chinese government and they're the ones imposing this pipeline expansion on us.  What about us locals?  First Nations?  What about our rights and wishes?

Should our government just back down without at least trying to protect our interests and our wishes?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 10, 2018, 10:53:51 am
Just because the federal government approved it doesn't make it legal. 

I think it kinda does.

Jurisdiction issues go to court, that's the democratic way.

There isn't a jurisdiction issue here: this is an issue of federal jurisdiction.  That isn't in dispute.  Horgan and Weaver are trying to weasel around federal jurisdiction to try to undo a decision that was never theirs to make in the first place.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 10:56:37 am
I think it kinda does.

There isn't a jurisdiction issue here: this is an issue of federal jurisdiction.  That isn't in dispute.  Horgan and Weaver are trying to weasel around federal jurisdiction to try to undo a decision that was never theirs to make in the first place.

 -k

So if the feds ruled against it, you think Alberta should just quietly take it and not fight the decision? 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 11:02:54 am
So if the feds ruled against it, you think Alberta should just quietly take it and not fight the decision?
Expressing an opinion that one opposes a decision is different from creating a constitutional crisis and undermining confederation which is what BC is trying to do (you can't have a functioning federation if one partner is allowed to prevent the other partners from getting their products to market).

The reality is that the best long term interest of BC is to allow the pipeline to be built because blocking it at this point would have huge ramifications for the future investment in Canada (i.e. what company will invest anything in a country of the federal government is unable to ensure projects happen after approval?). People in BC today are drunk off Chinese money and seem to think they can live forever on their Chinese sugar daddy. Eventually that tap will run dry and BC will be in deep trouble and will need the money generated by resource projects to keep the economy a float.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 10, 2018, 11:04:38 am
So if the feds ruled against it, you think Alberta should just quietly take it and not fight the decision?

Maybe not, but what does that matter?  At this point, Horgan and Weaver are deliberately **** around. "Ok, you can do the pipeline, but we need to do a 'study' first."   "Heeey, no need to fight over this, we'll just do a court case to find out whether we can do a study."  They're just obstructing at this point, and you can't expect the Alberta government to just accept it.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 11:53:35 am
We have the coast and we can make things way worse if this turns into an all out war.  It'll hurt us and it'll hurt them, that's why I think Notley is stupid to turn this into a trade war. 

She knows she'll never win against Kenney and she's desperately trying to out-Kenney Kenney.  In turn she's making this issue more contentious than need be.

Horgan is protecting our interests.  The locals here overwhelmingly don't want the expansion and I don't blame them (us).  I certainly don't want to see a 7 fold increase in tankers in Metro Vancouver. 

Burnaby is the next municipality over from me.  It doesn't matter how rare oil spills are, a 7 fold increase = 7 times more likely to happen.

7 times more likely than what? 7 times nothing is still nothing.

I think you are in denial as to how much it can hurt us. What do you think up to a 100% increase in the cost of fuel would do to cost of goods in BC and the province's ability to compete in general?

Ships can go to Seattle which is the Port of Vancouver's main competitor. If you have been paying attention for the past few decades, you will know that the Port of Vancouver is always concerned about their ability to compete with Seattle. Aircraft only have to fly another hour to bypass YVR and land at YYC or YEG. Airlines do analysis as to whether it is more economical to tanker fuel or buy it locally. When the price reaches a point it is more economical to tanker that buy locally, their aircraft will carry as much as they can into the expensive airport so they only have to buy the minimum necessary for their next flight. Of course it costs fuel to tanker the extra weight which is bad for the environment but in a highly competitive industry, little things count.

Do you think people would be bitching if there was a 7 fold increase in shipping of any other kind? Alaska crude has been shipping since the early seventies under more challenging conditions that shipping out of Vancouver. Other than the Exxon Valdes which changed everything about the way oil is shipped, there have been no major incidents. Not only that, many of those Alaskan ships transit the Straight of Juan de Fuca enroute to American refineries right across the border.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 11:58:34 am
Which is why Horgan has turned the issue over to the courts.  Meanwhile Notley started turning it into a war which is where I can't support what she's doing.

Just because the federal government approved it doesn't make it legal.  What if we had a different government that didn't approve it and Alberta fought the decision?

Jurisdiction issues go to court, that's the democratic way.

Trudeau's government is bought and paid for by the Chinese government and they're the ones imposing this pipeline expansion on us.  What about us locals?  First Nations?  What about our rights and wishes?

Should our government just back down without at least trying to protect our interests and our wishes?

Maybe you should re-evaluate your interests and wishes.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 12:20:01 pm
Ultimately this is a clash of views on the future.

In one corner are the enviro-freaks who are panicking and would destroy economies because of their belief that the future looks so doomsday. They will do their best to bring unrefined granola bars to everyone within a 100km radius).

On the other side are the entrenched industrialist who will do anything to maintain their current position. They will sink to new lows in corruption resulting in poorly conceived projects.

Those who see mostly positive change that will undermine the entrenched interests while serving the fruit picker fantasies can just watch this poop show from the sidelines and hope that switchng over to decent EV’s will be enough to dampen oil demand to send a message to the crazies in Saudi Arabia and Alberta to go hump themselves while allowing enough clean oxygen to fill the fruit pickers brains to enlighten them.


I think we should be moving toward reducing carbon fuel use but people will have to deal with realities whether they like it or not.

EV's need electricity. BC has limited options when it comes to non carbon generation. Other than off the west coast of Vancouver Island and the North Coast, we don't have areas with sustained winds that make wind generation viable and our northern latitude and cloudy winters make solar a marginal operation. Hydro, nuclear and things like generating methane by composting are our only options. Nuclear is a non starter with the tree huggers and hydro isn't far behind these days. Guess we will just need to generate more garbage to produce methane.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 12:24:58 pm
Jurisdiction issues go to court, that's the democratic way.
There is no jurisdiction issue for people who understand the intent of the constitution. Free movement of goods *is* essential in any federation.

Trudeau's government is bought and paid for by the Chinese government and they're the ones imposing this pipeline expansion on us.  What about us locals?  First Nations?  What about our rights and wishes?
Canada is losing billions every year because we have only one customer for our oil. BC, as part of confederation, has a moral and legal obligation to allow other provinces to ship their goods to customers. It is extremely dishonest for you try and denigrate the legitimate desire of Canadians to get fair value for our resources as being 'bought by china'. As for natives, the SCC has ruled on number of occasions that they do not have a veto over matters of public interest in increasing the value we get for resources is in the public interest.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 01:20:02 pm
People in BC today are drunk off Chinese money and seem to think they can live forever on their Chinese sugar daddy. Eventually that tap will run dry and BC will be in deep trouble and will need the money generated by resource projects to keep the economy a float.

Ya, people from the BC lower mainland accusing others of being "bought by China". Funny.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 05:26:28 pm
7 times more likely than what? 7 times nothing is still nothing.

While oil spills from shipping have decreased dramatically from the 70's, they are not nothing. Last year was about average for the past decade with 6 major spills (7 tons or more). The largest was in the Indian ocean with about 5000 tons of oil spilled, and the second was near Greece with about 700 tons spilled. There have been a number of spills much larger than the Exxon Valdez, the most recent being the Prestige in 2002.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 05:56:25 pm
While oil spills from shipping have decreased dramatically from the 70's, they are not nothing. Last year was about average for the past decade with 6 major spills (7 tons or more). The largest was in the Indian ocean with about 5000 tons of oil spilled, and the second was near Greece with about 700 tons spilled. There have been a number of spills much larger than the Exxon Valdez, the most recent being the Prestige in 2002.

7 times greater than what? 7 times greater than the number of major spills we have had from existing tankers leaving Vancouver? That is what the number was referring to. How many have there been? 7 times FA is still FA.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 05:58:02 pm
7 times greater than what? 7 times greater than the number of major spills we have had from existing tankers leaving Vancouver? That is what the number was referring to. How many have there been? 7 times FA is still FA.

Good point, now I will call my insurance agent and demand my premium decrease dramatically because I have never had a car accident.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 06:03:50 pm
Good point, now I will call my insurance agent and demand my premium decrease dramatically because I have never had a car accident.

Normally people without claims do get a lower rate. Because they are less of a risk.

Comparing to incidents in other parts of the world is ingenuous. Things are as safe as the people, procedures and equipment being used. We have control over that.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 06:08:31 pm
Normally people without claims do get a lower rate. Because they are less of a risk.

Comparing to incidents in other parts of the world is ingenuous. Things are as safe as the people, procedures and equipment being used. We have control over that.

Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 06:14:31 pm
Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.

Whatever. However do you get out of bed in the morning?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 06:29:48 pm
Whatever. However do you get out of bed in the morning?

I just revert back to my teenage years, and sleep in till noon.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 07:10:03 pm
Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.
A silly side argument. Your insurance rates don't depend on the number of auto accidents in China. They depend on the number of accidents in BC. Similarly, the statistics that matter are the number of accidents along the BC coast and those spills have come entirely from the NON-oil traffic which is set to double over the next 20 years (traffic which 7 times greater than the proposed oil tanker traffic). If you really cared about risks to the BC coast you would be trying to stop the Vancouver port about expanding. But you won't because this debate is not about logic or the environment. It is about adherence to the new green religion that has declared pipelines to be taboos.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 07:21:15 pm
Your insurance rates don't depend on the number of auto accidents in China. They depend on the number of accidents in BC. Similarly, the statistics that matter are the number of accidents along the BC coast and those spills have come entirely from the NON-oil traffic which is set to double over the next 20 years (traffic which 7 times greater than the proposed oil tanker traffic).

Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.

If you really cared about risks to the BC coast you would be trying to stop the Vancouver port about expanding. But you won't because this debate is not about logic or the environment. It is about adherence to the new green religion that has declared pipelines to be taboos.

yawn
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 07:37:02 pm
Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.
By logic we should ban all cars because "people might get killed". It is impossible to make anything zero risk which means accepting some risk is a necessary fact of life. That said, given the track record of shipping oil along the BC coast there is good reason to believe that proper regulation can manage this risk and ensure a spill does not occur.

The bottom line is: BC is part of confederation. BC has a moral and legal obligation to facilitate transport of goods from other provinces. Refusing to facilitate the transport of goods would set a precedent which would cause great harm the confederation and BC in the long run. If BC blocks the pipeline there will be a crisis in Canada as companies pull the investments from a country where governments are unwilling to enforce their regulatory decisions.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 07:38:49 pm
Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.

yawn

We will set the regs as to what ships can come here, how they operate in our waters and provide the pilots.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 07:54:25 pm
By logic we should ban all cars because "people might get killed".

...or perhaps we should ban drunk drivers, or drivers with certain medical problems from driving or driving specific classes of vehicles (transport trucks, school bus, etc.). It is all about proper risk assessment, and Joe's sailboat is not the same as the half million ton supertanker.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 08:13:38 pm
...or perhaps we should ban drunk drivers, or drivers with certain medical problems from driving or driving specific classes of vehicles (transport trucks, school bus, etc.). It is all about proper risk assessment, and Joe's sailboat is not the same as the half million ton supertanker.

I guess we should restrict airliners to 100 seats then. If an A-380 ever goes down. Oh the horror.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 08:18:18 pm
Quote
Tanker statistics on the East Coast
The East Coast has about 4,000 inbound trips by tankers each year. Tankers account for about one fifth of the 20,000 inbound vessel trips on the East Coast.

Over 82 million tonnes of various petroleum and fuel products are moved in and out of 23 Atlantic Canada ports. Almost all the movement of crude oil and petroleum products in Atlantic Canada is through the following ports:

Come by Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador
Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia
Saint John, New Brunswick
In Quebec, 25 million tonnes of crude oil and various petroleum products are moved in and out of 39 ports where cargo is loaded or unloaded.

Eighty-nine per cent of the shipments of crude oil and various petroleum products are through Quebec City and Montreal.

In contrast, the west coast has less than 1500 tanker movements a year. 0.75% of vessel arrivals and departures.

Source: Transport Canada
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:35:19 pm
Maybe not, but what does that matter? 


What does that matter?  You're the one who said empahtically:

Quote
There isn't a jurisdiction issue here: this is an issue of federal jurisdiction. 

I asked if the feds ruled in favour of BC, would you say equally emphatically that Alberta should just sit quietly and accept the decision.

You didn't answer.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:43:48 pm
7 times more likely than what? 7 times nothing is still nothing.

I think you are in denial as to how much it can hurt us. What do you think up to a 100% increase in the cost of fuel would do to cost of goods in BC and the province's ability to compete in general?

Ships can go to Seattle which is the Port of Vancouver's main competitor. If you have been paying attention for the past few decades, you will know that the Port of Vancouver is always concerned about their ability to compete with Seattle. Aircraft only have to fly another hour to bypass YVR and land at YYC or YEG. Airlines do analysis as to whether it is more economical to tanker fuel or buy it locally. When the price reaches a point it is more economical to tanker that buy locally, their aircraft will carry as much as they can into the expensive airport so they only have to buy the minimum necessary for their next flight. Of course it costs fuel to tanker the extra weight which is bad for the environment but in a highly competitive industry, little things count.

Do you think people would be bitching if there was a 7 fold increase in shipping of any other kind? Alaska crude has been shipping since the early seventies under more challenging conditions that shipping out of Vancouver. Other than the Exxon Valdes which changed everything about the way oil is shipped, there have been no major incidents. Not only that, many of those Alaskan ships transit the Straight of Juan de Fuca enroute to American refineries right across the border.

It's not 7 times zero.  Oil spills happen all the time and the independent studies say that an oil spill is 16% to 67% likely.  We're talking in Burnaby in a narrow strip of water where millions of metro Vancouver people live.

You honestly don't think our opinion matters in this when it's our waterway?

Ya, people from the BC lower mainland accusing others of being "bought by China". Funny.

Excuse me?  You think people in the lower mainland are enjoying what is happening with offshore buyers in this city?  It's a constant protest and 4 out of 5 people in the province support the taxes put in place by our premier to keep dissuade more ownership.

My wording may have been harsh but there is no denying JT is heavily influenced by China and going out of his way to do a lot of business with Chinese government.  One of our gripes in this city is how Quebec sells Canadian citizenship and JT tries to increase immigration and we're the ones out here getting priced out of our own city while Ottawa and Quebec see nothing but positive effects. 

Enough already with the housing, we don't need to risk our waters too for Chinese interests.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 08:45:15 pm
What does that matter?  You're the one who said empahtically:

I asked if the feds ruled in favour of BC, would you say equally emphatically that Alberta should just sit quietly and accept the decision.

You didn't answer.

I think the point is, Alberta isn't going to wait while BC pisses around trying to delay the process in the hope it will go away.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:45:42 pm
Maybe you should re-evaluate your interests and wishes.

No thank you.  I don't think wanting to keep our city oil-spill free needs re-evaluating.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:48:03 pm
While oil spills from shipping have decreased dramatically from the 70's, they are not nothing. Last year was about average for the past decade with 6 major spills (7 tons or more). The largest was in the Indian ocean with about 5000 tons of oil spilled, and the second was near Greece with about 700 tons spilled. There have been a number of spills much larger than the Exxon Valdez, the most recent being the Prestige in 2002.

Exactly.  Even the most pro-pipeline articles I've read acknowledge that oil spills happen, but the only argument they have is how much they've decreased since the 70's.

Rare is still not good enough in a city of millions. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 08:50:05 pm
Quote
Oil spills happen all the time and the independent studies say that an oil spill is 16% to 67% likely.

16% to 67%, now there is a study you can rely on for accuracy. ::)

Why don't you compare them to oil spills in Canadian waters. I already posted a reference that says the East Coast has more than five times the tanker movements as the West Coast.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:50:09 pm
I think the point is, Alberta isn't going to wait while BC pisses around trying to delay the process in the hope it will go away.

I honestly don't give a fig what Alberta wants.  I'd rather pay $4/litre than have a pipeline going to Burnaby.

Speaking of which, so do the thousands of people marching today in Vancouver.  Our opinion matters.  It's our city.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 08:52:19 pm
No thank you.  I don't think wanting to keep our city oil-spill free needs re-evaluating.

Then stop using petroleum products altogether because someone has to take those risks in order to provide them to you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 10, 2018, 08:53:45 pm
What does that matter?  You're the one who said empahtically:

I asked if the feds ruled in favour of BC, would you say equally emphatically that Alberta should just sit quietly and accept the decision.

You didn't answer.

They might not like it, but they'd have little choice but to accept. We can look at history to see what happened when Alberta and the federal government went to war on oil.

I can only assume that things are different right now because Vancouver has quite a few Liberal MPs.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:54:03 pm
16% to 67%, now there is a study you can rely on for accuracy. ::)

Why don't you compare them to oil spills in Canadian waters. I already posted a reference that says the East Coast has more than five times the tanker movements as the West Coast.

It was done by the City of Vancouver, but of course you've already proven you don't care what we living in the city say about the issue.

We already had one oil spill here in 2015.  A tanker needed for this expansion would spill 3000x more oil.

No thank you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 08:55:24 pm
They might not like it, but they'd have little choice but to accept. We can look at history to see what happened when Alberta and the federal government went to war on oil.

I can only assume that things are different right now because Vancouver has quite a few Liberal MPs.

 -k

So if the situation was reverse, you don't think Alberta has a right to even take the issue to court and fight it?

That's all Horgan is doing. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 08:57:15 pm
Rare is still not good enough in a city of millions.
They why is the port of vancouver still running? All shipping traffic should be halted immediately if zero risk is all you will accept. Of course, risk is not the real issue because risk can be managed. Risk is just an excuse to ignore the the moral and legal obligations that BC has as a member of confederation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 09:01:15 pm
Risk is just an excuse to ignore the the moral and legal obligations that BC has as a member of confederation.

All Canadians have a moral obligation to protect our environment.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 10, 2018, 09:01:35 pm
They why is the port of vancouver still running? All shipping traffic should be halted immediately if zero risk is all you will accept. Of course, risk is not the real issue because risk can be managed. The real issue is the green religion.

Your logic is faulty.  We're fighting a 7 fold expansion, meaning 7 times more risk. 

The number of people fighting for zero risk are on the fringes, but the number of people who don't want to drastically increase that risk are not.

You don't need to be statistician to understand why.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 09:02:12 pm
It was done by the City of Vancouver, but of course you've already proven you don't care what we living in the city say about the issue.

We already had one oil spill here in 2015.  A tanker needed for this expansion would spill 3000x more oil.

No thank you.

Would you rely on any other study that put the odds of something between 16% and 67%.

That was a fuel spill, not a tanker spill. Better close the port then.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 10, 2018, 09:03:51 pm
All Canadians have a moral obligation to protect our environment.

How?  Destroy all those who use any resources, or recycle your cans?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 09:05:16 pm
All Canadians have a moral obligation to protect our environment.

We'll see how you squeal about your moral obligations if Alberta does shut off the tap..
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 09:23:01 pm
All Canadians have a moral obligation to protect our environment.
Except no Canadian does that. They consume energy, produce sewage and trash, destroy local ecosystems to make way for humans. It is simply dishonest for you to pick on oil shipments which are only a *hypothetical* problem while living off the spoils of the environmental devastation created by the simple existence of 2 million humans in the lower mainland.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 09:44:31 pm
Except no Canadian does that. They consume energy, produce sewage and trash, destroy local ecosystems to make way for humans.

Agreed, but there are several orders of magnitude between different Canadians in that regard.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 09:54:21 pm
Agreed, but there are several orders of magnitude between different Canadians in that regard.
Not really. The Canadian lifestyle takes a lot of energy to maintain. The differences in individual choices do not really affect the energy and resources consumed to keep society functioning on behalf of everyone. If anything, the people who posture by making "eco friendly" choices often consume more resources because "eco friendly" often means "less efficient/most costly".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 10:07:32 pm
Not really. The Canadian lifestyle takes a lot of energy to maintain. The differences in individual choices do not really affect the energy and resources consumed to keep society functioning on behalf of everyone. If anything, the people who posture by making "eco friendly" choices often consume more resources because "eco friendly" often means "less efficient/most costly".

Yes the person who walks or bikes to work, and shops in their community, is less efficient than the guy with the SUV that takes it everywhere including 4 miles to the supermarket to pick up a quart of milk.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 10:12:31 pm
Yes the person who walks or bikes to work, and shops in their community, is less efficient than the guy with the SUV that takes it everywhere including 4 miles to the supermarket to pick up a quart of milk.

Maybe not but they rely on oil products to produce and bring all those things close enough that they can lead that lifestyle.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 10:24:34 pm
Yes the person who walks or bikes to work, and shops in their community, is less efficient than the guy with the SUV that takes it everywhere including 4 miles to the supermarket to pick up a quart of milk.
The difference in energy/resource consumption between the two individuals is insignificant when compared to the energy needed to keep the city/economy running. For example, bikers need local stores - that means more stores which need to be kept stocked with goods vs. larger "warehouse style" stores that car drivers use. The local stores consume more energy per consumer served. The same argument would apply if the bikers relied on delivery trucks to drop stuff off at home instead of going to the store themselves.

The "i am eco-friendly because I bike to work" argument does not hold up if you look at the total cost of sustaining a human.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 10:24:51 pm
Maybe not but they rely on oil products to produce and bring all those things close enough that they can lead that lifestyle.

Yes, we all have an environmental footprint. Some of it is beyond our control, much much of it is within our control. On the consumer side you point out, there is much we can do to lessen that footprint. All those avocados you consume are enlarging your footprint dramatically, as opposed to eating local fruit and berries in season.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 10:29:24 pm
For example, bikers need local stores - that means more stores which need to be kept stocked with goods vs. larger "warehouse style" stores that car drivers use.

In the winter I walk to local stores about 1-2 miles away, and in the non-winter months I bike to warehouse style stores 4-8 miles away. The energy consumed and pollution created by the daily SUV trips to the warehouse store is many orders of magnitude greater than the delivery truck to local stores.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 10:30:43 pm
Yes, we all have an environmental footprint. Some of it is beyond our control, much much of it is within our control. On the consumer side you point out, there is much we can do to lessen that footprint. All those avocados you consume are enlarging your footprint dramatically, as opposed to eating local fruit and berries in season.

True but consuming avocados has nothing to do with how far you live from the store you buy them in or how you get there.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 10:36:14 pm
In the winter I walk to local stores about 1-2 miles away, and in the non-winter months I bike to warehouse style stores 4-8 miles away. The energy consumed and pollution created by the daily SUV trips to the warehouse store is many orders of magnitude greater than the delivery truck to local stores.

I live in the Fraser valley. I can get produce locally that Vancouverites have to get shipped to them or they have to drive 80 km up the valley to buy. I get a little tired of city dwellers who think they live in a bubble and all the things that have to be produced and brought to them don't have an impact on their environmental footprint.

I make one or two trips to a warehouse store a month. You would need about 20 bike trips to carry one load.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 10:42:35 pm
I live in the Fraser valley. I can get produce locally that Vancouverites have to get shipped to them or they have to drive 80 km up the valley to buy. I get a little tired of city dwellers who think they live in a bubble and all the things that have to be produced and brought to them don't have an impact on their environmental footprint.

I don't think city dwellers are ignorant of their environmental footprint, that doesn't mean however your environmental footprint is smaller. That 12 miles you drive to the local store or market has a significant toll. Unless you raise your own produce or get it from your immediate neighbours then you are probably consuming far more than the city dwellers. How many pounds of potatoes and carrots do you have stored in your cellar?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 10:45:58 pm
In the winter I walk to local stores about 1-2 miles away, and in the non-winter months I bike to warehouse style stores 4-8 miles away. The energy consumed and pollution created by the daily SUV trips to the warehouse store is many orders of magnitude greater than the delivery truck to local stores.
Yet it is nothing compared to the cost of keeping those stores stocked in the first place. Nevermind the cost of providing electricity, clean water, cable/telephone and sewage to every home. You also make the assumption that the SUV driver makes the trip every day. Having a large vehicle means fewer trips, on average, are required. A walker might buy 10kg max of groceries in one trip - an SUV driver can (and will) buy 50kg or more in one trip. That does make up for the additional energy required for the vehicle. If you add in the ability to by less energy intensive bulk products the advantage of the SUV driver would increase more.

Furthermore, your time is clearly worth little because you can waste so much of it doing nothing but getting to and from stores. That may be fine for you but many people with families do not have that luxury so living your lifestyle is simply not an option.  Keep in mind the people in the SUVs are often working providing services that you need to survive so can hardly say they should just stop working to save energy.

 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 10:59:05 pm
Nevermind the cost of providing electricity, clean water, cable/telephone and sewage to every home.
...
That does make up for the additional energy required for the vehicle.
...
Furthermore, your time is clearly worth little because you can waste so much of it doing nothing but getting to and from stores.

I use under 1000 m3 of natural gas and under 3500 kWh of electricity a year - you?
I drive under 5000km a year - you?
My water is not metered so I can't give you a value.
...
5 bike trips of 10kg is still way less consumption than 1 SUV trip of 50kg
...
How many SUV trips do you make to the gym? That has to be my biggest pet peeve.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 11:11:04 pm
I use under 1000 m3 of natural gas and under 3500 kWh of electricity a year - you?
~380 m3 and ~4500 kWh in 2017.

I drive under 5000km a year - you?
About that.

How many SUV trips do you make to the gym? That has to be my biggest pet peeve.
None. Don't own an SUV. Prefer compact cars with good fuel economy.

But my personal choices are only possible because of my life circumstances. I am not arrogant enough to assume that everyone else is in a position to make the same choices I do. I also know that I depend on my neighbor driving to city works yard everyday to help keep the roads function. Or my other neighbor that runs a business selling carpets or yet another who runs an retail store in a mall. No one is an island in the city and no one can look at their energy consumption in isolation from the rest because society's energy consumption is determined by the collective - not the individual.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2018, 11:12:12 pm
I use under 1000 m3 of natural gas and under 3500 kWh of electricity a year - you?
I drive under 5000km a year - you?
My water is not metered so I can't give you a value.
...
5 bike trips of 10kg is still way less consumption than 1 SUV trip of 50kg
...
How many SUV trips do you make to the gym? That has to be my biggest pet peeve.

The point is, you can't live without people and services that come from outside your city so it is a bit pompous of you to lord your lifestyle over them. Who really needs a gym anyway? We don't drive to a gym, we do an hour walk up and down the side of Sumas Mountain every morning before breakfast.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 11:19:37 pm
~380 m3 and ~4500 kWh in 2017.
About that
None. Don't own an SUV. Prefer compact cars with good fuel economy.

I assume you have another heat source.
Good for you if that is your daily driving, I would say 95% of my driving is when I am away from the city.
Yes, but do you take your compact car to your spin class?

b.t.w. currently driving a Subaru Outback (CVT), but getting almost the same mileage as my old manual Protege. The little efficiency guage helped me change my driving habits, less speeding and way less fast acceleration.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 10, 2018, 11:24:44 pm
I assume you have another heat source.
No - but the house/heat is shared by more than one person. Living alone is a huge waste of energy.

Yes, but do you take your compact car to your spin class?
No.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2018, 11:56:01 pm
by way of comparison, the average household in Canada is:

2400 m3 of natural gas
11000 kwH of electricity

As to be expected there is great variability across the country. Alberta is no surprise the highest for natural gas but it is also the lowest of electricity. When you look at the total energy consumption of all fuel types combined (natural gas, electricity, oil, wood & wood pellets, and propane) Quebec is the lowest and Alberta is the highest. Ontario and Manitoba are about average, and everywhere else is above with the exception of BC. While not quite as low as Quebec, BC is low but then a significant part of the BC population lives in a much more temperate climate.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 12:38:33 am
by way of comparison, the average household in Canada is:

2400 m3 of natural gas
11000 kwH of electricity
Average household size is ~2.5 which means 960m3 and 4400 kWH per person.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 11, 2018, 06:54:41 am
Agreed, but there are several orders of magnitude between different Canadians in that regard.
That and there’s no operating outside the established system and that’s the only thing that will satisfy Tim’s claim. He’s implying that you can’t advocate for change unless you personally exist outside a system that’s well beyond any individual’s control. It’s like saying you can’t criticize capitalism if you practice it. You can’t exist outside a capitalist system. China doesn’t even exist outside a capitalist system.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 11, 2018, 10:16:09 am
I was thinking the same thing yesterday.

I think Wilber and Tim are hypocrites for vacuuming their house and fighting a massive land fill in their back yard just because they don’t clean their baseboards and wash their walls every day.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 10:24:05 am
That pipeline goes through my town, right through Ledgeview golf course, home of Adam Hadwin and Nick Taylor amongst others.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 11, 2018, 10:34:40 am
Average household size is ~2.5 which means 960m3 and 4400 kWH per person.

Yes good point. For some things like say hot water, then per person is a very valid metric. Others like cooking are somewhat influenced by per person, but do lean more to per household. The square footage of the house has more to do with the big cost items like heating. This does put a disadvantage to empty nesters who maintain the family home, usually for a few years until the kids are finally settled (gotta keep that room available for when they come back from college, etc). The bigger issue I see is for older couples when one spouse dies, they may have downsized but it becomes very difficult for the final survivor to move when their partner passes away.

On automobile transportation, the per person argument is silly. Way too many suburban houses with 4-6 cars in the driveway because someone is too lazy to share a ride.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 10:40:33 am
On automobile transportation, the per person argument is silly. Way too many suburban houses with 4-6 cars in the driveway because someone is too lazy to share a ride.
I did not make the per person argument for autos. However, you could do a sensible calculation by adding the mileage on all vehicles owned by a household and dividing by the number of people. For example, my household has one vehicle that sits parked for emergencies and 1 primary vehicle which is shared.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 10:44:50 am
That and there’s no operating outside the established system and that’s the only thing that will satisfy Tim’s claim. He’s implying that you can’t advocate for change unless you personally exist outside a system that’s well beyond any individual’s control. It’s like saying you can’t criticize capitalism if you practice it. You can’t exist outside a capitalist system. China doesn’t even exist outside a capitalist system.
A red herring. The problem with most so called 'environmentalists' is they have no interest in making sacrifices that affect them personally. They are only interested in using the law to force other people to make sacrifices. Hence Vancouverites whine and moan about oil tankers when non-oil shipping has the source of 100% the spills in BC. If you really want to advocate for change start by demanding changes that  will hurt you personally and/or the city you live in rather that trying to impose the pain of conforming to your screwed up morality on people who think you are preening hypocrite who is only interested in virtue signalling.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 11, 2018, 10:53:28 am
Oil and gas may be of varying importance to your daily lives, but to BC as a whole they are of immense importance.

Mines and smelters and saw-mills aren't running on wind power. Timber doesn't come down from the hills by bicycle. Groceries and supplies don't arrive in remote towns by bicycle. Tourists don't arrive by electric scooter.  Tractors and other farm equipment aren't electric-powered.  Our lumber and mining products and agricultural products aren't being delivered to customers by electric scooter.

That somebody in Vancouver can get to their office-job and work a typical day and come home to to a warm apartment without burning a drop of fossil fuel is very nice, but BC's largest industries-- forestry, mining, agriculture, tourism-- all depend on plentiful and affordable fossil fuel.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 11, 2018, 12:22:53 pm
No thank you.  I don't think wanting to keep our city oil-spill free needs re-evaluating.

Then you're in favour of Alberta cutting off all oil to BC?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 11, 2018, 12:31:07 pm
I honestly don't give a fig what Alberta wants.  I'd rather pay $4/litre than have a pipeline going to Burnaby.

Speaking of which, so do the thousands of people marching today in Vancouver.  Our opinion matters.  It's our city.

No, it's not. Cities are nothing more than legal constructs of the provinces. Neither the cities nor those in them have ANY power over ANYTHING unless the province grants it. And the province has only what power the constitution gives it. In this case - none.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 11, 2018, 12:35:09 pm
The problem with most so called 'environmentalists' is they have no interest in making sacrifices that affect them personally.
I’ve seen absolutely no indication that this is true. Every environmentalist I know does what they can. Provide a reference that shows “most environmentalists” don’t make sacrifices or don’t do things to help improve the environment. Otherwise, I feel pretty confident in assuming you’re talking out of your ass.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 01:18:15 pm

That somebody in Vancouver can get to their office-job and work a typical day and come home to to a warm apartment without burning a drop of fossil fuel is very nice, but BC's largest industries-- forestry, mining, agriculture, tourism-- all depend on plentiful and affordable fossil fuel.

 -k

They can’t. Even if they don’t live in a building heated by fossil fuels, everything they depend on to live that lifestyle has to be brought to them in transport that does use fossil fuels.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 01:30:19 pm
I’ve seen absolutely no indication that this is true. Every environmentalist I know does what they can. Provide a reference that shows “most environmentalists” don’t make sacrifices or don’t do things to help improve the environment.
Examples on this thread: the port of Vancouver is going to double the number of ships over the next 15 years - only 20% of those will be oil from Kinder Morgan. All of the fuel/oil spills around Vancouver have come from non-oil ships yet no one in Vancouver talks seriously about blocking the port expansion to 'save the environment'. The reason is simple: people in Vancouver understand that the port is essential and shutting it down would hurt their city. Same question comes up with BC coal exports and the so called concern over GHGs or natural gas exports which Horgan is now promoting. All of this means anti-pipeline protesters are a bunch of shameless hypocrites that want to make other people pay the price for their moral concerns.

When individuals make "choices" that they believe to be environmentally friendly is a very rare person who actually sacrifices something. In most cases they just do something they would do anyways or pay a little more which they can afford to pay. No one quits their job for the environment or chooses a life of poverty for the environment. The environment only matters as long as they can have a comfortable lifestyle while pretending to "protect it".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 11, 2018, 01:33:04 pm
Still nothing to indicate that most environmentalists don’t do anything.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 01:49:05 pm
Still nothing to indicate that most environmentalists don’t do anything.
You are missing the point. The issue is not whether environmentalists "believe" they are doing something (because they obviously do). The issue is whether what they are willing to do anything that represents a serious sacrifice. Buying local/organic food when you have money is not a sacrifice. Buying carbon indulgences so you can fly to Mexico is not a sacrifice. Riding a bike to work when work is close enough and one has no physical limitations is not a sacrifice. Can you give me one example of a real sacrifice you have made. i.e. something that left you significantly poorer or worse off (i.e. something equivalent to the unemployment and forced relocation that you wish to impose on oil field workers).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 11, 2018, 01:57:14 pm
The issue is that you said “most environmentalists” don’t make sacrifices. Now you’re asking me to show you that they do because I’m asking you to support your claim with evidence. Most environmentalists that I know recycle, bike to work, air dry their laundry, compost, and do all sorts of other lifestyle changes to addresss the problems. So I’m asking for empirical support that leads you to use a premise like “most environmentalists” don’t make sacrifices. It’s not true, as far as I know. You made the claim, so it’s also not on me to go disprove it. It’s on you to show support for it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 02:09:39 pm
Most environmentalists that I know recycle, bike to work, air dry their laundry, compost, and do all sorts of other lifestyle changes to addresss the problems.
As I said above: none of those things represent sacrifices. A sacrifice is something that leaves someone significantly worse off (i.e. losing a job/extended unemployment) . I asked you to provide me an example of real sacrifices you have made and instead of answering question you respond with nonsense about the phoney sacrifices that you claim environmentalists make.

So I will ask again: what *real* sacrifice have you made for the environment?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 11, 2018, 02:20:42 pm
You are missing the point. The issue is not whether environmentalists "believe" they are doing something (because they obviously do). The issue is whether what they are willing to do anything that represents a serious sacrifice. Buying local/organic food when you have money is not a sacrifice. Buying carbon indulgences so you can fly to Mexico is not a sacrifice. Riding a bike to work when work is close enough and one has no physical limitations is not a sacrifice. .

why does it have to be a sacrifice in order for it to be valued?  Riding a bike to work is harder than jumping in the car, and more dangerous.  If one is willing to work harder and take more risks to support their ideological beliefs, why do you discount it? 

Quote
Can you give me one example of a real sacrifice you have made. i.e. something that left you significantly poorer or worse off (i.e. something equivalent to the unemployment and forced relocation that you wish to impose on oil field workers)

People choose where to work and people who "choose" to work in a dying industry have only themselves to blame when there is no work for them.  If people want some kind guaranteed employment at a good rate of pay, they should pursue other options that are open to them rather than choosing to work in the fossil fuel industry.
 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 02:24:14 pm
How many city apartment and town home owners air dry their laundry. How many strata's even allow it? We used to when we had a single family dwelling with a yard. Not allowed to now. We have recycling and composting where I live as well. It's mandatory.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 02:27:52 pm
why does it have to be a sacrifice in order for it to be valued?  Riding a bike to work is harder than jumping in the car, and more dangerous.  If one is willing to work harder and take more risks to support their ideological beliefs, why do you discount it? 



Sorry. If someone can save thousands of dollars a year by not having to own a vehicle, that is not a sacrifice.

Quote
People choose where to work and people who "choose" to work in a dying industry have only themselves to blame when there is no work for them.  If people want some kind guaranteed employment at a good rate of pay, they should pursue other options that are open to them rather than choosing to work in the fossil fuel industry.
d

It's not a dying industry, that's why it needs an effing pipeline to get its product to market. Don't confuse dying with something you want to kill.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 02:30:24 pm
why does it have to be a sacrifice in order for it to be valued?
Because the same people are demanding that others make much greater sacrifice. If they only expected others to make the same sacrifice it would be judged differently.

People choose where to work and people who "choose" to work in a dying industry have only themselves to blame when there is no work for them.
The industry is not dying - it is being killed by self-absorbed narcissists that expect others to pay for their morality. There is a difference. How would you feel if a group of religious zealots decided that the industry you work in wrong and did everything they could to close it down? Would you really say it was your fault for working in a "dying" industry or would tell the zealots that they have no business demanding that others make sacrifices for their morality?

To add insult to irony: there is no plausible scenario where the need for fossil fuels will decline in BC so the suggestion that "fossil fuels" are a dying industry is quiet ridiculous. As long as BC needs fossil fuels people in BC have no business claiming that fossil fuels are a 'dying industry'.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 11, 2018, 02:35:54 pm
They can’t. Even if they don’t live in a building heated by fossil fuels, everything they depend on to live that lifestyle has to be brought to them in transport that does use fossil fuels.

 ...and depend on people whose livelihoods do depend on fossil-fuel dependent industries-- mining, agriculture, forestry, tourism, fisheries, transportation, construction...

Maybe you're an accountant living in a green-energy home within walking distance of work... but your clients probably aren't.  The amount of business and employment in this province requiring cheap, plentiful fuel to be economically viable is staggering. 

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 11, 2018, 02:36:30 pm

It's not a dying industry, that's why it needs an effing pipeline to get its product to market. Don't confuse dying with something you want to kill.

Perhaps it won't entirely die out, but eventually it will be very limited.  Perhps not even in my lifetime, but certainly in my grandchildren's lifetime.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 02:49:04 pm
Perhaps it won't entirely die out, but eventually it will be very limited.  Perhps not even in my lifetime, but certainly in my grandchildren's lifetime.

Limited by what?

If you folks are so concerned about the environment, why haven't you been out protesting the shipment of thermal coal from Delta Port, much of which comes from the US? Most of it is going to China as well. Guess it doesn't matter because it doesn't go through Vancouver harbour and past West Van and Point Grey.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 11, 2018, 03:25:22 pm
How would you feel if a group of religious zealots decided that the industry you work in wrong and did everything they could to close it down?

I see, when you are on the wrong side of things, resort to pejoratives.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 11, 2018, 03:26:50 pm
How many city apartment and town home owners air dry their laundry. How many strata's even allow it? We used to when we had a single family dwelling with a yard. Not allowed to now. We have recycling and composting where I live as well. It's mandatory.

Still popular in my neighbourhood in Montreal, no where near as much as when I was a child. I remember 100% usage of clothes lines then, today it is about 30%.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 11, 2018, 03:28:32 pm
So I will ask again: what *real* sacrifice have you made for the environment?

2 of my 3 kids used almost exclusively cloth diapers, the first was laundered at home as well.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 03:30:18 pm
I see, when you are on the wrong side of things, resort to pejoratives.
"pejoratives"? The context of the post was to get dia to look at things from a different perspective. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not environmentalists are the modern day Puritans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans) who seek to use to the state to enforce their morals on others. The fact that Puritans were absolutely convinced of the truth of the beliefs does not make them any less odious from the perspective of a non-believer.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 03:34:08 pm
2 of my 3 kids used almost exclusively cloth diapers, the first was laundered at home as well.
More than most but it does not meet the criteria of being equivalent to forcing someone into the unemployment line. It also does not make up for the fact that you had 3 kids in the first place (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 03:36:53 pm
2 of my 3 kids used almost exclusively cloth diapers, the first was laundered at home as well.

All of our kids were brought up on cloth diapers, had a clothesline that went from one corner of the back yard to the other but that was the seventies. We did it because we were cheap.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 03:40:17 pm
Still popular in my neighbourhood in Montreal, no where near as much as when I was a child. I remember 100% usage of clothes lines then, today it is about 30%.

They sure as hell aren't in Vancouver, or BC in general, especially the trendy bits.

http://www.sightline.org/2012/05/16/does-bc-mean-bans-clotheslines/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 11, 2018, 04:29:07 pm
Limited by what?
By the worldwide push for less damaging forms of energy - even the fossil fuel industry giants are starting to recognize that they have to move on.   We'll have to do something about plastics, too.  Already, the Catholic Church is supporting 'giving up plastic for lent'.  If there is a reduction in use of fossil fuels to power vehicles/houses/etc;, and if use of plastic is reduced, then fewer fossil fuels will be needed.

But as I said, I don't think this will happen in my lifetime.  But it will happen; worse case scenario is that it happens because most of humanity dies due to climate change. 

Quote
If you folks are so concerned about the environment, why haven't you been out protesting the shipment of thermal coal from Delta Port, much of which comes from the US? Most of it is going to China as well. Guess it doesn't matter because it doesn't go through Vancouver harbour and past West Van and Point Grey.

"You Folks"?  Heck I don't even support the Liberals NDP in 'refusing' the pipeline from Alberta.  I support reducing reliance on fossil fuels and developing other sources of energy sooner rather than later, but agree that we can't just stop all oil production.  That's not realistic.   

Edited to correct mistake.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 05:07:28 pm
By the worldwide push for less damaging forms of energy - even the fossil fuel industry giants are starting to recognize that they have to move on.   We'll have to do something about plastics, too.  Already, the Catholic Church is supporting 'giving up plastic for lent'.  If there is a reduction in use of fossil fuels to power vehicles/houses/etc;, and if use of plastic is reduced, then fewer fossil fuels will be needed.

But as I said, I don't think this will happen in my lifetime.  But it will happen; worse case scenario is that it happens because most of humanity dies due to climate change. 



Hopefully we will see a reduction in the use of plastics and oil companies are looking at other types of energy production. Not all products of petroleum are harmful to the environment if disposed of properly and some are irreplaceable.


We have limited options to fossil fuels in our northern clime. Geothermal is an effective method of heating an cooling homes but is only efficient within a certain temperature range. A backup source of heat is necessary in our climate.  Alberta is actually better suited to alternate energy sources than BC. Southern Alberta has more sun and already has extensive wind farms in the Lethbridge area. BC has neither. We are not southern California with ample amounts of both wind and sun.


Quote
"You Folks"?  Heck I don't even support the Liberals in 'refusing' the pipeline from Alberta.  I support reducing reliance on fossil fuels and developing other sources of energy sooner rather than later, but agree that we can't just stop all oil production.  That's not realistic.

Sorry, I was lumping you in with some others. I don't think the Liberals were refusing it at last point.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 11, 2018, 05:58:12 pm
Hopefully we will see a reduction in the use of plastics and oil companies are looking at other types of energy production. Not all products of petroleum are harmful to the environment if disposed of properly and some are irreplaceable.
Yeah, and we are extremely reliant on plastics.  But eliminating things like plastic grocery bags, plastic water bottles, forks/spoons/plates/etc., or at least replacing them with stuff that disintegrates in some reasonable amount of time seems like a good idea.

]quote] We have limited options to fossil fuels in our northern clime. Geothermal is an effective method of heating an cooling homes but is only efficient within a certain temperature range. A backup source of heat is necessary in our climate.  Alberta is actually better suited to alternate energy sources than BC. Southern Alberta has more sun and already has extensive wind farms in the Lethbridge area. BC has neither. We are not southern California with ample amounts of both wind and sun. [/quote]

Technology may find a way to offset whatever shortfall there is for renewable/clean energy.  Who knows what may happen in a decade or two?

Quote
Sorry, I was lumping you in with some others. I don't think the Liberals were refusing it at last point.

I actually meant NDP.  I've fixed it now.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 11, 2018, 06:00:45 pm
They sure as hell aren't in Vancouver, or BC in general, especially the trendy bits.

http://www.sightline.org/2012/05/16/does-bc-mean-bans-clotheslines/

It really bugs me that the Strata here doesn't allow outside drying of clothes.  I've complained about it, but the "old guard" thinks it doesn't 'look' good.  OTOH, that was a few years ago and maybe it's time to try again. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 11, 2018, 06:11:11 pm
I’m all for pipelines and tankers, as long as it can be ensured to be done safely.  That’s what BC is wanting to do. We’ll find out from the courts if BC has the right to do so.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 11, 2018, 07:13:07 pm
It really bugs me that the Strata here doesn't allow outside drying of clothes.  I've complained about it, but the "old guard" thinks it doesn't 'look' good.  OTOH, that was a few years ago and maybe it's time to try again.

That's always been a pet peeve of mine too.  It's so much better for the clothes, I think,

And don't get me started on scented dryer sheets!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 11, 2018, 07:18:26 pm
It's so much better for the clothes, I think,

On a warm summer's day, absolutely. Try putting away clothes that have frozen hard in the winter is a different story.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 11, 2018, 07:22:25 pm
On a warm summer's day, absolutely. Try putting away clothes that have frozen hard in the winter is a different story.

I just lean them up against the closet until it's time to wear them...

But seriously, it's the notion that people don't want to see it, so you can't do it that pisses me off.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 07:24:10 pm
That's always been a pet peeve of mine too.  It's so much better for the clothes, I think,

And don't get me started on scented dryer sheets!

Bounce sheets are great for keeping stuff fresh that is in storage and cleaning bugs off of vehicles.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 11, 2018, 07:28:37 pm
Bounce sheets are great for keeping stuff fresh that is in storage and cleaning bugs off of vehicles.

I can't stand the smell.  Even when I go for walk and someone in the neighbourhood has been using one.

I might try the bug removal idea.  By September my truck is just one big bird feeder...

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 11, 2018, 08:50:06 pm
I’m all for pipelines and tankers, as long as it can be ensured to be done safely.  That’s what BC is wanting to do. We’ll find out from the courts if BC has the right to do so.
Please spare us the dishonest posturing. You know perfectly well that no reasonable safety measures will be sufficient and the intent of the BC government it to impose requirements that ensure it is not possible to build. Also it is not a question of jurisdiction because the federal government has clear authority over interprovincial transport. If the court were to actually side with BC it would create a constitutional crisis because it would mean every province would be free to invent bogus environmental concerns and use it to justify blocking transport of goods (i.e. BC wines will find they can't be sold in Alberta until the government decides they are safe for human consumption...).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 11, 2018, 10:02:36 pm
Please spare us the dishonest posturing. You know perfectly well that no reasonable safety measures will be sufficient and the intent of the BC government it to impose requirements that ensure it is not possible to build. Also it is not a question of jurisdiction because the federal government has clear authority over interprovincial transport. If the court were to actually side with BC it would create a constitutional crisis because it would mean every province would be free to invent bogus environmental concerns and use it to justify blocking transport of goods (i.e. BC wines will find they can't be sold in Alberta until the government decides they are safe for human consumption...).

Please stop with the incessant whining and moaning....   we have oil pipelines now, so clearly you’re engaging in hyperbole.  An increase in tanker traffic means we have to ensure it’s done responsibly.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 10:07:10 pm
Please stop with the incessant whining and moaning....   we have oil pipelines now, so clearly you’re engaging in hyperbole.  An increase in tanker traffic means we have to ensure it’s done responsibly.

Transport Canada has jurisdiction over maritime safety, not provinces. This is just a delaying tactic.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 11, 2018, 10:41:47 pm
Transport Canada has jurisdiction over maritime safety, not provinces. This is just a delaying tactic.

You clearly don’t even know what the courts will be looking at...   they will be ensuring Canada did the approvals correctly, which BC says they did not.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/10/01/news/lawyer-explains-bcs-strategy-quash-kinder-morgan-pipeline-approval

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 11, 2018, 10:52:24 pm
You clearly don’t even know what the courts will be looking at...   they will be ensuring Canada did the approvals correctly, which BC says they did not.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/10/01/news/lawyer-explains-bcs-strategy-quash-kinder-morgan-pipeline-approval

So now it isn't about the environment at all.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 12, 2018, 06:53:53 am
You clearly don’t even know what the courts will be looking at...   they will be ensuring Canada did the approvals correctly, which BC says they did not.
What a pathetic argument. The proposed increase in tanker traffic is nothing compared to the general increase in shipping planned by the port of of Vancouver. If there is any danger to killer whales it comes from ALL ships and to pretend oil tankers are a unique risk is hypocritical. This is nothing but NIMBY politics and, as I said, if BC succeeds in court it will create a crisis because what is the point of a confederation if one partner thinks it can block the exports from another.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 12, 2018, 09:28:02 am
What a pathetic argument. The proposed increase in tanker traffic is nothing compared to the general increase in shipping planned by the port of of Vancouver.

What is the tonnage increase in both. Those super oil tankers are a half million tons of hazardous cargo each.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 12, 2018, 09:58:28 am
So now it isn't about the environment at all.

So you didn’t read the article either?

Quote
From the link provided:   Pongracic-Speier suggested the increase in oil tanker traffic is why the project would pose risks to the British Columbia coast. And she explained that Trudeau’s government made a decision without providing enough evidence that it considered the extent of these impacts and risks.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 12, 2018, 10:00:54 am
...if BC succeeds in court it will create a crisis because what is the point of a confederation if one partner thinks it can block the exports from another.

How can BC block Alberta exports?   If Alberta and Canada wants to build a pipeline east...   or gets our American friends to build a pipeline west or south, how would BC block that?   Your premise is idiotic....   block Alberta exports...   lol
 ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 10:23:59 am
What is the tonnage increase in both. Those super oil tankers are a half million tons of hazardous cargo each.

Not hard to find if you bother to look.

https://www.portvancouver.com/about-us/topics-of-interest/petroleum-products-and-tanker-safety/

There are larger cruise ships (some over 200,000 tons) but they can't get into Vancouver because the bridge isn't high enough.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 10:29:14 am
So you didn’t read the article either?

The legal argument they are using is about the process, not the environment. Doesn't really matter because the anti tanker bunch is going to stamp its feet and scream till it gets its way. I think they will be disappointed.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 10:36:34 am
How can BC block Alberta exports?   If Alberta and Canada wants to build a pipeline east...   or gets our American friends to build a pipeline west or south, how would BC block that?   Your premise is idiotic....   block Alberta exports...   lol
 ::)

Trying to block Alberta exports is exactly what they are trying to do. Why else use the global warming argument as part of its objection?

If a trade war between provinces starts, you will likely see a lot of things being shipped through American ports, and they won't be oil. They will be things that are otherwise shipped through Vancouver.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 12, 2018, 10:56:42 am
There are larger cruise ships (some over 200,000 tons) but they can't get into Vancouver because the bridge isn't high enough.

who said the following in regards initial "suggestions/fore-warnings" of a possible intent to also include the Suez-Max (285m) class ship... requiring berthing and channel dredging of Burrard Inlet and 1st/2nd narrows.?

Quote
So we do some berthing improvements and dredging. Vancouver is a port and that's what ports do all the time. It is not like Burrard inlet is the mouth of a major fish bearing river.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 11:02:58 am
who said the following in regards initial "suggestions/fore-warnings" of a possible intent to also include the Suez-Max (285m) class ship... requiring berthing and channel dredging of Burrard Inlet and 1st/2nd narrows.?

I don't know, who said it?

The harbour is subject to strong tides, dredging will always be part of the port's operation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 12, 2018, 11:26:39 am
I don't know, who said it?

The harbour is subject to strong tides, dredging will always be part of the port's operation.

some guy named 'wilber' on the POS board... but again, the 'subject to' wasn't your (now) alternate mentioned 'strong tide' reference; rather it was to possible intentions to increase tanker size to a supermax level.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 11:44:32 am
some guy named 'wilber' on the POS board... but again, the 'subject to' wasn't your (now) alternate mentioned 'strong tide' reference; rather it was to possible intentions to increase tanker size to a supermax level.

Really, give me the post number and topic.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 12:08:44 pm
When I was young and dumb I took a 13 ft home made plywood runabout under Lions Gate when the tide was running. Scary and I regretted it instantly. The tides are strong and move stuff around. Because gravity always wins, dredging will always be necessary.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 12, 2018, 12:39:40 pm
even for suezmax class, right? Amirite? (by the by, I gave you the quote... try a search)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 12:46:26 pm
even for suezmax class, right? Amirite? (by the by, I gave you the quote... try a search)

You claim I said it, you find it.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 12, 2018, 12:54:47 pm
You claim I said it, you find it.

again, in regards initial "suggestions/fore-warnings" of a possible intent to also include the Suez-Max (285m) class ship... requiring berthing and channel dredging of Burrard Inlet and 1st/2nd narrows...

do you take exception to the quote itself... to the content of the quote - this quote:

Quote
So we do some berthing improvements and dredging. Vancouver is a port and that's what ports do all the time. It is not like Burrard inlet is the mouth of a major fish bearing river.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 01:03:50 pm
Why can't you show a source for your so called "quote" ?

Opponents of the project have raised the spectre of suezmax ships but the approval is for aframax ships. Any increase in ship size would require further approval from the NEB and Transport Canada as well as actions taken by the Port itself to make it possible.

As far as taking statements out of context goes, ports do dredge and make berthing improvements all the time.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 12, 2018, 01:14:09 pm
Why can't you show a source for your so called "quote" ?

Opponents of the project have raised the spectre of suezmax ships but the approval is for aframax ships. Any increase in ship size would require further approval from the NEB and Transport Canada as well as actions taken by the Port itself to make it possible.

I could... but I'm more intrigued by you taking exception to the quote itself. This guy named 'wilber' seems quite open to an eventuality of suezmax... cause, apparently, in the context of that possible suezmax, he stated required dredging/berthing improvements (for the referenced inlet & 1st/2nd narrows) is just what ports do - just matter of fact operational.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2018, 01:24:52 pm
I could... but I'm more intrigued by you taking exception to the quote itself. This guy named 'wilber' seems quite open to an eventuality of suezmax... cause, apparently, in the context of that possible suezmax, he stated required dredging/berthing improvements (for the referenced inlet & 1st/2nd narrows) is just what ports do - just matter of fact operational.

I don't take exception to the quote, you are the one putting it in the context of suezmax tankers and saying I am in favour of them. Give the reference so we can see what the whole post says.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 18, 2018, 08:16:00 pm
Driving near Jasper this week, I saw train after train full of Alberta lumber headed to the port in Vancouver.  Maybe BC doesn’t allow this lumber to get to port if Alberta “shuts off the taps”...    :D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 18, 2018, 09:08:43 pm
Driving near Jasper this week, I saw train after train full of Alberta lumber headed to the port in Vancouver.  Maybe BC doesn’t allow this lumber to get to port if Alberta “shuts off the taps”...    :D

Seattle is only 200 km south of Vancouver. Shippers won't put up with BC's tantrum's, they will just find other ways to get their goods to market. Seattle will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 18, 2018, 09:16:11 pm
Interesting poll.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4040156/bc-alberta-pipeline-poll-angus-reid-institute/

While support for the project is evenly split, 55% think the continuing attempted delays by BC are wrong.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 18, 2018, 10:40:56 pm
Seattle is only 200 km south of Vancouver. Shippers won't put up with BC's tantrum's, they will just find other ways to get their goods to market. Seattle will be laughing all the way to the bank.

You think it’s as simple as changing tracks?  Surrrre...   if it was, Alberta would just send their oil south too...

One slight problem....   Washington backs BC.   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-washington-state-governor-backs-bc-in-fight-against-trans-mountain/

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 18, 2018, 11:04:13 pm
You think it’s as simple as changing tracks?  Surrrre...   if it was, Alberta would just send their oil south too...

One slight problem....   Washington backs BC.   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-washington-state-governor-backs-bc-in-fight-against-trans-mountain/


Shippers use ports as a tool, they are not customers.  Governor of a state that has been accepting tankers from Alaska for 40 years and will continue until Alaskan oil is gone, is backing BC for environmental reasons. What a joke. Wonder why that is. You think they are our friends when it comes to competing for business?

Do you seriously think Seattle will refuse to ship Canadian lumber, containers or other commodities?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 18, 2018, 11:14:28 pm
While support for the project is evenly split, 55% think the continuing attempted delays by BC are wrong.

Yet most think BC has the most persuasive argument.

I think what that poll really says it that the issue is controversial
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 18, 2018, 11:25:49 pm
Yet most think BC has the most persuasive argument.

I think what that poll really says it that the issue is controversial

Yes it is but the province with most objectors was Quebec which receives all of its oil by tanker, most of it from Algeria. The pot calling the kettle.

Quote
About 50 percent of U.S. oil imports, crude oil and refined products are transported by sea, according to the International Maritime Organization.

The Tesoro Anacortes refinery receives crude coming from Alaska and foreign sources by tanker. It delivers refined products through ships and barges. The Shell Puget Sound Refinery receives most of its crude oil by tanker from oilfields on Alaska’s North Slope.

These tankers typically make their way to the Tesoro and Shell marine terminals by way of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Rosario Strait and Guemes Channel.

According to the Puget Sound Marine Exchange’s data, in 2013 there were 597 tankers inbound through the Strait of Juan de Fuca — about 50 a month.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 19, 2018, 09:45:00 am
Rachel Notley implemented Canada's steepest carbon tax, imposed emissions caps, and began the phase-out of coal power generation, in the mistaken belief that demonstrating leadership on environmental issues would help win cooperation from Ottawa and the other provinces. She called this idea "social license".  Clearly that strategy is a gigantic failure. You can be sure that Jason Kenney will undo all of that when he becomes premier, and he will be able to argue-- with justification-- that trying to win cooperation by being a "good guy" on carbon has been a failure.

Early on, "social license" seemed to work. People were
Quote
"Let me say this definitively, we could not have approved this project without the leadership of Premier Notley and Alberta's climate leadership plan," Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa Tuesday while announcing the go-ahead of the pipeline. "A plan that commits to pricing carbon and capping oilsands emissions at 100 megatonnes per year."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/premier-leadership-climate-plan-factor-pipeline-approvals-1.3873664

But now we see how much Trudeau's support actually means. Despite promising that the pipeline will get built at a town hall, the federal government has provided zero action to make that happen, and they show no intention of ever planning to.

Notley now says she's not signing on to a national carbon tax plan until the pipeline gets built. Maybe she should start **** around with trucks or trains leaving BC-- mandatory safety inspections at the border, maybe-- to force the feds to get off their asses.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 19, 2018, 10:20:45 am
... the federal government has provided zero action to make that happen

what action are you proposing?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 19, 2018, 10:22:27 am
Probably shut them down at the Saskatchewan border so Alberta can pick what it wants for itself.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 19, 2018, 10:26:42 am
The pipeline has been approved so they should just start building it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 19, 2018, 10:48:59 am
Despite promising that the pipeline will get built at a town hall, the federal government has provided zero action to make that happen, and they show no intention of ever planning to.

It was Transcanada that cancelled the project. Are you suggesting that we should nationalize the petroleum sector?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 19, 2018, 11:27:12 am
BTW, the new NDP government repealed section 2 of the BC Carbon Tax Act which required it to be revenue neutral. With GVRD gas prices pushing $1:55 a litre for regular, the tax is going up again on April 1st. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 19, 2018, 11:48:20 am
It was Transcanada that cancelled the project. Are you suggesting that we should nationalize the petroleum sector?
TransCanada cancelled the project because they feared they would sink a bunch of money into a project that would get killed by politicals who cave into clueless nimbys and/or the impossible complex task of "consulting" with every native band along the route. If Kinder Morgan cancels their pipeline they will say it was for "business" reasons too but only the clueless would refuse to acknowledge the political context.

Resources built this country and the manufacturing industry exports exclusively to the US. Now we have protectionism in the US and a governments/courts that have made resource development impossible. This country is screwed. I give it 15 years before it collapses like Greece (note that excessive regulatory burdens is one of the reasons why the Greek economy does poorly).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 19, 2018, 04:45:46 pm
TransCanada cancelled the project because they feared they would sink a bunch of money into a project that would get killed by politicals who cave into clueless nimbys and/or the impossible complex task of "consulting" with every native band along the route.

They cancelled after the NEP decided to start its hearing process over and said a new process would not only require social buy-in from virtually the entire country, but that the pipeline project would have to be evaluated based upon its contribution to CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 20, 2018, 12:00:38 am
They cancelled after the NEP decided to start its hearing process over and said a new process would not only require social buy-in from virtually the entire country, but that the pipeline project would have to be evaluated based upon its contribution to CO2 emissions.

yabut Argus, that ain't so! Quit making shyte up, hey.

regulators recused themselves cause the review took on an appearance of bias - you know, when the regulators met with a paid consultant of Trans Canada... so... a new panel had to be created. Notwithstanding, of course, you're mixing the/your presumed longer-term changes to the NEB process; whereas in the Energy East situation (along with any other existing major oil infrastructure bids), those bids were/are to be assessed under the law as it currently stood/stands.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 21, 2018, 11:53:10 am
I think we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada for activism or protests.

The U.S.-based Tides Foundation, for example, directs funds to Canadian organizations such as Dogwood Initiative and Leadnow, both of whom featured prominently in the anti-pipeline protest on March 10th in Burnaby, and both of whom take an active role in B.C. elections, aiming to get pro-energy politicians out of office and anti-pipeline politicians elected.

Whose money is it that Tides pays out? And whose interests does it serve? What donor requests are being satisfied? This of course is the great unknown. Over the last few years Tides has granted $40 million to 100 Canadian anti-pipeline organizations who, in return, have done a fine job of constraining the Canadian economy and saving money for American buyers of Canadian oil.


http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canadians-are-realizing-foreign-groups-sabotaged-our-energy-economy-for-no-good-reason
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 21, 2018, 12:53:29 pm
I think we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada for activism or protests.

Hopefully that includes the thousands of times more money that come in for corporate activism.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 21, 2018, 12:56:24 pm
Hopefully that includes the thousands of times more money that come in for corporate activism.
A myth. The majority of money spent in Canada on political activism comes from unions, governments and NGOs. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 21, 2018, 01:04:59 pm
yabut Argus, that ain't so! Quit making shyte up, hey.

regulators recused themselves cause the review took on an appearance of bias - you know, when the regulators met with a paid consultant of Trans Canada... so... a new panel had to be created. Notwithstanding, of course, you're mixing the/your presumed longer-term changes to the NEB process; whereas in the Energy East situation (along with any other existing major oil infrastructure bids), those bids were/are to be assessed under the law as it currently stood/stands.

A lot probably had to do with a pipeline being a non starter with Quebec. Quebec seems fine with the St. Lawrence being filled with tankers bringing oil from North Africa but not with Canadian oil going in the other direction.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 21, 2018, 01:08:21 pm
A myth. The majority of money spent in Canada on political activism comes from unions, governments and NGOs.

Sorry, but when you have Prime Minster Harper only meeting with corporate lobbyists and not even regular people or the press then we have an almost exclusive monopoly of political activism from the corporate sector, and most of that foreign.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 21, 2018, 01:09:47 pm
Quebec seems fine with the St. Lawrence being filled with tankers bringing oil from North Africa but not with Canadian oil going in the other direction.
To add insult to injury: the Liberals don't require tanker operators to account for all of the upstream and downstream CO2 emissions but they expect pipeline operators to do so. It is nonsense. We need a government that puts Canadian jobs first.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 21, 2018, 01:13:21 pm
Sorry, but when you have Prime Minster Harper only meeting with corporate lobbyists and not even regular people or the press then we have an almost exclusive monopoly of political activism from the corporate sector, and most of that foreign.
The question is how much money is spent. Lobbying goes on under all governments (the Liberals love their Chinese paymaters) but when it comes to public campaigns to influence people the vast majority of money comes from unions/NGOs and governments.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 21, 2018, 01:22:54 pm
To add insult to injury: the Liberals don't require tanker operators to account for all of the upstream and downstream CO2 emissions but they expect pipeline operators to do so. It is nonsense.

You are right, the climate change denier lobby groups have completely destroyed any proper GHG accounting. We should have had a decade or more of C02 taxation, with proper assignment of C02 emissions on both domestic and imported goods. Will you join me in asking for proper emissions regulations, accounting, and taxation?

A lot probably had to do with a pipeline being a non starter with Quebec. Quebec seems fine with the St. Lawrence being filled with tankers bringing oil from North Africa but not with Canadian oil going in the other direction.

For the second year in a row, Canadian imports of petroleum have declined. It was down 12% in 2017.

Here is the 2017 snapshot by source country:

United States - 52.9%
Saudi Arabia - 15.2%
Azerbaijan - 7.8%
Norway - 5.7%
Nigeria - 5.6%
Algeria - 4.8%
United Kingdom - 3.0%
Colombia - 1.3%
Angola - 1.0%
Russian Federation - 0.9%
Kazakhstan - 0.8%
Ivory Coast - 0.5%
Iraq - 0.4%
Mexico - 0.0%
Ghana - 0.0%
Oman - 0.0%
France - 0.0%
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 21, 2018, 02:07:38 pm
Almost all of those imports are going to Eastern and Central Canada.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 21, 2018, 02:25:59 pm
Almost all of those imports are going to Eastern and Central Canada.

Non-US imports are almost exclusively to the Atlantic provinces. Most of Ontario and Quebec refineries are supplied by pipeline from the US, some of it American and some Western Canadian oil. Even the Jean Gaulin refinery gets its oil from the US, although it is shipped from the pipelines terminating in Montreal and down the St. Lawrence by tanker to Levis.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 21, 2018, 03:00:42 pm
So why should they get a say in a western pipeline?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 22, 2018, 06:54:19 pm
Sorry, but when you have Prime Minster Harper only meeting with corporate lobbyists and not even regular people or the press then we have an almost exclusive monopoly of political activism from the corporate sector, and most of that foreign.

At least he was meeting with Canadian lobbyists, not Chinese government ones.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 22, 2018, 06:59:39 pm
At least he was meeting with Canadian lobbyists, not Chinese government ones.

Sorry, but the players he met with are foreign. Statoil, Marcol Energy, Murphy Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Devon Energy, ConocoPhillips, PetrBank Energy Resources and Husky Energy are all over 90% foreign owned. Imperial Oil fares better at 89% foreign ownership. Suncor and Canadian Oil Sands are both  majority foreign owned.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 22, 2018, 07:13:25 pm
Sorry, but the players he met with are foreign. Statoil, Marcol Energy, Murphy Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Devon Energy, ConocoPhillips, PetrBank Energy Resources and Husky Energy are all over 90% foreign owned. Imperial Oil fares better at 89% foreign ownership. Suncor and Canadian Oil Sands are both  majority foreign owned.

You realize there is a difference between meeting with companies which do business in Canada, and accepting money from the Chinese government, right?
Note that what you call 'lobbying' by these companies was not accompanied by donations to the Conservatives. Unlike the Chinese government which is funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Liberal party of Canada through its diaspora here. And unlike Tides which is funneling tens of millions of dollars into Canada from sources unknown in order to restrict our oil production.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 22, 2018, 07:36:39 pm
Vancouverites are unhappy that gas prices are at record levels, and are projected to go higher.  Might be a good time to see how committed west coast urbanites *really* are to the environmental rhetoric.  Rachel should shut the pipeline down for a while... call it "spring cleaning" or "annual safety inspection" or something.



On the non-pipeline front, the home speculation tax is causing a lot of controversy here, as the Kim City/Lost Lake area has been added to the list of areas covered by the tax. City council has resolved to fight against this, and are upset that they weren't even consulted on the matter.

The reason this is controversial is that many homes in the area are second homes owned by out-of-town people who live here for part of the year, and/or will be retiring here in the near future.  Those people contribute a lot of money to our economy.  Putting a punitive tax on them might drive them away or force them to sell.

I have mixed emotions about this.  I do think something needs to be done about skyrocketing housing costs. But I'm a little concerned about the potential economic impact.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 24, 2018, 11:54:38 am
waldo Syndication Services:

Alberta cries hypocrisy over pipeline fight after B.C. offers incentives for LNG facililty --- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-alberta-cries-hypocrisy-over-pipeline-fight-after-bc-offers/

Quote
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is accusing Premier John Horgan’s government of “hypocrisy” when it comes to energy development, as British Columbia offers incentives to spur the construction of liquefied natural gas export facilities {re: Kitimat LNG terminal} while trying to thwart the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline expansion.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 12:03:20 pm
Where were all the Kinder Morgan "environmentalists" while this has been going on?

https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2017/03/vancouver-becoming-north-americas-largest-coal-exporting-port/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 24, 2018, 12:04:25 pm
There are environmental concerns about all hydrocarbons, but certainly there are much different concerns especially localized ones around heavier hydrocarbons (crude oil) on water based ecosystems.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 12:25:28 pm
There are environmental concerns about all hydrocarbons, but certainly there are much different concerns especially localized ones around heavier hydrocarbons (crude oil) on water based ecosystems.

But I don't see those who are quoting CO2 emissions protesting the fact Vancouver exports 6 million tons of American thermal coal every year.

Do you think all tanker traffic worldwide should be shut down and if not, what makes Vancouver so special?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 12:50:36 pm
There are environmental concerns about all hydrocarbons, but certainly there are much different concerns especially localized ones around heavier hydrocarbons (crude oil) on water based ecosystems.
Sure tell yourself that. We all know the real reason so people in BC think the pipeline can/should be stopped is they (wrongly) believe it will have no impact on the BC economy. Shameless hypocrites all around.

I noticed some native groups have taken the government to court over its tanker ban. Environmentalists discovered in Clayoquot that supporting "native rights" does not necessarily stop industrial activity. I am surprised they did not learn the lesson.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 24, 2018, 12:54:15 pm
John Horgan is now pleading for the federal government to step in and provide "leadership" in regard to skyrocketing gas prices.

Pretty rich.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 01:55:03 pm
John Horgan is now pleading for the federal government to step in and provide "leadership" in regard to skyrocketing gas prices.

Pretty rich.

 -k

As he cranks up the carbon tax next week. Disconnected what. ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on March 24, 2018, 01:59:23 pm
As he cranks up the carbon tax next week. Disconnected what. ::)
Agree, the province has a lot of control over what is paid.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 02:10:38 pm
I don't know what he expects Ottawa to do other than lower the federal tax so he can increase the provincial tax. Why should Ottawa do anything when BC isn't prepared to do anything other than be obstructive.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 03:15:51 pm
I don't know what he expects Ottawa to do other than lower the federal tax so he can increase the provincial tax. Why should Ottawa do anything when BC isn't prepared to do anything other than be obstructive.

And what do gas prices have to do with exporting bitumen to China?   Please explain....
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 03:28:43 pm
And what do gas prices have to do with exporting bitumen to China?   Please explain....
BC depends on Alberta and Kinder Morgan to provide fuel so increasing supply to reduce prices requires a good relationship with Alberta and Kinder Morgan.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-alberta-could-sow-gas-price-armageddon-in-vancouver

Quote
It’s surprisingly difficult to get oil into Vancouver by sea
If Alberta imports run dry, B.C. will be forced to source its gas almost exclusively from Washington State. This is easier said than done. Currently, “less than 10% of the gasoline consumed in B.C. is imported via ship or barge from the U.S. Pacific Northwest,” according to the National Energy Board. This is remarkably low for a province where 72 per cent of the population lives within easy reach of the coast. It also means that there are few places in Vancouver to offload gas and diesel from a boat. One of the biggest, ironically, is owned by Kinder Morgan. Their Westridge Marine Terminal, the export terminal for the Trans Mountain pipeline, could conceivably become the epicenter of an effort to resupply Vancouver’s gas stations by sea.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 04:09:21 pm
BC depends on Alberta and Kinder Morgan to provide fuel so increasing supply to reduce prices requires a good relationship with Alberta and Kinder Morgan.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-alberta-could-sow-gas-price-armageddon-in-vancouver

You seemed to have missed the question and gone on to answer a question that was never asked...   

So what do gas prices have to do with exporting bitumen to China?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 04:23:58 pm
So what do gas prices have to do with exporting bitumen to China?
You seem to be unable to connect the dots. Alberta and Kinder Morgan want to expand the pipeline to ensure Alberta producers have more than one international customer for their product. If BC wants their help increasing local gasoline supplies then it will have to provide the quid quo pro. The alternate is to continue to screw over Alberta and see what happens to gas prices if Alberta gets pissed off enough to cut off supplies of refined product.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 04:40:29 pm
You seem to be unable to connect the dots. Alberta and Kinder Morgan want to expand the pipeline to ensure Alberta producers have more than one international customer for their product. If BC wants their help increasing local gasoline supplies then it will have to provide the quid quo pro. The alternate is to continue to screw over Alberta and see what happens to gas prices if Alberta gets pissed off enough to cut off supplies of refined product.

Thats like saying let us expand pipelines or we won’t send you our apples.   One has nothing to do with the other except as political blackmail.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 04:48:40 pm
I think it’s the irony of a province that is so obstructionist when it come to anything petroleum, whining about gas prices.

What BC really needs is second refinery but even if someone wanted to build it, the chances of getting one approved in Lotus Land is just about non existent.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 04:52:31 pm
Thats like saying let us expand pipelines or we won’t send you our apples.   One has nothing to do with the other except as political blackmail.
Well, BC politicians are the ones who set the tone by deciding to be SOBs by obstructing the pipeline. If others respond in kind they have no business complaining. Of course, this kind of brinksmanship could be avoided if BC politicians would stop being a**holes and work cooperatively with Alberta for solutions that address spill concerns while allowing  the project to move forward as planned.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 04:53:49 pm
I think it’s the irony of a province that is so obstructionist when it come to anything petroleum, whining about gas prices.

What BC really needs is second refinery but even if someone wanted to build it, the chances of getting one approved in Lotus Land is just about non existent.

You’re simply wrong.  There are pipelines all over the place.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 04:55:38 pm
Well, BC politicians are the ones who set the tone by deciding to be SOBs by obstructing the pipeline. If others respond in kind they have no business complaining. Of course, this kind of brinksmanship could be avoided if BC politicians would stop being a**holes and work cooperatively with Alberta for solutions that address spill concerns while allowing  the project to move forward as planned.

The project isn’t good enough as planned, so BC is looking out for its interests.  Why should BC look out for Albertan interests when all the risks are in BC?   No thanks.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 04:58:01 pm
You’re simply wrong.  There are pipelines all over the place.

When was the last time a new one was approved?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 05:02:24 pm
The project isn’t good enough as planned, so BC is looking out for its interests.  Why should BC look out for Albertan interests when all the risks are in BC?   No thanks.

Why not just separate then if you don’t give a **** about the rest of the country. Vancouver could then compete with US ports to serve the rest of Canada. You know as well as I do, it will never be good enough for you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 05:03:46 pm
When was the last time a new one was approved?

No idea...   do you know?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 05:04:34 pm
Why not just separate them if you don’t give a **** about the rest of the country. Vancouver could then compete with US ports to serve the rest of Canada. You know as well as I do, it will never be goof enough for you.

Silly hyperbole. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 05:06:53 pm
The project isn’t good enough as planned, so BC is looking out for its interests.  Why should BC look out for Albertan interests when all the risks are in BC?   No thanks.
Spare us the dishonest nonsense. No pipeline project would ever be "good enough" for the people like you. More importantly, BC has a moral obligation to facilitate the transport of products from other provinces. You could call it the flipside of deal BC cut to join confederation which included a promise to build a transcanada rail link. If BC wishes to renege on this moral obligation for self-centered reasons then Alberta is within its rights to respond with equally nasty measures such as cutting off the gas supply the Vancouver. It is extreme but it seems like that will be the only way to communicate with the self-absorbed hypocrites in Victoria now.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 05:07:44 pm
No idea...   do you know?

The only one I know of is the one to serve YVR with fuel which took 10 years of fighting and doubled the cost.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 05:17:37 pm
Spare us the dishonest nonsense. No pipeline project would ever be "good enough" for the people like you. More importantly, BC has a moral obligation to facilitate the transport of products from other provinces. You could call it the flipside of deal BC cut to join confederation which included a promise to build a transcanada rail link. If BC wishes to renege on this moral obligation for self-centered reasons then Alberta is within its rights to respond with equally nasty measures such as cutting off the gas supply the Vancouver. It is extreme but it seems like that will be the only way to communicate with the self-absorbed hypocrites in Victoria now.

60% of Alberta goods go through Vancouver...   go ahead...   cut off gas and their Walmarts will be empty.  Rednecks won’t stand for that.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 24, 2018, 05:19:22 pm
A friend of mine is at the protest right now with her 70 year old mother. The police are arresting people
one by one but there are an estimated 300 people there so it can’t be easy. I don’t think people outside of Vancouver know what this means to us.

I know also of many people loved Trudeau till his government passed KM.  I know it’ll get built one way or another but at this point I’m willing to put up with Scheer just because Trudeau deserves a swift exit  on this issue alone.

Environmentalist my ass.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on March 24, 2018, 05:24:30 pm
The only one I know of is the one to serve YVR with fuel which took 10 years of fighting and doubled the cost.

Maybe do some research and come back another time.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 24, 2018, 05:36:06 pm
Elizabeth May arrested at the protest too.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 05:40:11 pm
A friend of mine is at the protest right now with her 70 year old mother. The police are arresting people
The courts need to start giving out serious jail to people who think getting arrested is 'badge of honour'. It is ridiculous that people think they can simply ignore court rulings.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 05:58:50 pm
Well, you won’t have any fuel to deliver them with anyway. What an effing country
Maybe do some research and come back another time.

Nope, you’re starting to sound like waldo.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 06:01:19 pm
A friend of mine is at the protest right now with her 70 year old mother. The police are arresting people
one by one but there are an estimated 300 people there so it can’t be easy. I don’t think people outside of Vancouver know what this means to us.

I know also of many people loved Trudeau till his government passed KM.  I know it’ll get built one way or another but at this point I’m willing to put up with Scheer just because Trudeau deserves a swift exit  on this issue alone.

Environmentalist my ass.

I don’t think Nimbies in Vancouver know what it means to people outside Vancouver.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 24, 2018, 06:02:52 pm
I don’t think Nimbies in Vancouver know what it means to people outside Vancouver.

Considering they’re making money and we’re risking our waters, who gives a ****?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2018, 06:04:38 pm
Considering they’re making money and we’re risking our waters, who gives a ****?

Oh BS, you are a port for cripes sake.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 06:10:31 pm
Considering they’re making money and we’re risking our waters, who gives a ****?
Then shut down the entire port of Vancouver if you are that concerned about the waters. The fact is this is has nothing to do with protecting the environment and is entirely a virtue signalling exercise for people in desperate need of a "cause". The recent subsidies to LNG exports and Horgan's complaints about gas prices really illustrate how shallow the thinking is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 24, 2018, 06:12:11 pm
Blah blah blah. SJW.

Blah blah blah. Virtue signaling.

Yawn.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 24, 2018, 07:17:57 pm
Tim why did you edit SJW out of your post?

Suddenly you realize how ridiculous you sound?  :D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 24, 2018, 10:48:21 pm
The courts need to start giving out serious jail to people who think getting arrested is 'badge of honour'. It is ridiculous that people think they can simply ignore court rulings.
MLK and Ghandi salute you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 24, 2018, 10:49:02 pm
Well, you won’t have any fuel to deliver them with anyway. What an effing country
Nope, you’re starting to sound like waldo.
So why act like it's been forever since a new one was approved when you have no idea how long it has been?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 24, 2018, 11:00:48 pm
MLK and Ghandi salute you.

Add Mandella.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 24, 2018, 11:12:54 pm
MLK and Ghandi salute you.
Comparing self-absorbed and hypocritical anti-pipeline protesters toe MLK and Ghandi is an insult to the legacy of those men.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 24, 2018, 11:17:46 pm
Comparing self-absorbed and hypocritical anti-pipeline protesters toe MLK and Ghandi is an insult to the legacy of those men.
Oh, so then not all protesters who see getting arrested as a badge of honour. Just some of them that you don't like.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 25, 2018, 09:41:18 am
Although I disagree with the protesters objectives I appreciate that we live in a society that has the freedom and tolerance to allow such protests.

Now if only Horgan can show respect for our laws and allow the TMX to go through.

In the meantime, if he thinks I’m impressed by his sellout to LNG he’s wrong: to give PST breaks to one particular business and to force me to pay a carbon tax divorced from revenue neutrality as announced in their first budget in 2017 is quite a stretch.

Years from now we could be paying carbon tax while our largest emitter pays a minimium base amount.

Strange environmentalism from our Premier.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 25, 2018, 04:49:36 pm
So why act like it's been forever since a new one was approved when you have no idea how long it has been?

80% of BC pipelines are natural gas. This 15 km fuel pipeline to replace one built in 1948 was delayed 7 years and had its cost doubled.
https://biv.com/article/2017/06/new-150-million-jet-fuel-pipeline-project-underway

The existing Transmountain pipeline was approved in 1947 and finished in 1951.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 25, 2018, 05:24:58 pm
Oh, so then not all protesters who see getting arrested as a badge of honour. Just some of them that you don't like.
There is a huge difference between people on the losing side of a complex political trade off refusing to accept the outcome of the legal process and people fighting for rights denied to them. The protestors had more than adequate opportunities to contribute to process and have no business engaging in illegal actions to block a decision that did not go their way.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 25, 2018, 06:21:39 pm
people on the losing side of a complex political trade off refusing to accept the outcome of the legal process
You mean like whining about abortion, complaining about trans rights, arguing for the death penalty, protesting Khadr's right to live free, or claiming that the judiciary is filled with "activist" judges?

First I've seen you complain about it, but, hey...good for you for coming to your senses.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 25, 2018, 06:44:32 pm
You mean like whining about abortion, complaining about trans rights, arguing for the death penalty, protesting Khadr's right to live free, or claiming that the judiciary is filled with "activist" judges?
You can't seem to understand the difference between protesting a decision and *deliberately violating a court order*. This kind of stuff should not have to be explained.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 25, 2018, 09:32:16 pm
No change would ever take place if someone didn't challenge the status quo.  The difference is conservatives resist change, not status quo, so there is very little in terms of comparison when it comes to court orders to ignore (ie trans rights etc).

Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the right from not accepting a situation once things evolve.  In that you are being completely hypocritical.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 25, 2018, 10:03:39 pm
No change would ever take place if someone didn't challenge the status quo.  The difference is conservatives resist change, not status quo, so there is very little in terms of comparison when it comes to court orders to ignore (ie trans rights etc).

Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the right from not accepting a situation once things evolve.  In that you are being completely hypocritical.

What does rule of law have to do with right and left? Explain.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 25, 2018, 11:06:05 pm
What does rule of law have to do with right and left? Explain.

I already did.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 25, 2018, 11:16:58 pm
I already did.

Ah, no.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 26, 2018, 01:12:14 pm
Nope, you’re starting to sound like waldo.

why I oughta... look... get over it! I quoted your words... exactly as you wrote them (on the other POS board)  ;D Besides, I'm confused why you wouldn't embrace them now as they clearly show you have little to no restrictions in "getting to tidewater"!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 26, 2018, 04:41:01 pm
why I oughta... look... get over it! I quoted your words... exactly as you wrote them (on the other POS board)  ;D Besides, I'm confused why you wouldn't embrace them now as they clearly show you have little to no restrictions in "getting to tidewater"!




Well I could be an A hole and quote you out of context on all kinds of things but I won't. However, since you won't reference the entire post, you can cram it.

FYI, tanker in the Straight of Juan de Fuca are limited to 125K tons by the Americans as well. So double cram it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 27, 2018, 04:49:06 am
Well I could be an A hole and quote you out of context on all kinds of things but I won't. However, since you won't reference the entire post, you can cram it.

FYI, tanker in the Straight of Juan de Fuca are limited to 125K tons by the Americans as well. So double cram it.

wait, what! I gave you the context - twice (initial post and subsequent); specifically in regards, "initial suggestions/fore-warnings of a possible intent to also include the suezmax class {typically 175K DWT} ... requiring berthing and channel dredging of Burrard Inlet and 1st/2nd narrows".

if you don't believe that to be the context, or 'proper context', please feel free to state/show your statement (that I precisely quoted) in the context you wish to maintain - please proceed, Governor! But again, where's your beef in, relatively speaking, not embracing, again, "little to no restrictions in getting to tidewater"?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 09:09:52 am
If you can’t be honest enough to give the post reference I am not discussing anything with you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 27, 2018, 10:54:02 am
The project isn’t good enough as planned, so BC is looking out for its interests.  Why should BC look out for Albertan interests when all the risks are in BC?   No thanks.

The risks are tiny. As you point out, there are pipelines all over the place.
As for the coast, that's not BC's, it's Canada's.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 27, 2018, 10:55:21 am
If you can’t be honest enough to give the post reference I am not discussing anything with you.

bloody hell! How can you claim 'out of context' if you don't know the, as you say, "post reference"?  ;D But again, where's your beef - you're gung-ho for the pipeline... why are you not the same in accepting what you stated about tankers in the past - what's a lil' ole dredging of Burrard Inlet and 1st/2nd narrows to accept even bigger tankers?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 27, 2018, 11:02:34 am
As for the coast, that's not BC's, it's Canada's.

oh really? Argus, are you sure?

(https://i.imgur.com/DQy45X6.png)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 11:32:11 am
Thanks Waldo. I read the legalities too before but couldn’t be bothered to do Argus’s research for him.

All BC wants to do is let the courts hear our case but Notley is trying to posture so she can look tough against Kenney.

The issue isn’t black or white.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 27, 2018, 12:00:45 pm
All BC wants to do is let the courts hear our case but Notley is trying to posture so she can look tough against Kenney.
http://business.financialpost.com/investing/the-court-wouldnt-even-hear-it-b-c-loses-trans-mountain-appeal-in-federal-court

Quote
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley cheered a court victory for the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion Monday, which upholds the project’s ability to sidestep local permitting processes in cities opposed to the pipeline.

The Federal Court of Appeal declined late on Friday to hear an appeal by the government of B.C. and a handful of opposed municipalities of a ruling by the National Energy Board, which allowed Kinder Morgan Canada to seek construction permits for the pipeline directly from Canada’s pipeline regulator.

“It wasn’t that we won the decision, it was the court wouldn’t even hear it. So it was a pretty definitive victory for the pipeline and for the people of Alberta and Canada,” Notley said Monday.
OK. So BC was told by the courts it has no case. Does that mean BC backs off or will it be just a matter of time before a new excuse is concocted to go back to court again?

I think you know your attempt to make it sound like BC is being reasonable by 'just wanting its day in court' is dishonest BS. The only question is whether you will admit it.
By obstructing the pipeline BC is repudiating its moral and legal obligations under the constitution.
Anything Alberta does in response is in reprisal for BC's failure to be a good neighbor and federation partner.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 27, 2018, 12:11:29 pm
As for the coast, that's not BC's, it's Canada's.

Technically the coast and inland waterways are BC's, and off coast (12 miles) is Canada's.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 12:17:59 pm
I didn’t catch that in yesterday’s news.

I knew it’d get built one way or another but I hope to see Notley and Trudeau get booted for it and get replaced by some real progressive leaders.

Shame on both of them.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: MH on March 27, 2018, 02:11:15 pm
Why do we have 19 pages on BC politics, and hardly any about Ontario ?  It's not fair.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 27, 2018, 02:34:15 pm
I didn’t catch that in yesterday’s news.

I knew it’d get built one way or another but I hope to see Notley and Trudeau get booted for it and get replaced by some real progressive leaders.

Shame on both of them.

You are insane.

We will end up with Kenney and Scheer as Premier and Prime Minister. 

Congratulations and shame on you.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 27, 2018, 02:37:28 pm
OK. So BC was told by the courts it has no case. Does that mean BC backs off or will it be just a matter of time before a new excuse is concocted to go back to court again?

I think you know your attempt to make it sound like BC is being reasonable by 'just wanting its day in court' is dishonest BS. The only question is whether you will admit it.
By obstructing the pipeline BC is repudiating its moral and legal obligations under the constitution.
Anything Alberta does in response is in reprisal for BC's failure to be a good neighbor and federation partner.

Agreed with all of this except for the reprisals. 

Unless Alberta is behaving like a Nobel winning revolutionary in which case then I guess history will be okay with it.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 02:38:58 pm
You are insane.

We will end up with Kenney and Scheer as Premier and Prime Minister. 

Congratulations and shame on you.

Shame on you for shaming me for my opinion.

Notley never was an NDP but people like Trudeau make me sick. They don’t realize that Albertans and conservatives will never vote for them but they appease them instead of their voters.

I *rather* have Scheer than a phony.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 02:40:31 pm
Why do we have 19 pages on BC politics, and hardly any about Ontario ?  It's not fair.

You say that after all the Patrick Brown threads?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 27, 2018, 02:50:09 pm
Why do we have 19 pages on BC politics, and hardly any about Ontario ?  It's not fair.

I have to agree there, without articles on Ontario we are ignoring the God given right of Alberta crybabies to complain about the center of the universe.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 04:51:10 pm
I have to agree there, without articles on Ontario we are ignoring the God given right of Alberta crybabies to complain about the center of the universe.

Alberta will always be Alberta, that part doesn't bug me.  Whining about ROC and having a victim-mentality is pretty much their raison d'etre it seems. Notley will be a flash in the pan and it'll be business as usual when (not if) Kenney wins the election next year.

Trudeau is the one I'm actually disappointed in.  First with dropping proportional representation and then for screwing over Metro Vancouver just to make inroads with a province that will never accept a Trudeau.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 04:56:33 pm
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject:


Quote
Globally, nothing could destroy Trudeau's progressive image quicker than a picture of Indigenous elders peacefully defending their lands and waters being arrested by Canadian armed forces, yet that's exactly where this battle is headed.

Already, over 23,000 people have signed up to do "whatever it takes" to stop the pipeline. Members of the Tsleil Waututh have called for a mass action on March 10, and things are just going to get hotter from there.

Indigenous leaders, mayors and even a federal member of Parliament are willing to put their bodies on the line to stop this project. With each arrest, the headlines will multiply, which would be a blow to Trudeau on the world stage.

Trudeau has a way out, but it's not in backing a government that isn't likely to be around next year. If the prime minister wants to keep his international reputation squeaky clean and live up to his own promises, the best way to do that is to let B.C.'s planned scientific reviews move forward, the court cases be heard, and crumbing pipeline economics run their course.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-hudema/trudeau-alberta-ndp-pipelines_a_23376142/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 27, 2018, 05:53:13 pm
Alberta will always be Alberta, that part doesn't bug me.  Whining about ROC and having a victim-mentality is pretty much their raison d'etre it seems. Notley will be a flash in the pan and it'll be business as usual when (not if) Kenney wins the election next year.

Trudeau is the one I'm actually disappointed in.  First with dropping proportional representation and then for screwing over Metro Vancouver just to make inroads with a province that will never accept a Trudeau.

I spent twenty two years living in BC and working all over it, and I've spent the last twelve doing exactly the same in Alberta.  They are no different when it comes to whining about the RoC.

I imagine everywhere is the same. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 06:08:15 pm
23,000 signatures out of 4.8 million. Also a little short of the 700,000 who signed the anti HST petition.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 06:16:23 pm
23,000 are part of the ‘whatever it takes’ group.  In the poll 48% disapprove vs 44% who approve. Geographically I would think the supporters are less likely to be Liberal supporters anyway.

This will hurt Trudeau in the Lower Mainland where he got 8/13 seats and rightfully so.   

Though I’m guessing that should make you happy, Wilber.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 06:21:28 pm
23,000 are part of the ‘whatever it takes’ group.  In the poll 48% disapprove vs 44% who approve. Geographically I would think the supporters are less likely to be Liberal supporters anyway.

This will hurt Trudeau in the Lower Mainland where he got 8/13 seats and rightfully so.   

Though I’m guessing that should make you happy, Wilber.



The 700,000 wasn't a poll, it was actual witnessed signatures.

Seems like you are more upset at Trudeau than I am.

Vancouver isn't Canada or BC, it is only Vancouver.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 06:26:33 pm
I'm not exactly hiding my disdain for Trudeau, I've never really been a fan to begin with and anyone who is familiar with posts knows that.  It's about the only thing I have in common with Conservatives.

I also have no idea what your point is comparing the number of people who voted in a referendum on sales-tax with a group dedicated to civil disobedience, but I'm sure you're making sense in your head.



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 06:28:56 pm

I also have no idea what your point is comparing the number of people who voted in a referendum on sales-tax with a group dedicated to civil disobedience, but I'm sure you're making sense in your head.

I think I addressed that in my last statement.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 06:35:25 pm
I think I addressed that in my last statement.

Not really.  Here let me help you out...

A democratic referendum on sales-tax was put forth by a provincial government wherein the wishes of the voters was respected and the government reversed its position on harmonized sales-tax. 

The results of which pertain to a group dedicated to civil disobedience on the Kinder Morgan TMP Expansion because                       (now you fill in the blank).

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 06:52:25 pm
Not really.  Here let me help you out...

A democratic referendum on sales-tax was put forth by a provincial government wherein the wishes of the voters was respected and the government reversed its position on harmonized sales-tax. 

The results of which pertain to a group dedicated to civil disobedience on the Kinder Morgan TMP Expansion because                       (now you fill in the blank).

The HST referendum was the result of enough British Columbians signing a petition to require the government to hold a referendum. The government had no choice.

You are right, there is no relationship.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 06:59:40 pm
The HST referendum was the result of enough British Columbians signing a petition to require the government to hold a referendum. The government had no choice.

You are right, there is no relationship.

Oh ok. 

Hey!  Remember when Harper decided to lower the GST from 7% to 5%?  Yeah, no relevance to this discussion but I felt like bringing it up.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2018, 07:09:38 pm
Oh ok. 

Hey!  Remember when Harper decided to lower the GST from 7% to 5%?  Yeah, no relevance to this discussion but I felt like bringing it up.

OK, whatever.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2018, 08:19:20 pm
I didn’t catch that in yesterday’s news.

I knew it’d get built one way or another but I hope to see Notley and Trudeau get booted for it and get replaced by some real progressive leaders.

Shame on both of them.

That's just delusional.

When Notley gets booted, you don't get a "real progressive", you get Jason Kenney.

Notley has brought in an Alberta carbon tax, a cap on oilsands emissions, and a plan to phase out coal and implement renewables. She did this with the idea that if Alberta took steps on CO2 and coal and a carbon tax, the federal government and the other provinces and the enviro-weenies would be more willing to cooperate on pipelines.  Her opponents and critics said "that's a stupid idea, those people will never cooperate regardless how much CO2 you cut or how many windmills and solar panels you put up."

Unfortunately, Horgan and friends are proving that her opponents and critics were correct.

The first thing Kenney will do when he becomes premier next year is to tear up Notley's environmental efforts. He'll call them "an expensive failure that did nothing to get the pipelines built."

Rachel Notley has championed these environmental actions, as well as a socially progressive agenda that has met strong resistance in Alberta... but I guess she's not a "real progressive" because she understands that Alberta's primary export has to get to its customers.   ::)

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 08:37:33 pm
I'm not delusional, you lack reading comprehension (not in general about about my post which you quoted). 

I have no expectations that Trudeau and Notley would be replaced NEXT YEAR by 'real progressives'.  It'll be Scheer and Kenney, obviously. 

I'm hoping that while they're on the side lines they get replaced by 'real progressives' in their own parties (hence where I said they get replaced by real progressive *leaders*) and maybe next time around 'real progressive' leaders learn from these two flash in pans about screwing over their base.

Notley was never an NDP as far as I'm concerned but I have no horse in the game with her.  No matter who runs Alberta it'll be the same **** different pile as we've come to see.  I'll just toast her goodbye because she doesn't deserve the NDP name.

Trudeau was the one that disappointed me more and a swift kick to the behind to him will serve him right too.  Like I've said before Liberals are just Conservatives who go to gay parades.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2018, 08:49:19 pm
I'm hoping that while they're on the side lines they get replaced by 'real progressives' in their own parties (hence where I said they get replaced by real progressive *leaders*) and maybe next time around 'real progressive' leaders learn from these two flash in pans about screwing over their base.

If you're hoping that the Alberta NDP choose a leader who opposes pipelines, you're essentially hoping for the Alberta NDP to condemn themselves to complete irrelevancy.  Seems like an odd thing for an NDP booster to hope for.

Albertans will NEVER vote for a party that opposes the oil industry.  Notley, and her support for reduced emissions and renewables are the best you are going to get.   Enjoy Jason Kenney, coming soon to a border-war near you.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 08:55:42 pm
Enjoy Jason Kenney, coming soon to a border-war near you.


Oh because Notley was such a dove!   :D

Same ****, different pile.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 08:58:13 pm
And no, for the fourth or fifth time, I have no expectations of Alberta.  I have no horse in the game, I just hate seeing Notley parade as an NDP.

My disappointment is TRUDEAU.  I've been advocating strongly against TRUDEAU for his decision on this pipeline.

Notley was never meant to be anything more than a protest vote and a one-term premier, I wish to see TRUDEAU learn his lesson from this. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2018, 09:16:45 pm
Oh because Notley was such a dove!   :D

Same ****, different pile.

Compared to the 50-year-old virgin, you bet she is. 

And no, for the fourth or fifth time, I have no expectations of Alberta.  I have no horse in the game, I just hate seeing Notley parade as an NDP.

Maybe you're disappointed to see the NDP actually FORM A GOVERNMENT in Alberta, but I'm quite pleased that it happened.  I think that things like championing a socially progressive agenda, and emissions reductions, and renewable resources, are worth doing. And continuing to export oil to people who need it and will buy it from somewhere else anyway is a reality that anybody who wants to be premier of Alberta has to live with.  Rachel Notley chose to accept that reality while advancing environmental issues in other ways.  If that's just too far "off the reserve" for NDP supporters to accept, that might explain a great deal about why the NDP have been so overwhelmingly ineffective for most of their existence.


My disappointment is TRUDEAU.  I've been advocating strongly against TRUDEAU for his decision on this pipeline.

I'm surprised that you're disappointed in Trudeau... I didn't think you were ever on board the Trudeau train, even from before the election.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 27, 2018, 09:33:15 pm
Her opponents and critics said "that's a stupid idea, those people will never cooperate regardless how much CO2 you cut or how many windmills and solar panels you put up."
The stupid thing is if the anti-pipeline crowd understood the concept of compromise a lot of Albertans would have accepted all of the initiatives and even Kenny would have found it very difficult to renage. By taking a "refuse any compromise" approach the anti-pipeline zealots have simply confirmed the notion that compromise is a waste of time. This is not good for society because it simple cements divisions in society and makes it impossible to develop the consensus needed for any type of positive change.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 27, 2018, 09:44:32 pm
The stupid thing is if the anti-pipeline crowd understood the concept of compromise a lot of Albertans would have accepted all of the initiatives and even Kenny would have found it very difficult to renage. By taking a "refuse any compromise" approach the anti-pipeline zealots have simply confirmed the notion that compromise is a waste of time. This is not good for society because it simple cements divisions in society and makes it impossible to develop the consensus needed for any type of positive change.

You were doing OK until you tried to slip it in the assumption that a pipeline is necessarily a "positive change"
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 09:45:09 pm
Maybe you're disappointed to see the NDP actually FORM A GOVERNMENT in Alberta, but I'm quite pleased that it happened.  I think that things like championing a socially progressive agenda, and emissions reductions, and renewable resources, are worth doing. And continuing to export oil to people who need it and will buy it from somewhere else anyway is a reality that anybody who wants to be premier of Alberta has to live with.  Rachel Notley chose to accept that reality while advancing environmental issues in other ways.  If that's just too far "off the reserve" for NDP supporters to accept, that might explain a great deal about why the NDP have been so overwhelmingly ineffective for most of their existence.

No, it was actually nice to see Alberta Conservatives get booted just for the shock factor, but who are we kidding?  Everyone knew she'd be a one-term protest-vote premier.  Wait, did you actually have hopes that Alberta would find some semblance of progressiveness?? 

And yes, she's slightly above the steaming pile of poop that normally runs the province, but at the end of the day, Alberta is what it is and no matter who governs it, they will be a slightly different shade of poop since they have to appease their constituents.

I'm surprised that you're disappointed in Trudeau... I didn't think you were ever on board the Trudeau train, even from before the election.

No, I wasn't ever a fan but I preferred him to Harper.  Over Scheer, not really.

That's the 'disappointment' factor I'm talking about.  Even people I know who voted Liberal feel disappointed in him. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 27, 2018, 09:47:11 pm
the anti-pipeline zealots have simply confirmed

I think the pro pollution zealots have done more than their fair share of confirming they will not compromise on anything short of disaster for future generations to enrich their current pockets.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 09:47:31 pm
The stupid thing is if the anti-pipeline crowd understood the concept of compromise a lot of Albertans would have accepted all of the initiatives and even Kenny would have found it very difficult to renage. By taking a "refuse any compromise" approach the anti-pipeline zealots have simply confirmed the notion that compromise is a waste of time. This is not good for society because it simple cements divisions in society and makes it impossible to develop the consensus needed for any type of positive change.


What exactly is a compromise on something like this?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2018, 10:00:05 pm
No, it was actually nice to see Alberta Conservatives get booted just for the shock factor, but who are we kidding?  Everyone knew she'd be a one-term protest-vote premier.  Wait, did you actually have hopes that Alberta would find some semblance of progressiveness?? 

Despite the reputation, Alberta is a heavily urbanized province.  Edmonton has a long trend of bucking against the province's conservative leanings, and I don't know if you've noticed who Calgary's mayor has been for the past several years...

A small-L liberal agenda can work in Alberta, provided that it's balanced with the understanding that people still need FREAKIN' JOBS.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 27, 2018, 10:03:16 pm
What exactly is a compromise on something like this?
What Notley tried: build a pipeline with a carbon tax and various other GHG initiatives in the oil patch. It is a compromise that I could live with even though I think GHG reductions are a pathetic waste of resources. But I don't expect you to understand since "compromise" in your mind means "you get whatever you want an f**k everyone else".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 27, 2018, 10:27:40 pm
Despite the reputation, Alberta is a heavily urbanized province.  Edmonton has a long trend of bucking against the province's conservative leanings, and I don't know if you've noticed who Calgary's mayor has been for the past several years...

A small-L liberal agenda can work in Alberta, provided that it's balanced with the understanding that people still need FREAKIN' JOBS.



Thanks for the discussion kimmy but we're going in circles here.  As I've said before, I really don't expect anything more from the premier of Alberta even though I will toast getting this half-baked NDP booted out after one term. 

I really don't have any high hopes of anyone in oily Alberta when it comes to their oily economy.

My real issue is with the *environmentalists* sitting up in Ottawa who approved this project but for some reason you keep bringing the discussion back to Notley so on that note I wave goodbye.... as I go in another circle. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 27, 2018, 10:49:18 pm
My real issue is with the *environmentalists* sitting up in Ottawa who approved this project

Not sure exactly what that means. As I understand it, Trudeau made a lot of promises on the election circuit about the environment but can you show me any concerning the Kinder Morgan pipeline. He said that no pipeline should run through the Great Bear Rainforest, and pledged a moratorium on oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast, which was specifically about the Northern Gateway pipeline. He also talked about carbon pricing and overhaul of the National Energy Board and the review process.

I know my perception in 2015 was that Kinder Morgan and Energy East would most likely proceed but perhaps have a more detailed review process. Did you see this differently?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 28, 2018, 03:51:36 am
I've previously asked (the thread's NDP supporters) just what they believe Trudeau should have done/should yet do, vis-a-vis Trans Mountain - still waiting...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 28, 2018, 09:20:00 am
I too would like to hear workable ideas as to what should be done.

Do we cancel railway loads and the TMX?

Do we watch Mad Max to get ready for the coming chaos from this?  For the love of gawd please no - such as POS movie....

Do we point out the hypocrisy of Horgan and question his progressive credentials given his selling out to LNG where we could see our carbon taxes help subsidize the largets carbon polluter in BC history if/when it is built?

As I have said: insane. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on March 28, 2018, 10:06:52 am
Do we watch Mad Max to get ready for the coming chaos from this?  For the love of gawd please no - such as POS movie....
Fight me.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2018, 10:31:32 am
I'm wondering what the 23,000 who signed to do "whatever it takes" to stop the pipeline mean by "whatever it takes". Sabotage, self immolation, what?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 28, 2018, 10:50:27 am
I'm wondering what the 23,000 who signed to do "whatever it takes" to stop the pipeline mean by "whatever it takes". Sabotage, self immolation, what?

Wouldn't self immolation actually make climate change worse?  There should be a study...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 11:04:31 am
I'm wondering what the 23,000 who signed to do "whatever it takes" to stop the pipeline mean by "whatever it takes". Sabotage, self immolation, what?

You're really like a chihuahua biting at the ankle with this small detail. 

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The article that I quoted wasn't trying to make these people sound like antifa.  If you'd read it in context, he was just talking about the level of passion from the protesters.

His point is how bad this is going to make Trudeau look when you see indigenous leaders and old people getting arrested (add a couple of MP's to list since publication) while he goes about signing environmental treaties that go completely against this permit.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 28, 2018, 11:12:20 am
His point is how bad this is going to make Trudeau look when you see indigenous leaders and old people getting arrested

equal opportunity waldo: are there not Indigenous communities/leaders actively engaged in resource development, who support pipelines - who support Trans Mountain?

again, what should PM Trudeau have done - what would you have PM Trudeau do?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 11:15:12 am
I know my perception in 2015 was that Kinder Morgan and Energy East would most likely proceed but perhaps have a more detailed review process. Did you see this differently?

In addition to not overhauling the review process, he also said he would work with and respect indigenous groups.  He also famously said governments can grant permits but ultimately it's communities that grant permits.  Both the city of Vancouver and the City of Burnaby are opposed the project but it doesn't seem to matter (in his defense when he said ultimately it's communities that grant permission he was talking about Quebec so maybe Vancouver isn't as important).

Along with all the bashing he did beforehand about Harper's environmental policies, yes, I was under the impression Kinder Morgan expansion could be halted since it was against the wishes of the local and indigenous communities.

I was at my husband's aunt's 75th birthday.  Someone got her a congrats from Trudeau's office and in front of a room full of her peers she said she liked him until he approved the (KM) project.  The room of about 50-60 people, mostly her age, started to clap.

Unlike me, these are the kind of people who normally support Liberals.  The resentment runs deep out here in the Lower Mainland and in my opinion, it will cost him in the next election.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 11:18:29 am
I too would like to hear workable ideas as to what should be done.

Do we cancel railway loads and the TMX?

Do we watch Mad Max to get ready for the coming chaos from this?  For the love of gawd please no - such as POS movie....

Do we point out the hypocrisy of Horgan and question his progressive credentials given his selling out to LNG where we could see our carbon taxes help subsidize the largets carbon polluter in BC history if/when it is built?

As I have said: insane.

Horgan has disappointed me not only in LNG but also in the way he's tackled the housing crisis.  It's better than what the Liberals did, but not good enough. 

But let's stay focused here.  Are you saying I should give Trudeau a pass on breaking his promises because Horgan is giving carbon tax subsidies to LNG?

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 11:20:23 am
equal opportunity waldo: are there not Indigenous communities/leaders actively engaged in resource development, who support pipelines - who support Trans Mountain?

again, what should PM Trudeau have done - what would you have PM Trudeau do?

Hmm, I could flip that right back at you.  If indigenous communities and local governments will always be in opposition of pipelines, why did he pretend he was going to respect their wishes?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 28, 2018, 01:20:23 pm
If indigenous communities and local governments will always be in opposition of pipelines, why did he pretend he was going to respect their wishes?
Many people voted for Trudeau based on the assumption that Liberals 'campaign from the left and govern from right'. i.e. despite the rhetoric people expected sensible economic policies from the Liberals. If he accepted the ridiculous notion that municipalities had a veto over national projects then a lot of people who voted for him would be more pissed off than you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 01:56:00 pm
Many people voted for Trudeau based on the assumption that Liberals 'campaign from the left and govern from right'. i.e. despite the rhetoric people expected sensible economic policies from the Liberals. If he accepted the ridiculous notion that municipalities had a veto over national projects then a lot of people who voted for him would be more pissed off than you.

So basically you're agreeing that he lied but you're spinning it in a positive light because you liked the parts he lied about.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2018, 02:08:13 pm
I think the pro pollution zealots have done more than their fair share of confirming they will not compromise on anything short of disaster for future generations to enrich their current pockets.

It's a **** pipeline. It's not the end of the world. Nothing Canada does is going to have ANY impact on 'future generations'. This lunatic idea that the Alberta oil sands makes it 'game over' for the environment ignores reality even more than enviro-mental types usually do. India's NEW CO2 emissions will pump 12 times more CO2 into the atmosphere this year than the oil sands. And they'll increase their emissions by the same amount every year for the next ten years. No matter how desperately you want to think that just by destroying our economy we will lower world CO2 emissions it simply won't.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2018, 02:10:02 pm
Thanks for the discussion kimmy but we're going in circles here.  As I've said before, I really don't expect anything more from the premier of Alberta even though I will toast getting this half-baked NDP booted out after one term. 

Damn her for not being fanatic enough to satisfy the fanatics!  ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 28, 2018, 02:11:12 pm
So basically you're agreeing that he lied but you're spinning it in a positive light because you liked the parts he lied about.
I am saying that no matter what he did he would have disappointed some of his voters. Also, politicians when they get into power have an obligation to represent the *entire* country and not just the people that voted for them. That requires that some promises be ignored no matter what politicians gets into power. You can bet that Notley never planned on becoming the oil industry booster she is today when she was running. But once she was elected she could not ignore the cold hard economics of Alberta's economy. The same is true of pipelines and Trudeau. If K&M does not get built it will be very bad for the Canadian economy because it will send a message to investors "don't waste your money in Canada because they give every NIMBY with an axe to grind a veto over major projects".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2018, 02:11:50 pm
Wouldn't self immolation actually make climate change worse?  There should be a study...

Maybe a nice drown-in together, with suitable dramatic music as they all walk nobly into the sea.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2018, 02:24:54 pm
I am saying that no matter what he did he would have disappointed some of his voters. Also, politicians when they get into power have an obligation to represent the *entire* country and not just the people that voted for them. That requires that some promises be ignored no matter what politicians gets into power. You can bet that Notley never planned on becoming the oil industry booster she is today when she was running. But once she was elected she could not ignore the cold hard economics of Alberta's economy. The same is true of pipelines and Trudeau. If K&M does not get built it will be very bad for the Canadian economy because it will send a message to investors "don't waste your money in Canada because they give every NIMBY with an axe to grind a veto over major projects".


That's actually one of the most sensible posts I've ever read from you and I don't disagree, but as someone who felt betrayed by the broken promise, I will still go on to celebrate if the voters don't re-elect him next year.

At least the Conservatives don't pretend to be anything they're not.  They're shrewd fossil-fuel lovers and don't parade on the world stage as anything but.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 02:58:51 pm
It's a **** pipeline. It's not the end of the world. Nothing Canada does is going to have ANY impact on 'future generations'. This lunatic idea that the Alberta oil sands makes it 'game over' for the environment ignores reality even more than enviro-mental types usually do. India's NEW CO2 emissions will pump 12 times more CO2 into the atmosphere this year than the oil sands. And they'll increase their emissions by the same amount every year for the next ten years. No matter how desperately you want to think that just by destroying our economy we will lower world CO2 emissions it simply won't.

And I would remind you that India has in the neighborhood of 36 times the population of Canada so yeah, they may just have a few more emissions than us. duh. They have also pledged to cut those emissions by a third by 2030. Fudging numbers to suit your position is easily spotted.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 28, 2018, 03:25:58 pm
And I would remind you that India has in the neighborhood of 36 times the population of Canada so yeah, they may just have a few more emissions than us. duh. They have also pledged to cut those emissions by a third by 2030. Fudging numbers to suit your position is easily spotted.

You do realises that Climate Change has declared it doesn't give a toss what the population is, right?

I don't mind if people want to shut down oil sands and pipelines because they want to stick it to evil corporations and such, even if they do keep using cars and furnaces themselves, but I do wish they would stop claiming it's because of AGW.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 28, 2018, 03:29:17 pm
It's a **** pipeline. It's not the end of the world.

It's a **** protest. It's not the end of the world.

So funny that you recognize over the top rhetoric, only when it suits your purposes.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 03:35:20 pm
You do realises that Climate Change has declared it doesn't give a toss what the population is, right?

I don't mind if people want to shut down oil sands and pipelines because they want to stick it to evil corporations and such, even if they do keep using cars and furnaces themselves, but I do wish they would stop claiming it's because of AGW.

You do realize that we have developed cars and furnaces etc. that run on electricity instead of such things a coal, right? And we're doing it because science has shown us we need to because of AGW.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 28, 2018, 03:38:36 pm
You do realize that we have developed cars and furnaces etc. that run on electricity instead of such things a coal, right? And we're doing it because science has shown us we need to because of AGW.

Yeah.  What I failed to realise, that you obviously knew right off the bat, is that 100% of the world's electricity comes from renewable resources.  Hydro, right?

I should have known, as I ditched my coal burning car a long time ago.

Oops...

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/

Still, not to worry.  Getting that pipeline stopped will do the trick!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 03:46:19 pm
Yeah.  What I failed to realise, that you obviously knew right off the bat, is that 100% of the world's electricity comes from renewable resources.  Hydro, right?

I should have known, as I ditched my coal burning car a long time ago.

Oops...

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/

Still, not to worry.  Getting that pipeline stopped will do the trick!

Your feeble attempt at sarcasm falls pretty flat. Maybe try harder.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 28, 2018, 04:26:42 pm
Your feeble attempt at sarcasm falls pretty flat. Maybe try harder.

Hey, it worked for me.  It did the trick.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 04:35:34 pm
Hey, it worked for me.  It did the trick.

Good for you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2018, 05:28:32 pm
Wouldn't self immolation actually make climate change worse?  There should be a study...

Good point, what would you use if petroleum products couldn't be on the list?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2018, 05:36:11 pm
You're really like a chihuahua biting at the ankle with this small detail. 

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The article that I quoted wasn't trying to make these people sound like antifa.  If you'd read it in context, he was just talking about the level of passion from the protesters.

His point is how bad this is going to make Trudeau look when you see indigenous leaders and old people getting arrested (add a couple of MP's to list since publication) while he goes about signing environmental treaties that go completely against this permit.

I wasn't thinking antifa, more along the lines of overly dramatic. Of course "whatever it takes" really means nothing because everyone will have a different limit when it comes to what they are willing to do.

I'm an old people, doesn't bother me a bit.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2018, 05:40:55 pm
And I would remind you that India has in the neighborhood of 36 times the population of Canada so yeah, they may just have a few more emissions than us. duh. They have also pledged to cut those emissions by a third by 2030. Fudging numbers to suit your position is easily spotted.

Some of it by increasing their nuclear capacity by 50%. Another thing that Canadians can't stand.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on March 28, 2018, 06:02:18 pm
Good point, what would you use if petroleum products couldn't be on the list?

Given the location, I imagine avacado oil would be considered.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2018, 06:08:44 pm
It's a **** protest. It's not the end of the world.

So funny that you recognize over the top rhetoric, only when it suits your purposes.

The difference being, of course, I never claimed the pipeline was 'game over' for the planet. It's important for our economy, however, while the oil sands really don't matter to the overall planet's environment.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 10:10:01 pm
Some of it by increasing their nuclear capacity by 50%. Another thing that Canadians can't stand.

If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, some significant portion of the enviro-weenies will still oppose it because atoms are bad.

And if a car that generates zero C02 emissions and runs on 100% renewable resources became available, some portion of the enviro-weenies would still oppose it, because roads blah-blah-blah urban sprawl blah-blah over-consumption, blah blah not everybody can afford cars, blah-blah, unsustainability, blah blah blah blah blah.

Some portion of these people are just Luddites who would be happier if we were all subsistence-level hunter-gatherers living in caves and trying to figure out whether rocks are edible.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 10:22:27 pm
If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, some significant portion of the enviro-weenies will still oppose it because atoms are bad.

And if a car that generates zero C02 emissions and runs on 100% renewable resources became available, some portion of the enviro-weenies would still oppose it, because roads blah-blah-blah urban sprawl blah-blah over-consumption, blah blah not everybody can afford cars, blah-blah, unsustainability, blah blah blah blah blah.

Some portion of these people are just Luddites who would be happier if we were all subsistence-level hunter-gatherers living in caves and trying to figure out whether rocks are edible.

 -k

So you just like burning up fossil fuels it seems. Obviously you've never travelled to a country that burns coal for heat and sucked a bit of that up your weenie nose. The luddites are those who don't understand science, or they have a portfolio heavily weighted with exxon mobil shares.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 28, 2018, 10:34:49 pm
Some portion of these people are just Luddites

Very true, and about 1% of the luddites are enviro-weenies, and 99% are fossil fuel belchers.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:30 pm
You do realize that we have developed cars and furnaces etc. that run on electricity instead of such things a coal, right? And we're doing it because science has shown us we need to because of AGW.

One of my Norther Alberta rural redneck cousins runs his family's home on 100% renewable energy. He does this because the economics made sense.  The cost of running a Trans-Alta Ultility line to his home was greater than the cost of building a solar power farm sufficient to supply his family's electrical needs.

Economics *will* win this argument sooner or later.

Electrical motors are superior in every respect to reciprocating piston engines.  Electrical vehicles *will* replace reciprocating piston vehicles sooner or later. It's inevitable.  How long it takes just depends on how long it takes for electrical energy storage density to reach a level that approaches chemical energy storage density.  (added wild-card: fuel cells.  If fuel cell technology improves to the point that a chemical fuel-cell, electrical battery, and electrical motor combination is comparable in weight to an equivalent piston engine, that's the end of the road for piston engines.)     

(Something that I'm very interested in, that I haven't heard anything about is the potential of gas turbine engines applied as backup electrical generators in motor vehicles. Once upon a time Chrysler built some experimental cars using gas turbine engines instead of piston engines. Gas turbines are much more efficient than piston engines. The reason they suck in automobile applications is that gas turbine engines don't like to run at different speeds. They like to run at a steady RPM zone where their efficiency is at its optimum. So they suck as a primary driveline motor for vehicles, where speed is always changing. But if a gas turbine were deployed as an electrical generator in a vehicle where an electric motor was the primary driveline motor, the gas turbine could operate in it's peak efficiency zone and deliver much higher efficiency than a reciprocating piston engine.
Electrical motor efficiency x peak gas turbine efficiency x electrical conversion losses > reciprocating piston engine efficiency.)

In terms of power, I think that the most powerful engines we have-- trains, large ocean vessels, and so on-- are electrical generators (diesel or nuclear) driving electrical motors, driving hydraulic systems.

Eventually, our existing technologies will be replaced by something better, simply for economic reasons.  And we can accelerate that process by incentivizing adoption of cleaner technology through public policy (ie, taxes on carbon emissions, tax credits for clean technologies, etc.)

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 10:45:59 pm
So you just like burning up fossil fuels it seems. Obviously you've never travelled to a country that burns coal for heat and sucked a bit of that up your weenie nose. The luddites are those who don't understand science, or they have a portfolio heavily weighted with exxon mobil shares.

I'm the greenest person here. I walk to work, and I live in a small home with the most efficient lighting and heating available.

However, I appreciate the importance of energy to our way of life.   Next time you're out and about, stop by a construction site and check out all the wind-powered cranes and solar-powered bulldozers on site.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 28, 2018, 11:01:46 pm
If fuel cell technology improves to the point that a chemical fuel-cell, electrical battery, and electrical motor combination is comparable in weight to an equivalent piston engine, that's the end of the road for piston engines.

Yes, probably so. Note however that most of the hydrogen in fuel-cells is derived from natural gas in a very energy intensive process so it is no magic bullet.

Concerning a turbine generator / electric drive train, that is also being looked at for aircraft as well. While we are still a long ways off from it coming to market, the advantage there is the high cost of a turbine is more easily justified in an aircraft. Certainly volume will bring price down, but for consumer products it seems like a long shot. The target advantage for aircraft will be weight savings and emissions reduction.

Gas turbine trains have been experimented with, and a few went into service about 50-60 years ago. The original French TGV prototype was a gas turbine locomotive, but they opted for overhead wires after that. Not too many years ago Bombardier was working on a gas turbine locomotive, but I have not heard of any customers.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 11:02:48 pm
equal opportunity waldo: are there not Indigenous communities/leaders actively engaged in resource development, who support pipelines - who support Trans Mountain?

again, what should PM Trudeau have done - what would you have PM Trudeau do?
the waldo dilemma:
(https://i.imgur.com/sPwk2Wv.jpg)

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 28, 2018, 11:15:49 pm
Electrical vehicles *will* replace reciprocating piston vehicles sooner or later. It's inevitable.
I am not convinced they will. I could see hybrids becoming common but the charge time problem is a bigger issue than the EV capacity and I don't see that being solved. Note that the charge time will show up in 2 ways: the inconvenience of waiting 20 mins+ for a "fill" and the inevitable lack of charging capacity because we will be unable to build the grids needed to supply a large number EVs in a timely fashion.  People will see hybrids as the best compromise.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 11:20:31 pm
I'm the greenest person here. I walk to work, and I live in a small home with the most efficient lighting and heating available.

However, I appreciate the importance of energy to our way of life.   Next time you're out and about, stop by a construction site and check out all the wind-powered cranes and solar-powered bulldozers on site.

 -k

Well actually gas turbines are quite happy to change their RPM as the load requires. Ask any pilot. However they are probably much better used to generate electric power so you can charge up your Volt while it's in the driveway overnight. One of the benefits of an electric car s that it has so many fewer many moving parts than a piston engine. Let one big turbine provide power for a bunch of cars. And then of course continue the trek toward clean renewables.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 28, 2018, 11:36:21 pm
charge time problem is a bigger issue than the EV capacity

Yes, but I am not sure I would bet against technology.

Graphene batteries look like they will offer charge times about 25-30 times faster than lithium-ion. There is also some very promising research using gold nanowires to increase battery lifetime a couple of orders of magnitude. There is also a lot happening in the super capacitor (ultra, whatever) arena that might address both charge time and durability, but they still have the issue of slowly bleeding over a few days but that does allow for hybrid solutions.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2018, 11:37:06 pm
I am not convinced they will. I could see hybrids becoming common but the charge time problem is a bigger issue than the EV capacity and I don't see that being solved. Note that the charge time will show up in 2 ways: the inconvenience of waiting 20 mins+ for a "fill" and the inevitable lack of charging capacity because we will be unable to build the grids needed to supply a large number EVs in a timely fashion.  People will see hybrids as the best compromise.

Hybrids are a good choice just now if you have to travel a ways out of town and maybe have "range worry" due to lack of charging sites. But it is much more efficient to generate electricity to power vehicles that can come to a halt at a traffic light and not emit CO2 while they sit doing nothing. How many times have we all done that with their gas guzzlers? and large strides have been made by the likes of Tesla with new batteries that can store enough energy to relieve the range stress problem. Maybe you should sell your shares in Exxon Mobil.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 11:37:15 pm
Yes, probably so. Note however that most of the hydrogen in fuel-cells is derived from natural gas in a very energy intensive process so it is no magic bullet.

Hydrogen isn't the only fuel cell technology available. I was reading yesterday about a company that is building propane and LNG fuel cells on a power/weight density that appear to be (based on some rough calculations) not far off of what would be viable for a vehicle's backup generator.   Propaine is very interesting because it's already widely available for consumer use almost everywhere.  And fuel cells are very interesting because they can create electricity without the mechanical losses associated with typical heat engines or the toxic byproducts of combustion. The idea of being able to drive your electric vehicle wherever you like and refuel by filling up your propane tank (if you don't have time for an electric charge, or if an electric charging station isn't available) is very appealing.

My long-time special guy worked at Ballard Power Systems for a while. His opinion on their technology was that fuel cells are great but hydrogen sucks.  But just about everybody has used propane... and it doesn't suck.

Concerning a turbine generator / electric drive train, that is also being looked at for aircraft as well. While we are still a long ways off from it coming to market, the advantage there is the high cost of a turbine is more easily justified in an aircraft. Certainly volume will bring price down, but for consumer products it seems like a long shot. The target advantage for aircraft will be weight savings.

Gas turbine trains have been experimented with, and a few went into service about 50-60 years ago. The original French TGV prototype was a gas turbine locomotive, but they opted for overhead wires after that. Not too many years ago Bombardier was working on a gas turbine locomotive, but I have not heard of any customers.

I'm not an engineer... I'm sure that real engineers and scientists will be able to knock holes in my ideas.  But big picture, I am convinced that electric motors are simply too much superior to chemical-fuel heat engines to not win out eventually.  I view energy storage as the only real obstacle holding electric motors back right now. I believe that supplemental generating capacity might be the key to eliminating that shortcoming in the short term. I view piston-engine generators as an unpleasant third choice as a supplemental power source, a gas turbine as the runner up, and a fuel cell system as the best possibility for using chemical fuel to supplement the energy storage capacity for an electric motor system.  Ideally at some point electrical storage would reach a point that chemical fuel backup is completely unnecessary. Imagine rolling into a "gas" station, pulling your depleted graphene super-capacitor cartridge out of your car and swapping it for a fully charged super-capacitor cartridge.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 28, 2018, 11:39:46 pm
Horgan has disappointed me not only in LNG but also in the way he's tackled the housing crisis.  It's better than what the Liberals did, but not good enough. 

But let's stay focused here.  Are you saying I should give Trudeau a pass on breaking his promises because Horgan is giving carbon tax subsidies to LNG?

Trudeau has effectively killed the NGP and also brought in national carbon taxes.

His compromise to allow a twinning of an existing pipeline which has lots of approval from First Nations is an effective compromise.

Horgan wants to subsidize one of the largest carbon emitters in BC history but that’s just A ok?

As I have stated before: you’re insane.  You are the opposite of a Trump supporter and I do not mean that in a positive way at all.

Just a left wingy chaos crazy rather than a right wingy chaos crazy.

Both rooted in the worst kind of pessimism that 20 years from now hopefully some will look back on as their “stupid” period as they realize all their pessimism has been a gnashing of teeth all for naught.

A pox on both types of crazy. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2018, 11:41:45 pm
Gas turbines are more efficient and will operate at different speeds but they are high power low torque engines that respond more slowly to throttle inputs, Todays CVT transmissions might make them more viable but meeting emission standards could be a major obstacle and it doesn't help that they are kerosene burners.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2018, 11:45:52 pm
Damn her for not being fanatic enough to satisfy the fanatics!  ::) 

Yes, better that Alberta be perpetually in the hands of the Conservatives than an NDP Premier who fails the NDP Purity Test.

"The left eat their own", as somebody put it.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 28, 2018, 11:49:32 pm


My long-time special guy worked at Ballard Power Systems for a while. His opinion on their technology was that fuel cells are great but hydrogen sucks.  But just about everybody has used propane... and it doesn't suck.

I'm not an engineer... I'm sure that real engineers and scientists will be able to knock holes in my ideas.  But big picture, I am convinced that electric motors are simply too much superior to chemical-fuel heat engines to not win out eventually.  I view energy storage as the only real obstacle holding electric motors back right now. I believe that supplemental generating capacity might be the key to eliminating that shortcoming in the short term. I view piston-engine generators as an unpleasant third choice as a supplemental power source, a gas turbine as the runner up, and a fuel cell system as the best possibility for using chemical fuel to supplement the energy storage capacity for an electric motor system.  Ideally at some point electrical storage would reach a point that chemical fuel backup is completely unnecessary. Imagine rolling into a "gas" station, pulling your depleted graphene super-capacitor cartridge out of your car and swapping it for a fully charged super-capacitor cartridge.

 -k


Itunes is done with downloading. After 35 billion downloads streaming music has become quite the disruption.

The same will happen to transport.

Autonomous EV’s will solve a lot of the storage problem.

I’m paying about $11,000 per year for my car (depreciation, r&m, insurance, gas) so I would have no problem not owning a car and renting one to pick me up when I need to go somewhere.

Given that I use my car about 4% of the time I can see immense savings in doing this.

Once people get the “ownership” vs “renting” attitude extracted from their ego we will see some interesting developments.

Well, that and improvements in technology such as turning safety features on in the AEV’s.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 28, 2018, 11:57:48 pm
Autonomous EV’s will solve a lot of the storage problem.
Assuming people learn to trust them.
 
Once people get the “ownership” vs “renting” attitude extracted from their ego we will see some interesting developments.
It really depends on wait times. People will pay a lot of for convenience. If the the 'rental car' fleets have enough idle capacity that people can get a car within minutes then I could see that happening.  However, a more likely scenario is it will be difficult for these companies to have enough idle capacity to satisfy people all of the time. This will mean that those can afford will still prefer a personal car even if the cost is higher.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on March 29, 2018, 12:32:38 am
Assuming people learn to trust them.
 It really depends on wait times. People will pay a lot of for convenience. If the the 'rental car' fleets have enough idle capacity that people can get a car within minutes then I could see that happening.  However, a more likely scenario is it will be difficult for these companies to have enough idle capacity to satisfy people all of the time. This will mean that those can afford will still prefer a personal car even if the cost is higher.

The more likely scenario is that people will continue to buy EV's if they work around town, or hybrids if they have to go a bit farther afield. This is just the updated version that follows peoples demands to clean up exhaust emissions from cars that started years ago.   
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 29, 2018, 12:37:16 am
If the the 'rental car' fleets have enough idle capacity that people can get a car within minutes then I could see that happening.  However, a more likely scenario is it will be difficult for these companies to have enough idle capacity to satisfy people all of the time.

To offer a product that is cost competitive with owned cars, what overhead do you think is necessary? While a car sharing model would have some savings from things like lower in-house maintenance costs lets assume those are zero for now and everything is overhead. Would 100% overhead (costs + profit) be enough?

I think it is very easy to demonstrate that usage is well under 50%, even at peak times. On my block there are about 60+ cars and and unless something special is happening I never have a problem finding a parking spot, and usually right in front of my door. On snow plow days (my street starts at noon) I generally need to find a spot by 11am, or I am stuck hunting although only rarely do I need to go to a different street. That tells me that in the middle of work days, more than 50% of the cars are idling at peoples houses. I would also bet that over 45% are idling at work as well. The point is however the worst peak is 50% utilization, and more likely it is less than 5% with a rush hour peak maybe 25% (400% overhead available).

Certainly my generation is attached to their shiny car, that is cultural. I am seeing much less of that in newer generations, they are more open to things like car sharing (we have 2 spots dedicated to them on my block, and they started to put in an electric spot as well but never completed it). Can we break those cultural bonds?

What is left is personal belongings we like to leave in the car. Certainly those dedicated to the car itself (eg. shovel, traction aids, etc) can be handled by the car company. That leaves things like an extra hat & glove I like to have in the winter, and jacket or hoodie for the rest of the year in case I am out and the weather changes; and of course the inevitable sun glasses. Years ago a cassette (or CD for you youngsters) collection was necessary, but that has been obsoleted by the cell phone we carry.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 29, 2018, 12:45:16 am
Graphene batteries look like they will offer charge times about 25-30 times faster than lithium-ion. There is also some very promising research using gold nanowires to increase battery lifetime a couple of orders of magnitude. There is also a lot happening in the super capacitor (ultra, whatever) arena that might address both charge time and durability, but they still have the issue of slowly bleeding over a few days but that does allow for hybrid solutions.
Charging times are a limitation of the grid and physics - not the battery. From physics energy = volts * amps * time. So a 30 KWh battery charging time depends only on how much power the grid can deliver. A typical home connection is limited to ~24 kW or 1h 20 mins assuming no losses. A supercharger station could can go up to ~120kW which would reduce it to 15min which is almost tolerable except when you think about the transmission lines that would needed everywhere to supply a network of "gas stations" with 10 bays or so.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 29, 2018, 12:56:27 am
I think it is very easy to demonstrate that usage is well under 50%, even at peak times.
I live in a urban area. Buses near my house run once 10-15 mins and the system needs subsidies. Paid taxis take about the same. I find it implausible that any company could guarantee a pickup anywhere within 10-15 mins anytime but it will come down to a cost vs. convenience equation. i.e. faster service means more cost which will mean there will likely be a point where a personal vehicle will continue to be more economic depending on how much inconvenience a person is willing to put up with.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 12:59:13 am
Trudeau has effectively killed the NGP and also brought in national carbon taxes.

His compromise to allow a twinning of an existing pipeline which has lots of approval from First Nations is an effective compromise.

Horgan wants to subsidize one of the largest carbon emitters in BC history but that’s just A ok?


Whatever dazzling point you had to make went right out the window when you followed it up with this:


As I have stated before: you’re insane.  You are the opposite of a Trump supporter and I do not mean that in a positive way at all.

Just a left wingy chaos crazy rather than a right wingy chaos crazy.

Did you seriously mistake me for someone who gives a **** what you think of me? 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 01:04:36 am
I live in a urban area. Buses near my house run once 10-15 mins and the system needs subsidies. Paid taxis take about the same. I find it implausible that any company could guarantee a pickup anywhere within 10-15 mins anytime but it will come down to a cost vs. convenience equation. i.e. faster service means more cost which will mean there will likely be a point where a personal vehicle will continue to be more economic depending on how much inconvenience a person is willing to put up with.

This whole argument is so stupid, what is the relevance really?  So we can't oppose a 7x expansion in bitumen in our waters unless we live a zero carbon footprint lifestyle?



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 01:08:03 am
Yes, better that Alberta be perpetually in the hands of the Conservatives than an NDP Premier who fails the NDP Purity Test.

"The left eat their own", as somebody put it.

 -k

I like my fossil-fuel industry champions to be authentic.  What can I say?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 29, 2018, 01:19:53 am
Charging times are a limitation of the grid and physics - not the battery.

I don't see fast charge being available for home, so I agree with your 24kVA limit there.

We are well past the days of your local service station, I expect all fast charge stations will have 347/600 volt service and 600 amp, or possibly 1200. Phase balance for charging is not really a difficult technical issue, so that leaves us with the grid issue of preventing brownouts, but planning will be a big help there. I could also see signaling technology being developed if this becomes a big market (e.g. I will draw x amps in y seconds), which may not even add those seconds to you charge time because we already have several seconds to connect. Finally of course, if super capacitor technology delivers then the charge station will be a perfect fit.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 02:02:55 am
If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, some significant portion of the enviro-weenies will still oppose it because atoms are bad.

And if a car that generates zero C02 emissions and runs on 100% renewable resources became available, some portion of the enviro-weenies would still oppose it, because roads blah-blah-blah urban sprawl blah-blah over-consumption, blah blah not everybody can afford cars, blah-blah, unsustainability, blah blah blah blah blah.

Some portion of these people are just Luddites who would be happier if we were all subsistence-level hunter-gatherers living in caves and trying to figure out whether rocks are edible.

 -k


What exactly is the relevance here?  So what if we can never please everyone?

Fact is, the province is virtually split on the KM project and it doesn't matter if 2% will never be happy, you can't use that small % as the reason to discredit close to 50% of sane, every-day, tax-paying, normal people as some kind of crazy 'luddite'.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on March 29, 2018, 02:48:02 am
Fact is, the province is virtually split on the KM project and it doesn't matter if 2% will never be happy, you can't use that small % as the reason to discredit close to 50% of sane, every-day, tax-paying, normal people as some kind of crazy 'luddite'.

Abacas Data online survey - February 26 - March 6:

(https://i.imgur.com/TFyzqOR.png)

METHODOLOGY

Our survey was conducted online with 900 BC residents aged 18 and over from February 26 to March 6, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched BC’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 29, 2018, 08:24:00 am
Whatever dazzling point you had to make went right out the window when you followed it up with this:


Did you seriously mistake me for someone who gives a **** what you think of me?

No mistake.

As I have said: you are insane like a Trump supporter who doubles and then triples down. 

Again, a pox on you and a pox on them (which in this case are Kenney/Ford/Scheer supporters). 



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 29, 2018, 08:26:17 am
We are well past the days of your local service station, I expect all fast charge stations will have 347/600 volt service and 600 amp, or possibly 1200. Phase balance for charging is not really a difficult technical issue, so that leaves us with the grid issue of preventing brownouts, but planning will be a big help there. I could also see signaling technology being developed if this becomes a big market (e.g. I will draw x amps in y seconds), which may not even add those seconds to you charge time because we already have several seconds to connect. Finally of course, if super capacitor technology delivers then the charge station will be a perfect fit.
Can you give any example of the government successfully building a large scale infrastructure project in the last 50 years? The only thing that comes close is the TransCanada Highway but that was over 50 years ago. EVs will fail without massive grid upgrades and there is no reason to believe the necessary upgrades are remotely plausible in this country given the insane regulatory process today. This makes any discussion of widespread EV deployment a purely academic exercise.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 11:06:51 am
Abacas Data online survey - February 26 - March 6:


METHODOLOGY

Our survey was conducted online with 900 BC residents aged 18 and over from February 26 to March 6, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched BC’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.



Here are two other polls from September and February that say otherwise:

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/british-columbians-still-split-on-kinder-morgan-pipeline-expansion-poll

http://www.news1130.com/2017/09/14/british-columbians-divided-trans-mountain/


Not that your post refuted the actual point that I was making. 

It's ridiculous to bring up 1% of people who will never be happy in a discussion where opposition to a pipeline is actually much higher. 

So what if you can't please everyone, how is that even relevant to a discussion where we're NOT talking just 1% of people.

Refute that part of my post next time.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 11:10:34 am
No mistake.

As I have said: you are insane like a Trump supporter who doubles and then triples down. 

Again, a pox on you and a pox on them (which in this case are Kenney/Ford/Scheer supporters).

Let's see.  Hmmm. 

Nope, still don't give a **** what you think.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 29, 2018, 11:25:13 am
Looking at the 3 polls cited above, I would conclude that slowly people are beginning to accept the KM pipeline expansion as inevitable. Those living closest to the pipeline are the ones with the strongest opposition.

EVs will fail without massive grid upgrades and there is no reason to believe the necessary upgrades are remotely plausible in this country given the insane regulatory process today.

Yes, the glass is half empty, and there is nothing I can do to change your interpretation of the results.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 11:37:42 am
Looking at the 3 polls cited above, I would conclude that slowly people are beginning to accept the KM pipeline expansion as inevitable. Those living closest to the pipeline are the ones with the strongest opposition.

I've known it was inevitable for a long time. 



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 29, 2018, 03:29:04 pm
I've known it was inevitable for a long time.

Yet not even a peep from you about Horgan selling out on LNG.

Hmm, isn't that interesting. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 29, 2018, 03:30:57 pm
Let's see.  Hmmm. 

Nope, still don't give a **** what you think.

Of course not.  Just like the "deplorables" in the USA don't care that they are deplorable.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 03:50:27 pm
Yet not even a peep from you about Horgan selling out on LNG.

Hmm, isn't that interesting.

I already did give you a peep and I'm not voting for Horgan again so shove it, troll.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 29, 2018, 03:51:08 pm
Of course not.  Just like the "deplorables" in the USA don't care that they are deplorable.


Going for a third time charm?  Sorry troll, not gonna work.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 30, 2018, 12:48:28 pm
I like my fossil-fuel industry champions to be authentic.  What can I say?

Basically it seems like your position is that the NDP are better off being perpetually on the outside than to live in the real world and deal with political realities so that they can take part in setting the agenda. You seem to feel like implementing the carbon tax and emissions cap and phase-out of coal aren't worth having if you can't get your way on pipelines as well.   That's just not a realistic approach. 


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 30, 2018, 03:47:10 pm
Basically it seems like your position is that the NDP are better off being perpetually on the outside than to live in the real world and deal with political realities so that they can take part in setting the agenda. You seem to feel like implementing the carbon tax and emissions cap and phase-out of coal aren't worth having if you can't get your way on pipelines as well.   That's just not a realistic approach. 


 -k

Partly correct.  NDP used to talk a good game but I think I'm switching to Greens both provincially and federally from here on in.  I used to consider it a waste of a vote but I'm starting to feel the same way about the NDP.  I have huge respect for Elizabeth May for getting arrested protesting KM and Andrew Weaver, as much as I don't like some of the things he says, seems to be the only one serious about the environment and housing.

What I don't like about this attitude of 'half-ass efforts from federal government and provincial NDP's are better than no effort' is that it's procrastinating.  I had a baby a little while ago and needed to get my butt back in shape.  I could say maybe I'll start skipping dessert and down the line I'll eat better and after that I'll start exercising but why wait?  Sure enough, 5 months later I'm there instead of it taking 2 years if I went at it at a slug level. 

No pain, no gain but in the long run it's worth it. 

Lastly, I feel more strongly about KM than I do some of the other projects because of the threat it poses to our waterways.  20 years ago was the time to act on climate change and the more every government mucks around 'waiting' the more I'm starting to give up on any kind of hope that anything will ever come of it.

But as you know, I'm very much for animal rights.  I don't eat them, I respect them and their lives.  We've never had this huge of shipments passing through our waters and we don't even know if we are capable of cleaning up a mess should something happen.

I don't want to risk the lives of all the animals living in this ecosystem just because we're too lazy to start putting some serious efforts (not half baked) into renewable sources of energy. 


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 30, 2018, 08:51:40 pm
What I don't like about this attitude of 'half-ass efforts from federal government and provincial NDP's are better than no effort' is that it's procrastinating. 

Yes, but you're a smart lady and you know that people have to get elected before they implement any kind of policy, half-ass or otherwise.   And you know that getting elected by going "whole-ass" (???) on environmental issues without accepting any compromise on economic issues is just not viable.  If angry screeching from people without political power could solve anything, all of the world's problems would have been solved by now.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 30, 2018, 09:30:44 pm
Lastly, I feel more strongly about KM than I do some of the other projects because of the threat it poses to our waterways.

I see basically 3 pipeline projects to deep water ports as options: Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, and Energy East. Churchill has been brought up as another possibility, but it is not really deep water and has serious winter challenges.

Northern Gateway seems the absolute worst of those possibilities because of the navigational challenges, especially through the Douglas Channel. I don't know if Prince Rupert was ever explored as an alternative to Kitimat, and what differnt challenges it may pose.

Personally I think Energy East and Trans Mountain face many environmental challenges so it is hard to say which is worse. Energy East is a much longer pipeline, the proposal was to re-purpose an old gas pipeline which I never liked, and does cross many waterways as well. As far as the deep water port, I see Saint John and Vancouver as having similar challenges. I automatically think salmon for BC fisheries, but I am sure there are a lot more. In the Bay of Fundy I think more about shell fish like scallops, clams, mussels. What I liked about Energy East is it could help address our domestic requirements, although that was not really the focus of the project which is part of the reason it failed.

Or are you suggesting no pipeline at all, and what does that imply?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 09:34:20 am
Yes, but you're a smart lady and you know that people have to get elected before they implement any kind of policy, half-ass or otherwise.   And you know that getting elected by going "whole-ass" (???) on environmental issues without accepting any compromise on economic issues is just not viable.  If angry screeching from people without political power could solve anything, all of the world's problems would have been solved by now.

 -k

You're a pretty smart lady too.  One of the smartest I've ever read on the interwebs.

Why don't you tell me why our governments keep making commitments and goals if they're not 'viable'?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 09:54:41 am
I see basically 3 pipeline projects to deep water ports as options: Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, and Energy East. Churchill has been brought up as another possibility, but it is not really deep water and has serious winter challenges.

Northern Gateway seems the absolute worst of those possibilities because of the navigational challenges, especially through the Douglas Channel. I don't know if Prince Rupert was ever explored as an alternative to Kitimat, and what differnt challenges it may pose.

Personally I think Energy East and Trans Mountain face many environmental challenges so it is hard to say which is worse. Energy East is a much longer pipeline, the proposal was to re-purpose an old gas pipeline which I never liked, and does cross many waterways as well. As far as the deep water port, I see Saint John and Vancouver as having similar challenges. I automatically think salmon for BC fisheries, but I am sure there are a lot more. In the Bay of Fundy I think more about shell fish like scallops, clams, mussels. What I liked about Energy East is it could help address our domestic requirements, although that was not really the focus of the project which is part of the reason it failed.

Or are you suggesting no pipeline at all, and what does that imply?

Sorry Impact, I haven't read enough about the other pipelines like I have about KM.  I was living in Burnaby when talks first started and the protests were going on in one of my hiking/biking spots so I read up to find out what was going on. 

The part that resonated strongly with me was the fact that we don't really know how to clean it up.  I've read literature from proponents, but even they agree to that much; the only rebuttal is that the chances are very low.  I get that two people can read the same article and come up with two different conclusions, but for me 'low chance' is not good enough when considering all that is at stake.

Personally, I'm for scaling back transport of fossil-fuel in any waters, not increasing, but ultimately the people in the affected areas should also have a say.  If the other pipelines have as much local opposition as there is in this area, then I think their voices should be considered as well. 

It's what Trudeau said himself "governments grant permits, but ultimately it's communities that grant permission".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on March 31, 2018, 11:27:48 am
You're a pretty smart lady too.  One of the smartest I've ever read on the interwebs.

Why don't you tell me why our governments keep making commitments and goals if they're not 'viable'?

I think that if you look at the commitments and goals that have been made, you'll find they tend to be long-term and gradual in nature-- "half-ass" and "procrastination" as you put it.

I don't think anybody anywhere has gotten elected based on a "damn the economics, we have to do this RIGHT NOW!" platform.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 31, 2018, 11:36:03 am
I thought Northern Gateway was always the worse option. Just getting to a spill would be very difficult and maybe even impossible in some places during winter. I seriously wonder if lower mainlanders would have been as vocal in their opposition had it been approved, even though the environmental risks were greater than KM.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 31, 2018, 11:51:46 am
Scores of tankers transit Rosario Straight between the Gulf Islands and the San Juans every year on their way to Cherry Point WA. Without which, the BC lower mainland would be screwed. Aside from vehicle fuel, 60% of YVR's fuel comes from Cherry Point.

We would also be screwed without the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

BC's single refinery supplies only 25-30% of the provinces gasoline, 25% of commercial diesel and 40% of YVR's jet fuel. Without pipelines and out of province refineries, Vancouver and its port couldn't exist.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 31, 2018, 12:00:39 pm
  I have huge respect for Elizabeth May for getting arrested protesting KM and Andrew Weaver,

A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Wow. Talk about low intellect voters.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 12:42:11 pm
I think that if you look at the commitments and goals that have been made, you'll find they tend to be long-term and gradual in nature-- "half-ass" and "procrastination" as you put it.

I don't think anybody anywhere has gotten elected based on a "damn the economics, we have to do this RIGHT NOW!" platform.

 -k


The commitments that the government made had dates. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 12:43:27 pm
A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Wow. Talk about low intellect voters.

Sure thing Ebenezer (minus the happy ending).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 12:50:32 pm
Scores of tankers transit Rosario Straight between the Gulf Islands and the San Juans every year on their way to Cherry Point WA. Without which, the BC lower mainland would be screwed. Aside from vehicle fuel, 60% of YVR's fuel comes from Cherry Point.

We would also be screwed without the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

BC's single refinery supplies only 25-30% of the provinces gasoline, 25% of commercial diesel and 40% of YVR's jet fuel. Without pipelines and out of province refineries, Vancouver and its port couldn't exist.

So let's plan for a future without and continue expanding for now?  Hmmm, I'm pretty sure a school grader can figure out the bad mathematics involved in that one.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 31, 2018, 12:53:33 pm
So let's plan for a future without and continue expanding for now?  Hmmm, I'm pretty sure a school grader can figure out the bad mathematics involved in that one.

Without what? What's the matter with the math?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 01:27:07 pm
A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Yes it was a cheap stunt, and got far more attention to the issue that spending bizillioins of tax dollars, like conservatives always seem to do.

I wonder who the real low intellect are?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 31, 2018, 01:36:06 pm
Yes it was a cheap stunt, and got far more attention to the issue that spending bizillioins of tax dollars, like conservatives always seem to do.

I wonder who the real low intellect are?

 ??? Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 01:39:42 pm
So let's plan for a future without and continue expanding for now?
The issue is absurd hypocrisy of these so called environmentalists. They know they can't trash the BC economy because they would lose all political support (look how Weaver caved on LNG). So instead they bully Alberta and try to screw the Alberta economy while expecting Alberta and Alaska to continue to supply them with the fossil fuels needed to keep the BC economy going. These kinds of 'screw your neighbors and friends' tactics is one of the reasons why I despite Trump and in the long run will leave BC much worse off.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 02:10:47 pm
The issue is absurd hypocrisy of these so called environmentalists. They know they can't trash the BC economy because they would lose all political support (look how Weaver caved on LNG). So instead they bully Alberta and try to screw the Alberta economy while expecting Alberta and Alaska to continue to supply them with the fossil fuels needed to keep the BC economy going. These kinds of 'screw your neighbors and friends' tactics is one of the reasons why I despite Trump and in the long run will leave BC much worse off.

I was reading in the Vancouver Sun that Weaver is ready to pull the plug over LNG but it would be bad politics for him because he needs that referendum in the future for proportional representation.

At this point I think it’s a long term strategy. He can get more done in the future in he hangs in there for a while.

I certainly hope he doesn’t think so short term.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 02:27:18 pm
At this point I think it’s a long term strategy.

Nothing wrong with long term strategies. If you mislead your supporters about your strategy however that is a problem. His "for now" regarding taking down the government does say that he is looking at longer term issues so I wouldn't say he is misleading anyone at the moment.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on March 31, 2018, 02:38:01 pm
The rub with long term strategies is things change.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on March 31, 2018, 03:01:04 pm
A cheap stunt which she called all the media about beforehand to make sure they were present and it impresses you?

Likely trying to direct any and all attention away from the abuse allegations she found herself under in January.

But all you have to do is get her drunk and she will give you a piece of her mind!  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 31, 2018, 03:16:42 pm
Yes it was a cheap stunt, and got far more attention to the issue that spending bizillioins of tax dollars, like conservatives always seem to do.

I wonder who the real low intellect are?

You and her, impressed by what even you acknowledge is a cheap stunt while fantasizing about conservatives somehow spending 'bizillions' of tax dollars.
The pipeline is going through because it has to. Anyone who can't accept that is a moron.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on March 31, 2018, 03:19:28 pm
The issue is absurd hypocrisy of these so called environmentalists. They know they can't trash the BC economy because they would lose all political support (look how Weaver caved on LNG).

Not all. The zealots would be overjoyed as they lined up for the jam packed electric bus that tripled their time to work, and washed their clothes and dishes in the bathtub.  As for all those unemployed, hey, not their problem. Few of them ever worked for a living anyway.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 03:27:33 pm
The pipeline is going through because it has to. Anyone who can't accept that is a moron.

Few of them ever worked for a living anyway.

Yawn, must be cloudy in Ottawa today.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 03:37:01 pm
At this point I think it’s a long term strategy. He can get more done in the future in he hangs in there for a while.
IOW, he is hoping the voters of BC will be stupid enough to give his party of zealots the power to dictate policy that suits the desires of the tiny minority of BC voters represented by that party. You are actually making my point about how BC residents have no interest in stopping fossil fuel expansion as long as they think it benefits them.  If Hogan gets away with subsidizing the CO2 emissions for LNG you can bet Kenny will do the same for the oil sands and Trudeau's 'national carbon tax scheme' will go down in flames.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 04:58:44 pm
IOW, he is hoping the voters of BC will be stupid enough to give his party of zealots the power to dictate policy that suits the desires of the tiny minority of BC voters represented by that party. You are actually making my point about how BC residents have no interest in stopping fossil fuel expansion as long as they think it benefits them.  If Hogan gets away with subsidizing the CO2 emissions for LNG you can bet Kenny will do the same for the oil sands and Trudeau's 'national carbon tax scheme' will go down in flames.

Meh, if they really are a tiny fraction, you need not worry.  I think your worry is that PR will eliminate strategic voting and all of a sudden you'll learn that it's NOT a 'tiny fraction' that supports the Green agenda.  Could that be your worry?  That the wishes of British Columbians who disagree with you will finally hold some power? 

You think it's unfair for anyone who disagrees with you to have as much power as people support them, but you find it fair that 60% of us have to put up with government that doesn't represent us?   

You have no idea what fair means.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 05:09:05 pm
I think your worry is that PR will eliminate strategic voting and all of a sudden you'll learn that it's NOT a 'tiny fraction' that supports the Green agenda.
Ah no. If the greens had that much support they would have replaced the NDP like the Liberals replaced the Socreds.

The issue is our current model forces governments to government for the benefit of *all* citizens whether they voted for the party or not. That is why Horgan reversed himself on issues like SiteC and LNG. PR gives too much power to parties that have no obligation or incentive to consider what is best for the province since they only need to please the 5-10% of the electorate that voted for them. This will lead to worse governance for the majority of people who sit in the middle even if the fringes are happy because the tail gets to wag the dog.

Fair means: 10% of the population should not get to dictate policies. If Weaver thinks PR would allow him to stop LNG then he believes this too.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 05:18:02 pm
Fair means: 10% of the population should not get to dictate policies.

With PR, 10% would never get the power to dictate policies. They would have 10% of the power - period. You prefer a system where 35% gets 100% of the power.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 06:34:45 pm
With PR, 10% would never get the power to dictate policies. They would have 10% of the power - period. You prefer a system where 35% gets 100% of the power.
Only someone who has no clue how the dynamics of minority governments work. In every system with PR you either have the two major center parties in a coalition or you have the largest or second largest party propped up by minority parties. This gives minority parties way more power than they deserve. We don't need government policy driven by the needs to narrow minded single interest parties like the greens. We want parties that represent the interests of the majority of the population and that is what we have now.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 06:56:48 pm
Only someone who has no clue how the dynamics of minority governments work

Only someone who has no clue about reality would continue spouting tired old rhetoric. Minority governments do not give power to the smallest party. If you have 40% blue, 35% red, and 25% orange then orange does not hold power over blue. In fact if orange does something that blue and red disagree with then they can get together against orange. Any other interpretation is pure fear mongering from the power hungry establishment that wants to hold onto power regardless. First Past the Poll is purely a means of keeping power in the hands of those who have it - no ifs buts or ands.

You can throw out all the fear mongering and pejoratives you want, but in the end of the day only the clueless would believe you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 07:11:21 pm
Only someone who has no clue how the dynamics of minority governments work. In every system with PR you either have the two major center parties in a coalition or you have the largest or second largest party propped up by minority parties. This gives minority parties way more power than they deserve. We don't need government policy driven by the needs to narrow minded single interest parties like the greens. We want parties that represent the interests of the majority of the population and that is what we have now.

But if the coalition combined has more seats, they ARE representing the interests of the majority of voters. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 09:31:58 pm
Only someone who has no clue about reality would continue spouting tired old rhetoric.
Sorry, you are the spouting myths about governments only representing the people that voted for them. In FPTP, governments like to be re-elected so they must consider the desires of all voters - not just the ones that elected them. With PR the parties only care about the voters that elected them. The end result is the obsession of small parties get more consideration than they deserve under PR. LNG and Site C are a perfect example. Horgan, who needs to think about the needs of the province, choose to move forward with those policies. Weaver, only cares about a tiny minority of voters, opposes them and would have brought down the government if wasn't for his other successful blackmail effort to force BCers to vote for the 3rd time on electoral reform. The only reason you are even considering PR is you naively believe that extreme right parties like Germany's AFD would never arise here and the new system would only mean parties you support will forever be in power. That I not a bet I would make.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on March 31, 2018, 09:57:20 pm
In FPTP, governments like to be re-elected so they must consider the desires of all voters - not just the ones that elected them. With PR the parties only care about the voters that elected them. The end result is the obsession of small parties get more consideration than they deserve under PR.

What complete nonsense. All parties care about getting reelected, and care about getting a larger share of the vote. The end result of PR is consideration directly linked to the population that supported them, where the end result of FPTP is most often 100% power for a minority.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on March 31, 2018, 10:25:04 pm
The only reason you are even considering PR is you naively believe that extreme right parties like Germany's AFD would never arise here and the new system would only mean parties you support will forever be in power. That I not a bet I would make.


Because FPTP worked sooooo well in keeping out the far-right like UKIP and Donald Trump.   ::)

But sure, let's use that tired old argument to deprive democracy from the voters.  Liberals winning majorities with 40% of the votes, that's 'fair'.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on March 31, 2018, 11:38:18 pm
Because FPTP worked sooooo well in keeping out the far-right like UKIP and Donald Trump.
Logic fail. Presidential elections are FPTP - can't be any other way cause there can only be one president. UKIP was largely an electoral failure because of FPTP (only getting 1 seat with 12.5% of the vote). Where UKIP did well in the European Parliament and council elections which use PR. IOW, you are making my argument for me.

But sure, let's use that tired old argument to deprive democracy from the voters.  Liberals winning majorities with 40% of the votes, that's 'fair'.
A fallacy with no basis in reality. The  FPTP system forces Liberals to consider what happens in the next election so they can't afford to alienate marginal voters so the do represent the voters that did not vote for them. Under PR, we get these fringe parties that don't care about governing the country. They on care about imposing their policies on the majority and PR gives those parties the power. PR is the true tyranny of the minority because of the incentives the system creates.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 01:26:42 pm
But if the coalition combined has more seats, they ARE representing the interests of the majority of voters.

Not necessarily. In a coalition the compromises made are going to leave a number of people in both parties  upset. With only a two seat majority, I wouldn’t be surprised if the present BC government did not represent the majority of voters. Of course the same could be said if the Greens had joined the Liberals to form a government.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 02:09:02 pm
In a coalition the compromises made are going to leave a number of people in both parties  upset. With only a two seat majority, I wouldn’t be surprised if the present BC government did not represent the majority of voters.

In FPTP systems, you are almost 100% guaranteed that the majority are upset. How often do we have minority, or even majority governments with a majority of support? Almost never.

PR will have better representation by a large margin than FPTP, guaranteed. Compromises are far better than dictation by the minority.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 01, 2018, 02:11:27 pm
Logic fail. Presidential elections are FPTP - can't be any other way cause there can only be one president. UKIP was largely an electoral failure because of FPTP (only getting 1 seat with 12.5% of the vote). Where UKIP did well in the European Parliament and council elections which use PR. IOW, you are making my argument for me.

A fallacy with no basis in reality. The  FPTP system forces Liberals to consider what happens in the next election so they can't afford to alienate marginal voters so the do represent the voters that did not vote for them. Under PR, we get these fringe parties that don't care about governing the country. They on care about imposing their policies on the majority and PR gives those parties the power. PR is the true tyranny of the minority because of the incentives the system creates.

 

First, Donald Trump does point out major flaws in the FPTP whether or not you want to accept it.  It refutes your assertion that it can keep extreme right-wing elements out of politics. 

Second, Republicans gerrymandering has led to the current system where a vote in the Midwest essentially counts as 1.25 votes in urban areas so face it, FPTP system has its own flaws.

Third, if why bother even having a multi-party system if we are essentially a two-party system? 

Fourth, you are trying to equate the Greens with extremism, but they're not.  They have major backing making them NOT a fringe party.  Reality check, just because TimG doesn't agree with something, does not make it 'extreme'.

Fifth, you are conflating federal system of government which controls immigration with provincial politics.  Though you're free to make it a point in a federal argument against PR, it has no place on this thread.

Sixth, even if a federal system, Canada is not Europe.  Even our European ancestry is mixed and we are not a homogenous society.  We are less nationalistic and less likely to fall into the fallacy argument you're making.

Seventh, minimum threshold.  Enough said.

Last but not least, even if your boogeyman argument comes true and we get to the point that extreme-right makes up a huge portion of Canada, what do you have against a true democracy where politicians represent the will of their constituents?

You are being very paternalistic in that you think you know everything and everyone else is just too stupid to know what's best for them.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2018, 02:22:25 pm

Because FPTP worked sooooo well in keeping out the far-right like UKIP and Donald Trump.   ::)

UKIP is not far right. That simply seems to be the pejorative du jour for the Left these days, against anyone with policies they don't like.
You are trying to equate UKIP with extremism, but they're not.  They have major backing making them NOT a fringe party.  Reality check, just because BC_cheque doesn't agree with something, does not make it 'extreme'.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 02:27:27 pm
In FPTP systems, you are almost 100% guaranteed that the majority are upset. How often do we have minority, or even majority governments with a majority of support? Almost never.

PR will have better representation by a large margin than FPTP, guaranteed. Compromises are far better than dictation by the minority.

Depends on how many parties you have. With only three parities you could be right but as the number of parties increases as is likely with PR, you can also wind up like Italy. I'm undecided on PR for that reason.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 01, 2018, 02:30:21 pm
UKIP is not far right. That simply seems to be the pejorative du jour for the Left these days, against anyone with policies they don't like.
You are trying to equate UKIP with extremism, but they're not.  They have major backing making them NOT a fringe party.  Reality check, just because BC_cheque doesn't agree with something, does not make it 'extreme'.

First, it was TimG that equated the far-right party with anti-immigrantion by bringing up Germany.

Second, nice try, read my 8th and last point.  I don't have a problem with it if that's what people want.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 02:32:55 pm
you can also wind up like Italy

Yes, the old fear of Italy. Never a mention of the multitude of strong economies based on PR like Germany, Norway, Switzerland.....
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 01, 2018, 02:48:07 pm
Yes, the old fear of Italy. Never a mention of the multitude of strong economies based on PR like Germany, Norway, Switzerland.....
Yes. Germany where the same parties have been in power for 40+ years. One big downside of PR Is it becomes practically impossible to clean house by giving power to a completely different group of people because the party's core support rarely changes. BTW - the only reason Germany has managed is because their equivalent of a Liberals and Conservatives have been in a coalition for a decade+ because that was the only way to keep ideologues like the greens from imposing  their minority views on the majority. A coalition of the center is the *exception* rather than the rule when it comes to PR.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 02:51:03 pm
Yes, the old fear of Italy. Never a mention of the multitude of strong economies based on PR like Germany, Norway, Switzerland.....

I'm not saying PR can't work but there can also be downsides. Italy is one example, Israel and Japan are others that require coalitions of more than two parties and it looks like Germany is now in that position or close to.

Italy's present government will be the 65th since WW2. That's an average of a new government every 13 months. In comparison the UK has had 25
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 01, 2018, 03:05:58 pm
First, Donald Trump does point out major flaws in the FPTP whether or not you want to accept it.
Huh. Presidential elections have *nothing* to do with FPTP and the Trump example does nothing make your case. The fact that you think so illustrates how little understanding you have of the system you think needs changing.

Second, Republicans gerrymandering has led to the current system where a vote in the Midwest essentially counts as 1.25 votes in urban areas so face it, FPTP system has its own flaws.
Irrelevant in Canada where the system does not allow this.

Third, if why bother even having a multi-party system if we are essentially a two-party system?
Huh? We have multiple parties. A multi party system does not mean that every party gets a turn at government. Some parties represent fringes views.

Fourth, you are trying to equate the Greens with extremism, but they're not.
The point is the parties chosen by the majority  in BC want LNG resource development and Site C so if the Greens had blocked those efforts it would have been a minority imposing their will on the majority yet it appears they would have got that if they did not want the make sure the electoral system gets rigged to suit them in the future.

Last but not least, even if your boogeyman argument comes true and we get to the point that extreme-right makes up a huge portion of Canada, what do you have against a true democracy where politicians represent the will of their constituents?
I am very much in favor of representative democracy where people in a riding elect 1 MP/MLA to represent them in parliament. That MP is expected to represents the interests of all their constituents as best as they are able no matter what party they belong to. You seem to want to throw that out and place the entire system under the the control of the parties. No more independent MPs. No more discussion of free votes. The entire system would exists to perpetuate parties. I want a system with less party control and more independent representatives.

You are being very paternalistic in that you think you know everything and everyone else is just too stupid to know what's best for them.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 03:15:47 pm
Italy's present government will be the 65th since WW2. That's an average of a new government every 13 months.

You keep bringing up Italy. How about comparing Germany to Canada, we have had far more and shorter governments during that timeframe than Germany. Equally we have had far more Prime Ministers (13) compared to Chancellors (8\) during the time.

I agree that Italy has problems with government, not that we all don't. They also suffer economic problems, but that doesn't make them an overall bad economy. Remember they are 8th largest in the world. They have about 11% unemployment, although they also have a very large informal (underground) economy where many work. They do have significant public debt (132% GDP) that they need to address (compared to 106% US, and 92% Canada). Their biggest problem appears to be very slow recovery from major world events like the '73 oil crisis, and '08 recession. I think blaming all their problems on PR is ridiculous, when we have many other successful examples of PR.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 03:21:16 pm
I am very much in favor of representative democracy where people in a riding elect 1 MP/MLA to represent them in parliament.

I am as well, but that is not what we have. We have a system where the MP/MLA represents a party, not the riding. It is a significant problem with the party system, and if we are to have parties then we need to address that problem. That is what systems like PR are trying to do.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 01, 2018, 03:25:31 pm
I am as well, but that is not what we have. We have a system where the MP/MLA represents a party, not the riding. It is a significant problem with the party system, and if we are to have parties then we need to address that problem. That is what systems like PR are trying to do.
We could also fix the system by requiring sitting MPs to choose the party leader (as it was originally supposed to happen). This would completely change the power dynamic and reduce the power that parties have over MPs. PR is not fixing anything. It is taking the worst parts of the system and amplifying it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 03:34:50 pm
We could also fix the system by requiring sitting MPs to choose the party leader (as it was originally supposed to happen).

I agree that would fix a major problem within parties, but it would do absolutely nothing about having the minority rule with 100% of the power.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 03:41:39 pm
I am as well, but that is not what we have. We have a system where the MP/MLA represents a party, not the riding. It is a significant problem with the party system, and if we are to have parties then we need to address that problem. That is what systems like PR are trying to do.

As long as you have a party system where the leader has the power to kick members out of caucus, I don't see that it matters whether you have FPP or PR.
To me, this is a bigger issue for our system than how we vote.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2018, 03:45:18 pm
First, it was TimG that equated the far-right party with anti-immigrantion by bringing up Germany.

That's a stretch. He actually mentioned the Greens re Germany. But that still doesn't make UKIP far-right. I'll grant you that many of the anti-immigration political groups in Europe ARE far-right, however. And their rise is largely due to centrist parties ignoring the will of the people on immigration. Angela Merkel could not find enough support for a governing coalition because of the rise of far right anti-immigration parties she refused to deal with, and the only reason Germany finally has a government is the main opposition party finally gave in and agreed to join them again.

Quote
Second, nice try, read my 8th and last point.  I don't have a problem with it if that's what people want.

The problem with this discussion is both of you are correct. FPTP does result in more stable government and does keep those further from the center largely unrepresented. PR does more properly represent the will of All the people but it also allows for extremists far more control of the government than their numbers warrant if that government needs their votes in a coalition. Israel is a good representative there. It also makes it very hard for parties to make tough decisions which are necessary but which go against either popular wishes or the wishes of these tiny minority parties.

PR in Canada would unquestionably result in more political parties in every parliament at every level. Most of them would be single-issue, making it hard for a centrist party to form a governing coalition without giving in to each of their pet causes, regardless of whether that cause is the environment or immigration. So these parties could actually wield a very disproportionate amount of power.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 03:48:35 pm
Most of them would be single-issue

What single issue parties do you see gaining seats in Parliament/legislature?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 03:51:31 pm
You keep bringing up Italy. How about comparing Germany to Canada, we have had far more and shorter governments during that timeframe than Germany. Equally we have had far more Prime Ministers (13) compared to Chancellors (8\) during the time.

I agree that Italy has problems with government, not that we all don't. They also suffer economic problems, but that doesn't make them an overall bad economy. Remember they are 8th largest in the world. They have about 11% unemployment, although they also have a very large informal (underground) economy where many work. They do have significant public debt (132% GDP) that they need to address (compared to 106% US, and 92% Canada). Their biggest problem appears to be very slow recovery from major world events like the '73 oil crisis, and '08 recession. I think blaming all their problems on PR is ridiculous, when we have many other successful examples of PR.

A government's function is to govern. The more time and energy spent on elections and screwing around trying to form a government just gets in the way of doing real work. Many of Italy's problems can be blamed on the fact the place is to a large extent, ungovernable.  That's also an issue with the US system, those guys are in perpetual campaign mode and it shows.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 01, 2018, 03:53:36 pm
What single issue parties do you see gaining seats in Parliament/legislature?

Who knows what will pop up, groups that had no chance of electing anyone before could have a real shot.

17 different parties have seats in Israel's Knesset. and they aren't the only country in that kind of situation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2018, 04:00:14 pm
What single issue parties do you see gaining seats in Parliament/legislature?

On the federal scene Anti-immigration for a certainty. Anti-abortion for another. I think there's also a genuine possibility of ethnic/religious parties forming on behalf of groups like the Sikhs, Muslims and Aborigines, depending on where the cutoff % is set. But aborigines are more than 10% of the population in a number of provinces. We could also see a fracturing among the Left, particularly the NDP with its harder core left wing group the socialist caucus breaking off.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 04:07:36 pm
17 different parties have seats in Israel's Knesset. and they aren't the only country in that kind of situation.

Yet they have only had one government defeat by non-confidence motion in 70 years.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 01, 2018, 04:11:52 pm
I agree that would fix a major problem within parties, but it would do absolutely nothing about having the minority rule with 100% of the power.
I don't accept the premise because you fail to account the electoral dynamics which makes it impossible for parties to ignore the will of the majority because every government wants to be reelected. This means that governments of all parties abandon their base on numerous issues simply because that is what is better for the country (LNG and SiteC anyone?). With PR the electoral dynamics are reversed. All of the hell we are seeing from micro-targeting political advertising would now apply to entire parties who would have no need to caring about what is better for the country and only what is needed to attract a slice of the voting public.

Anyone who is concerned about the rise of echo chambers and directed news should be concerned about any policy change that undermines the need to have a big tent political party if you want to have influence on government.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: JMT on April 01, 2018, 04:34:58 pm
Let’s refrain from calling each other insane...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 01, 2018, 05:00:09 pm
depending on where the cutoff % is set. But aborigines are more than 10% of the population in a number of provinces

I don't think that regions used for % cutoff should be provinces, because many provinces don't have enough seats (ie. PEI has only 4 seats, and in fact 1 seat is way out of proportion to population). If there are to be multiple regions (ie. not just entirety of Canada) then it should be fairly large regions so the % cutoff has some meaning. One example would be 3 regions (west, Ontario, Quebec+east - territories would be lumped with either west or east or possible divided between them).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2018, 05:27:29 pm
Yet they have only had one government defeat by non-confidence motion in 70 years.

Yeah, but that's because the mainline parties, atm and for some time that's Likud, have prostituted themselves to the small, religious parties. Those tiny parties represent only a fraction of the population but they wield sufficient power to push through some of the most draconian legislation and to basically prevent any real peace initiatives.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2018, 05:30:18 pm
I don't think that regions used for % cutoff should be provinces, because many provinces don't have enough seats (ie. PEI has only 4 seats, and in fact 1 seat is way out of proportion to population). If there are to be multiple regions (ie. not just entirety of Canada) then it should be fairly large regions so the % cutoff has some meaning. One example would be 3 regions (west, Ontario, Quebec+east - territories would be lumped with either west or east or possible divided between them).

By provinces I meant provincial legislatures. A couple of the provinces, for example, have more than 10% native population. Maybe the natives want their own party. I can see why but I can also see that not being good for the province's unity.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 02, 2018, 09:11:57 am
Yet they have only had one government defeat by non-confidence motion in 70 years.

And what do you think the odds are of a real resolution to the Palestinian issue with so many different factions to satisfy?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 02, 2018, 09:27:11 am
And what do you think the odds are of a real resolution to the Palestinian issue with so many different factions to satisfy?

Like Canada with it's FPTP system can resolve many controversial issues like abortion, constitutional reform, drugs, guns, etc.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 02, 2018, 09:44:33 am
Like Canada with it's FPTP system can resolve many controversial issues like abortion, constitutional reform, drugs, guns, etc.

Major constitutional reform needs the consent of many governments although it has been tinkered with on minor points involving individual provinces, like changing Newfoundland’s name to include Labrador. When it comes to the others, they have the ability but not the will.

I think there are drawbacks to both systems.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 03, 2018, 07:27:58 pm
Trouble in paradise continues. Weaver just tweeted that BCNDP are flip side of the same coin!

How exciting. Like a high school girl mad at her bff on Facebook.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 03, 2018, 07:52:51 pm
Poor baby. He has three seats and is not some kind of equal in this government.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 03, 2018, 08:54:03 pm
Without those 3 seats Christie Clark would be premier, so I'd say quality counts over quantity on this one.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 03, 2018, 10:03:49 pm
Without those 3 seats Christie Clark would be premier, so I'd say quality counts over quantity on this one.

The point is Weaver isn’t premier.  His party didn’t earn the right to govern.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 04, 2018, 11:03:05 am
The point is Weaver isn’t premier.  His party didn’t earn the right to govern.

That's YOUR point.  Mine was that Horgan wouldn't be premier either without him, so whether or not you admit it, he does hold a lot of power over the government.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 11:26:02 am
That's YOUR point.  Mine was that Horgan wouldn't be premier either without him, so whether or not you admit it, he does hold a lot of power over the government.

Not as much as you seem to think. He can't bring the government down without shooting himself in the foot. The next government would likely be a majority for one side or the other and he would be out in the cold again. His only other option might be to join the Liberals, assuming they would still want to form a coalition with the Greens.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 04, 2018, 11:30:23 am
Not as much as you seem to think. He can't bring the government down without shooting himself in the foot. The next government would likely be a majority for one side or the other and he would be out in the cold again. His only other option might be to join the Liberals, assuming they would still want to form a coalition with the Greens.

Which means he doesn't have much to lose either.  Essentially, him and Horgan both have a lot of leverage and lots to lose at the same time which does make him more powerful than the mere 3 seats which you brought up earlier.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 11:47:08 am
Which means he doesn't have much to lose either.  Essentially, him and Horgan both have a lot of leverage and lots to lose at the same time which does make him more powerful than the mere 3 seats which you brought up earlier.

He has a lot to lose. This is the closest the Greens will come to having any power for the foreseeable future. If the government falls and there is another election, Horgan could wind up premier without Weaver. Of course he could always always lose but either way, Weaver would likely be be SOL.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 04, 2018, 11:54:24 am
He has a lot to lose. This is the closest the Greens will come to having any power for the foreseeable future. If the government falls and there is another election, Horgan could wind up premier without Weaver. Of course he could always always lose but either way, Weaver would likely be be SOL.

There are a lot of disgruntled NDP voters like me and I don't think Horgan has won over too many Liberal supporters with all his taxes. 

Weaver's support is now at 22% (27% in January) which could cause a serious  upset depending on how the vote-splitting goes.

Neither you nor I can predict what will happen but the Greens are making serious gains in BC.  You're downplaying their potential.

https://www.straight.com/news/1046371/bc-liberals-trail-ruling-new-democrats-new-poll
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 11:58:11 am
There are a lot of disgruntled NDP voters like me and I don't think Horgan has won over too many Liberal supporters with all his taxes. 

Weaver's support is now at 22% (27% in January) which could cause a serious  upset depending on how the vote-splitting goes.

Neither you nor I can predict what will happen but the Greens are making serious gains in BC.  You're downplaying their potential.

https://www.straight.com/news/1046371/bc-liberals-trail-ruling-new-democrats-new-poll

If people think taxes will go down with the Greens, they are dreaming. The Liberals would love to see the NDP's vote split.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 04, 2018, 12:00:20 pm
The Liberals would love to see the NDP's vote split.

Precisely my point, that's the leverage the Greens have on Horgan.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 12:01:00 pm
If anyone thought taxes wouldn't go up with all the promises the NDP was making, they were also delusional.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 12:02:37 pm
Precisely my point, that's the leverage the Greens have on Horgan.

Well so far Horgan has been calling his bluff and all he has done is winge.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 04, 2018, 12:06:52 pm
Well so far Horgan has been calling his bluff and all he has done is winge.

Let's see if he'll call his bluff in the fall if the referendum doesn't come through.  It's April already and Weaver is certainly tweeting like he's campaigning.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 04, 2018, 12:39:23 pm
Let's see if he'll call his bluff in the fall if the referendum doesn't come through.  It's April already and Weaver is certainly tweeting like he's campaigning.

Yes, We'll see.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 09, 2018, 01:00:11 am
Kinder Morgan came over to play after school, but the siblings at the house are fighting and the parents aren't doing enough to stop it, so KM is packing their marbles and threatening to go home unless the kids stop fighting.

Will mom and dad intervene and give a time out?  Will one of the kids bully the other one into getting their way?

I guess we'll know by May 31st.

 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 09, 2018, 01:25:23 am
Justin Trudeau and Jim Carr continue to state that "the pipeline will be built", but have done nothing to actually help that happen.  The imposition of a deadline might put pressure on them to actually do something.

Jim Carr was today pleading with Horgan to stop filing more court challenges.  I am skeptical that this will be an effective strategy.


I recall that people who file some excessive number of nuisance lawsuits can be declared a "vexatious litigant" and barred from filing further lawsuits. I wonder if the entire government of BC could be declared a "vexatious litigant".


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2018, 01:37:00 am
Kinder Morgan came over to play after school, but the siblings at the house are fighting and the parents aren't doing enough to stop it, so KM is packing their marbles and threatening to go home unless the kids stop fighting.
And Notley has announced that the Alberta government will become a equity partner to keep the project going so the only question is whether "papa" Trudeau has the guts to tell the spoiled brat of confederation that they have an obligation to consider the good of family and further self centered tantrums will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 08:58:41 am
KM is putting on the pressure. BC, get ready for $2 a litre gas or maybe even shortages.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 11:00:52 am
Justin Trudeau and Jim Carr continue to state that "the pipeline will be built", but have done nothing to actually help that happen.  The imposition of a deadline might put pressure on them to actually do something.

Jim Carr was today pleading with Horgan to stop filing more court challenges.  I am skeptical that this will be an effective strategy.


I recall that people who file some excessive number of nuisance lawsuits can be declared a "vexatious litigant" and barred from filing further lawsuits. I wonder if the entire government of BC could be declared a "vexatious litigant".


 -k

The Feds could suspend transfer payments and if Horgan doesn't like it, he can go to court. He likes courts.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 09, 2018, 12:55:42 pm
Deleted.  I regret my wording.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 01:11:28 pm
Oh come on, can you be any more melodramatic!  If the feds stop equalization payments, BC can stop collecting federal income tax and GST but neither scenario is going to happen because unlike this dispute where the province and municipalities feel they have a case about controlling their water, equalization payments and income/sales taxes are enacted very specifically.

Why do you think Trudeau keeps saying the pipeline will be built but letting BC and AB duke it out?  He knows it's not black or white.

BC doesn't collect Federal income tax, the Feds collect BC income tax. The Feds could change the collection of GST by just telling businesses to mail them the check directly.

I'm not being melodramatic, Alberta feels it has been pushed to the wall. So far it has been just a war of words and lawyers but if it goes beyond that, Alberta will hit as hard as it can. I would.

Consider this. The existing trans mountain ships about 300,000 barrels a day, about 80,000 of that is dilbit for export. The rest is a mixture of refined products and conventional crude for the Port Moody refinery. All they have to do is go 100% dilbit and not only would BC not get the refined products, the Port Moody refinery would have nothing to refine. The full 300,000 barrels could be converted to dilbit, quadrupling exports with the existing pipeline.

Will things get this stupid? I wouldn't have thought so but now I wouldn't be surprised.

BTW, why aren't you pissed off at the fact Vancouver is the largest coal shipping port in North America?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 09, 2018, 01:20:04 pm
Spilt dilbit is a bizillion times harder to clean up than coal.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 01:23:33 pm
Spilt dilbit is a bizillion times harder to clean up than coal.

So don't spill it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 09, 2018, 01:23:59 pm
Here is something you don't often read on these threads:

I totally messed up.  I was completely wrong and pretty much immediately deleted my post and saying I regret my wording.  I've been making payments to CRA for 20 years, if anyone should know better, it's me. 

I also regret calling you melodramatic, but equalization payments are written into the constitution and I don't think that level of escalation is needed for what is essentially a legal dispute.  You say it's cut and dry, some legal experts disagree. 

Basically my point was that we're still part of the country and intertwined.  Just because we come across disagreements, it doesn't mean a fundamental constitutional agreement should be broken. 

I also think your argument about the status quo is irrelevant.  Just because people don't protest the status quo doesn't mean they should be ok with a massive expansion.

Completely flawed logic.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 09, 2018, 01:27:44 pm
So don't spill it.

**** happens.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2018, 01:34:35 pm
I also regret calling you melodramatic, but equalization payments are written into the constitution and I don't think that level of escalation is needed for what is essentially a legal dispute.  You say it's cut and dry, some legal experts disagree.
Some legal experts have been paid to come up with a legal strategy that can be taken to court but it is a strategy that completely ignores the spirit of the constitution which was to allow the feds to control transportation of goods and to prevent nonsense like we are seeing today. The idea that a province could effectively usurp federal authority by simply declaring it to an "environmental issue" is completely absurd. IOW, it is not a question that is really open for reasonable debate. BC is trying to trigger a constitutional crisis.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 09, 2018, 01:42:54 pm
to allow the feds to control transportation of goods

Are you suggesting that the pipeline infrastructure be nationalized?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2018, 02:49:16 pm
Are you suggesting that the pipeline infrastructure be nationalized?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

Quote
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the works and undertakings power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

10. Local Works and Undertakings other than  such as are of the following Classes:

(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Roads, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province;
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country;

(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Three or more of the Provinces.

Section 92(10)(a) and (b) grants federal jurisdiction over modes of interprovincial and international transportation and communication, leaving intraprovincial transportation and communication to the provinces. Section 92(10)(c), however, applies to works of all types.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 09, 2018, 02:50:21 pm
Some legal experts have been paid to come up with a legal strategy that can be taken to court but it is a strategy that completely ignores the spirit of the constitution which was to allow the feds to control transportation of goods and to prevent nonsense like we are seeing today. The idea that a province could effectively usurp federal authority by simply declaring it to an "environmental issue" is completely absurd. IOW, it is not a question that is really open for reasonable debate. BC is trying to trigger a constitutional crisis.

Oh I wouldn't get my knickers in too much of a knot, the constitution gets tested from time to time, that's part of what courts and lawyers are for. BC will lose this one and things will carry on. I don't see a "crisis" developing, possibly just a "day in court".
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 08:10:54 pm
**** happens.

How do you get out of bed in the morning?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 08:26:09 pm
Oh I wouldn't get my knickers in too much of a knot, the constitution gets tested from time to time, that's part of what courts and lawyers are for. BC will lose this one and things will carry on. I don't see a "crisis" developing, possibly just a "day in court".

Kinder Morgan is saying they are not going to keep playing Whack a Mole with BC in the courts. They want certainty and they want it by May 31 because they are looking at a more than 7 billion investment. The three governments better get their **** together or we will be in a very destructive war with no winner. BC may get the pipeline stopped but anyone looking at resource development will avoid the place like a plague. You can bet your ass that potential LNG investors are watching this very closely.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2018, 09:00:27 pm
You can bet your ass that potential LNG investors are watching this very closely.
Yep. Lots of LNG suppliers in the world today. No global corporation needs to put up with the dysfunctional Canadian political process. The stupid thing is Horgan, by pandering to the eco-fanatics on KM, undermines the negotiating position of BC on LNG which means that if LNG gets built it will be only with terms that are extremely unfavourable to BC and Canada (massive subsidies, tax breaks, below market royalties).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 09, 2018, 09:18:35 pm
Kinder Morgan is saying they are not going to keep playing Whack a Mole with BC in the courts. They want certainty and they want it by May 31 because they are looking at a more than 7 billion investment. The three governments better get their **** together or we will be in a very destructive war with no winner. BC may get the pipeline stopped but anyone looking at resource development will avoid the place like a plague. You can bet your ass that potential LNG investors are watching this very closely.

Rather hard for resource development companies to avoid places that actually have resources don't you think? The feds have power under various provisions in the constitution (section 90 being one) and KM will proceed. I'm sure they built delays into their schedule knowing full well there would be challenges they would have to deal with.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 09, 2018, 10:35:06 pm
Rather hard for resource development companies to avoid places that actually have resources don't you think? The feds have power under various provisions in the constitution (section 90 being one) and KM will proceed. I'm sure they built delays into their schedule knowing full well there would be challenges they would have to deal with.

We compete with many other places which have resources, Australia in particular when it comes to the Far East. Kinder Morgan can invest in other countries just as easily as it can invest in ours. They are not going to proceed with a 7 billion dollar investment if it is continually in court with a BC government trying to change the rules. KM is a huge company, Canada is just a part of it. Alberta on the other hand, sees this as a matter of economic survival and of course from a national point of view, it boils down to whether individual provinces have the right to restrict the flow of goods between provinces and other countries.

https://www.bnn.ca/canada-s-reputation-is-in-tatters-over-trans-mountain-says-former-encana-ceo-1.1051630
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 10, 2018, 08:27:25 am
Kinder Morgan is saying they are not going to keep playing Whack a Mole with BC in the courts. They want certainty and they want it by May 31 because they are looking at a more than 7 billion investment. The three governments better get their **** together or we will be in a very destructive war with no winner. BC may get the pipeline stopped but anyone looking at resource development will avoid the place like a plague. You can bet your ass that potential LNG investors are watching this very closely.

Take it or leave it, we will not be held hostage by corporate thugs.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 09:12:13 am
Corporate thugs who have just spent a billion dollars trying to play by the rules. Money probably better spent greasing the palms of some corrupt third world government. The next time BC wants to develope something, it better be prepared to pay its own way.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 10, 2018, 09:24:02 am
As with Walder Frey and his bridge, so with John Horgan and his port.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 10, 2018, 09:37:40 am
Take it or leave it, we will not be held hostage by corporate thugs.
The only thugs in this narrative are the eco-fanatics who think that only they are entitled to decide what is best for the country and refuse any attempt to compromise.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 10, 2018, 10:35:54 am
The only thugs in this narrative are the eco-fanatics who think that only they are entitled to decide what is best for the country and refuse any attempt to compromise.

what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan giving a walk-away deadline date?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 10, 2018, 10:38:27 am
what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan giving a walk-away deadline date?
The project was approved. The BC government is attempting to usurp clear federal authority. The protesters are actually breaking the law. The thugs are the opponents to the pipeline.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 10, 2018, 10:42:53 am
The project was approved. The BC government is attempting to usurp clear federal authority. The protesters are actually breaking the law. The thugs are the opponents to the pipeline.

what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan presuming to circumvent further (intended) BC provincial government legal recourse?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 10:49:40 am
what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan giving a walk-away deadline date?

What’s thuggish about saying we are done spending years billions in an excercise in futility? Cutting your losses is part the of business.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 10, 2018, 10:57:29 am
What’s thuggish about saying we are done spending years billions in an excercise in futility? Cutting your losses is part the of business.

what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan working to secure project equity positions from both the Alberta and Federal governments? Or is that just 'risk mitigation'?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 10, 2018, 11:02:32 am
what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan presuming to circumvent further (intended) BC provincial government legal recourse?
The BC government is simply abusing the court system to cause financial pain to the KM in the hopes that KM will give up. KM is simply saying that it will not put up with such bully tactics. It is simply absurd to suggest there is a legitimate question of provincial authority to discuss.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 11:21:51 am
what's the 'thug factor' in Kinder Morgan working to secure project equity positions from both the Alberta and Federal governments? Or is that just 'risk mitigation'?

What is the thug factor? As a British Columbian I would be happy to see those governments involved. Not only would it spread the liability if there is a spill and encourage those governments to make sure things are done right, it would provide revenue to those governments. KM builds pipelines because they make money.

Right now it is all their money and they can pick up their chips, go home and never try to do a project in Canada again.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 10, 2018, 11:28:21 am
The BC government is simply abusing the court system to cause financial pain to the KM in the hopes that KM will give up. KM is simply saying that it will not put up with such bully tactics. It is simply absurd to suggest there is a legitimate question of provincial authority to discuss.

what is the 'thug factor' in member TimG presuming to question the legitimacy of further legal challenges and related court processing/outcomes

Quote
There are still a number of other legal decisions pending on the pipeline — including a review by the Court of Appeal of the decision by federal cabinet to approve the pipeline and a review by B.C.'s highest court of the decision by its former provincial government to approve the pipeline.

B.C. Premier John Horgan has also asked for a legal ruling on whether his province can restrict increased amounts of oil from coming into B.C. while his government reviews oil-spill safety measures.

Kinder Morgan has announced it is focused on obtaining permits along the pipeline route to the West Coast before ramping up to full construction on the project as it continues to fight another court challenge, which is aimed at the original NEB approval for the pipeline.

A case is still before the courts brought by a coalition of First Nations and environmental groups, along with the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby that is fighting the legitimacy of the NEB process in its entirety. A decision in that case is expected soon.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 11:49:02 am
what is the 'thug factor' in member TimG presuming to question the legitimacy of further legal challenges and related court processing/outcomes

KM has said they are not willing to proceed under a cloud of perpetual legal challenges. That is perfectly reasonable. The three governments need to get together and come to an agreement on questions to put before the SC, under a signed agreement that the SC decision will be binding, with no further legal action being allowed by any of the parties.

Right now we are saying to the world. Come to Canada, we will make you go through years of our approval process, spend upwards of a billion dollars and when it gets approved, we won't let you build it anyway. Not only that but Justin's new fuzzy, muddleheaded approval process that gives input to everyone including your second cousin's third aunt is going to make it even more difficult. How do you like us so far?

What company in its right mind would bother when after all that, a few protestors and a single provincial election makes it all a waste of time and money.

Unless we can come up with a process that companies can have confidence in, Canada is going to have big problems whether this particular project goes through or not.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 10, 2018, 12:11:10 pm
Unless we can come up with a process that companies can have confidence in, Canada is going to have big problems whether this particular project goes through or not.

We have had centuries of corporations raping a pillaging the environment, and leaving the taxpayer to clean up their mess. No more.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 10, 2018, 12:20:57 pm
We have had centuries of corporations raping a pillaging the environment, and leaving the taxpayer to clean up their mess. No more.

Yep. Just look at the billions,(close to 10) that Alberta had/has to pay to clean up guess what....abandoned oil wells.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 12:22:56 pm
We have had centuries of corporations raping a pillaging the environment, and leaving the taxpayer to clean up their mess. No more.

Go back to your cave, I'll donate some flints and a stone axe.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 12:24:08 pm
Yep. Just look at the billions,(close to 10) that Alberta had/has to pay to clean up guess what....abandoned oil wells.

Those are things you can address in the approval of future projects.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 10, 2018, 12:26:04 pm
Go back to your cave, I'll donate some flints and a stone axe.

What an ignorant statement. I am not advocating regression of civilization, your buddy in crime here is the one doing that. I am asking for corporations to take responsibility, and as centuries track record have proven they will not do so then we need to enforce that through legislation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 12:32:29 pm
What an ignorant statement. I am not advocating regression of civilization, your buddy in crime here is the one doing that. I am asking for corporations to take responsibility, and as centuries track record have proven they will not do so then we need to enforce that through legislation.

I don't disagree with that, so let's make that happen instead of just saying no. Horgan should be putting pressure on to address those very things. Murphy's law says, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. You make progress by eliminating the "can's" so let's do that instead of this all or nothing position that will leave BC with no bargaining position at all if it loses and be very destructive to further development of our economy even if it wins.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 10, 2018, 01:47:14 pm
How do you get out of bed in the morning?

You know they said just a few days ago that the Keystone spill is twice as big as they originally thought?

So yeah, **** happens. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 01:50:34 pm
You know they said just a few days ago that the Keystone spill is twice as big as they originally thought?

So yeah, **** happens.

So let's shut down the existing Trans Mountain. It might leak.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 10, 2018, 01:59:20 pm
So let's shut down the existing Trans Mountain. It might leak.

Now you're catching on!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 02:02:32 pm
Now you're catching on!

Just make sure you shut down just west of where I live and fill your boots. We've got a tank farm on Sumas mountain that will keep us well supplied, you can just go without.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 03:49:09 pm
In 78 we moved from Edmonton to Toronto. This was the time when Alberta had the temerity to want world price for its oil, which ended up with Trudeau Sr's NEP that forced them to sell at a discount to the rest of Canada (yes, Americans used to come to BC for gas) and tanked the Alberta industry and economy. Now we are trying to force them to sell at a discount to the US. I remember my Alberta plates getting the finger a few times in Ontario and am not looking forward to getting the same with my BC plates in Alberta. Difference is, this time I think it will be justified.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 10, 2018, 03:58:55 pm
Now you're catching on!
Sure lets do that. And then can also ban tanker traffic into the port of Vancouver and prohibit transport of inflammable goods across the land border. It would chaos be here but I would love to see the eco-nuts and anyone who has any sympathy for them facing the consequences of their ridiculous demands.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 04:04:04 pm
Sure lets do that. And then can also ban tanker traffic into the port of Vancouver and prohibit transport of inflammable goods across the land border. It would chaos be here but I would love to see the eco-nuts and anyone who has any sympathy for them facing the consequences of their ridiculous demands.

Kind of like junkies. I must have this stuff but I hate you for selling it to me.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 10, 2018, 04:44:39 pm
forced them to sell at a discount to the rest of Canada

Now we are trying to force them to sell at a discount to the US.

Revisionist history. NEP was about building a self sufficient energy economy, and the big problem was the fight over taxation of natural resources. Alberta has been happily selling their product at deep discounts to he US for years however because they have sold out to foreign owners.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 04:52:30 pm
Revisionist history. NEP was about building a self sufficient energy economy, and the big problem was the fight over taxation of natural resources. Alberta has been happily selling their product at deep discounts to he US for years however because they have sold out to foreign owners.

Not really, Alberta is selling at a discount because they can't get any other markets, which suits the US just fine. They love you guys.


Quote

Alberta GDP was between $60 billion and $80 billion annually through the years of the NEP, 1980 to 1986. While it is unclear whether the estimates took into account the decline in world crude oil prices that began only a few months after the NEP came into force, the graph of long-term oil prices show that prices adjusted for inflation did not drop below pre-1980s levels until 1985. Given that the program was cancelled in 1986, the NEP was active for five years which are amongst the most expensive for oil prices on record and the NEP prevented Alberta's economy from fully realising those prices.[22]


Fluctuations: Oil Prices & Alberta Per Capita Federal Contributions 1975-1981
Provincial per capita federal contributions[edit]
In inflation adjusted 2004 dollars, the year the NEP took effect (1980) per capita fiscal contributions by Alberta to the federal government increased 77% over 1979 levels - from $6,578 in 1979 to $11,641 in 1980.[39]:11 In the five years prior to the NEP (1975–1979), the per capita contributions by Alberta had approximated the fluctuations in the price of oil (see graph Fluctuations: Oil Prices & Alberta Per Capita Federal Contributions 1975-1981). In 1980, however, the inflation adjusted average price of oil was only 5% higher than the previous year yet the per capita contributions from Alberta rose 77%[39] (see graph Fluctuations: Oil Prices & Alberta Per Capita Federal Contributions 1975-1981). Again in inflation adjusted 2004 dollars, the year the NEP was terminated (1986) per capita contributions to the federal government by Alberta collapsed to $680, a mere 10% of 1979 levels.[39]

During the NEP years, 1980–1985, only one other province was a net contributor per capita to the federal government. It was Saskatchewan, another oil producer. In 1980 and 1981 Saskatchewan was a net per capita contributor to the federal government with their peak in 1981 at a mere $514 in comparison to Alberta's peak of $12,735 that same year, both values being 2004 inflation adjusted dollars.[39] Thus, during the NEP years from 1980 to 1985 the province of Alberta was the sole overall net contributor to the federal government while all other provinces enjoyed being net recipients.[citation needed]
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 10, 2018, 04:59:36 pm
Kind of like junkies. I must have this stuff but I hate you for selling it to me.

So you finally acknowledge the parallels between the fossil-fuel industry and a drug dealer??
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 05:01:56 pm
So you finally acknowledge the parallels between the fossil-fuel industry and a drug dealer??

No, i acknowledge the parallels between fossil fuel consumers and junkies.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 10, 2018, 05:02:31 pm
No, i acknowledge the parallels between fossil fuel consumers and junkies.


Nice backtracking.   :D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 10, 2018, 05:24:49 pm
No, i acknowledge the parallels between fossil fuel consumers and junkies.
A bad analogy. Fossil fuels are more like food. Necessary for living but we have people in society who are cult members that proclaim that eating is a sin and want to prohibit people from eating.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 10, 2018, 07:30:01 pm

Nice backtracking.   :D

Not really, that was my intent.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 10, 2018, 09:33:28 pm
If the mantra is "we all must bear some short-term economic pain for the sake of the environment",  I certainly hope Notley does her best to make sure Vancouver receives its own fair share of that pain. 

Turn off the tap (or, as Wilber suggested a couple of pages back, put 100% bitumen for export through the existing pipeline).   Let Vancouver's construction industry build its skyscrapers with wind-powered cranes and solar-powered bulldozers. Put sails on all those ships, replace all those locomotives with coal-burning steam-engines.  Let the tourists arrive by electric scooter or hang-glider or not at all.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 10, 2018, 09:41:08 pm
The federal Liberals had an emergency cabinet meeting on the subject today.

Quote
“We’ve been saying for the last two days we’re prepared to look at many options and that has not changed,” he said.

“We believe there are many options available to the government of Canada and we’ll examine them all thoroughly. Gotta go,” Carr added as he and McKenna then fled from reporters.

The abrupt end to the news conference with little sign of progress on the file left some scratching their heads.

“The reaction is huh? What did he just say,” quipped B.C.’s Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, appearing on CTV moments later. “I’m not sure why they called a press conference.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/10/alberta-says-it-would-consider-buying-the-trans-mountain-pipeline.html

"We're looking at all our options. Start the car! START THE CAR!!!!"

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 12:22:41 am
JT is starting the car, he is leaving the country for 12 days.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 11, 2018, 01:10:02 am
Hopefully he decides to pop in Indonesia and see that pipeline oil spill the size of Paris (France, not Ontario).  Oops.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/04/11/qa-balikpapan-oil-spill-what-we-know-and-dont-know.html

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 11, 2018, 07:49:40 am
Hopefully he decides to pop in Indonesia and see that pipeline oil spill

Yes the pipeline owners wasted 3-4 days pointing fingers before they realized it was their pipeline and turned off the taps
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 12:30:53 pm
Yes the pipeline owners wasted 3-4 days pointing fingers before they realized it was their pipeline and turned off the taps

As there is only one pipeline and only one owner, I don't think there would be any confusion over who's pipeline this is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 11, 2018, 02:29:54 pm
As there is only one pipeline and only one owner, I don't think there would be any confusion over who's pipeline this is.

The leak was underwater, and they said it was ships.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 06:10:10 pm
The leak was underwater, and they said it was ships.

This pipeline doesn't run underwater, at least not anywhere ships can go.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 11, 2018, 06:24:47 pm
This pipeline doesn't run underwater, at least not anywhere ships can go.

This? you mean KM?

The point is that pipeline companies do a terrible job in detecting leaks, and Canadian companies are no better here. Kalamazoo took forever to detect, and that field in Alberta a year or so ago was found because someone noticed the huge blackened area and not the pipeline operator.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 11, 2018, 06:27:01 pm
Keystone spill is now twice as big as they'd thought too.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4130520/pipeline-spill-keystone-south-dakota/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 06:38:56 pm
This? you mean KM?

The point is that pipeline companies do a terrible job in detecting leaks, and Canadian companies are no better here. Kalamazoo took forever to detect, and that field in Alberta a year or so ago was found because someone noticed the huge blackened area and not the pipeline operator.

The existing Trans Mountain has been there since 1953 with no major leaks and there have been no tanker spills. You won't have to worry about any of that if Notley shuts it down. You will have a lot more to worry about.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 11, 2018, 06:50:34 pm
The existing Trans Mountain has been there since 1953 with no major leaks

The residents of Burnaby would disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wlunwsEt8
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 06:54:38 pm
The residents of Burnaby would disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wlunwsEt8

Construction workers dug a hole in it and they knew about it instantly.  It did not spring a leak. But shut if off if you like.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 11, 2018, 07:11:07 pm
The residents of Burnaby would disagree:
Anyone who uses fossil fuels has no business complaining about occasional incidents relating to the supply of those fossil fuels. Shutting off the supply of fuel to Vancouver would be an appropriate lesson for the self righteous complaining fossil fuels while they use them to keep the city running.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 11, 2018, 07:43:44 pm
Shutting off the supply of fuel to Vancouver would be an appropriate lesson for the self righteous complaining fossil fuels while they use them to keep the city running.

Yes it would be good, they can develop alternatives and rip that sludge pipe out of the ground.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 11, 2018, 07:51:34 pm
Yes it would be good, they can develop alternatives and rip that sludge pipe out of the ground.
People generally don't care about such things when the economy is collapsing.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 09:12:31 pm
Yes it would be good, they can develop alternatives and rip that sludge pipe out of the ground.

Everything you consume comes to you by something that uses fossil fuels. See if you can do without them while you develop those alternatives.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 09:19:21 pm
Everything you consume comes to you by something that uses fossil fuels. See if you can do without them while you develop those alternatives.

I consume a lot of air everyday and I would prefer it not to be sludged with carcinogens from fossil fuels.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 09:23:15 pm
I consume a lot of air everyday and I would prefer it not to be sludged with carcinogens from fossil fuels.

You also burn then to make your living.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 09:28:20 pm
You also burn then to make your living.

True enough. I probably have a carbon footprint that would dwarf most. That doesn't mean I don't want deter alternate options that are healthier. And of course the last gallon of jet fuel might not be all that far away. Planning ahead is smart n'est pas?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 11, 2018, 09:36:09 pm
Albertans seem to be very much in the mood for a jihad, and the politicians are on the same page...
Notley: "We're drafting legislation to 'turn off the tap' on BC."

Kenney: "That's great, but we should ask the feds to withhold transfer payments to BC if they won't cooperate. They did it to Saskatchewan..."

Notley: "That's a good one too. I'll mention it to Justin."

Fildebrandt: "Hey, can we require mandatory vehicle inspections on semis entering the province from BC? Can we futz with the trains?"

Notley: "We'll look into that..."


Meanwhile in BC, the opposition is doing their best to make sure that if/when Alberta retaliates, voters know that it's Horgan's fault.

If an election were held tomorrow, would John Horgan repeat as premier?  If an election were held after gas hits $2 a liter, would Horgan repeat as premier?



I have mixed feelings on this. I know that this is going to cost me money.  On the other hand, watching that smug ass get an anvil dropped on his head is going to be worth it. I am going to just make some popcorn and enjoy the show.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 11, 2018, 09:43:27 pm
True enough. I probably have a carbon footprint that would dwarf most. That doesn't mean I don't want deter alternate options that are healthier. And of course the last gallon of jet fuel might not be all that far away. Planning ahead is smart n'est pas?

Oh I agree and I can see an electric or hybrid vehicle in my future but the idea we can just dispense with fossil fuels while we develop alternatives is ludicrous. In fact I don't believe we will be able to get rid of them entirely for a long long time.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 09:53:47 pm
Oh I agree and I can see an electric or hybrid vehicle in my future but the idea we can just dispense with fossil fuels while we develop alternatives is ludicrous. In fact I don't believe we will be able to get rid of them entirely for a long long time.

And to ignore the fact there is an end to fossil fuels is ludicrous. we made a major step from horse drawn carriages to gas fired vehicles and now we have another step to make. Of course we can't do it overnight, but I am in the corner who thinks we should get it together sonner rather than later.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 11, 2018, 09:56:31 pm
Oh I agree and I can see an electric or hybrid vehicle in my future but the idea we can just dispense with fossil fuels while we develop alternatives is ludicrous. In fact I don't believe we will be able to get rid of them entirely for a long long time.

You don't see the solar-powered bulldozers and wind-powered cranes at Vancouver construction sites?  The sail-powered container-carriers coming and going from Burrard Inlet?  The pedal-powered trains carrying Vancouver freight eastward?

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 10:00:48 pm
You don't see the solar-powered bulldozers and wind-powered cranes at Vancouver construction sites?  The sail-powered container-carriers coming and going from Burrard Inlet?  The pedal-powered trains carrying Vancouver freight eastward?

 -k

Go to Scotland and suck a little coal smoke up your nose and get back to us.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on April 11, 2018, 10:04:53 pm
Go to Scotland and suck a little coal smoke up your nose and get back to us.

Just drive to Vancouver in the summer.  It gets you somewhere between Hope and Chilliwack.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 10:12:05 pm
Just drive to Vancouver in the summer.  It gets you somewhere between Hope and Chilliwack.

I live on the island so I don't go through Hope to get to YVR, although I did drive through those places when I came from the east many year ago.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 11, 2018, 10:13:47 pm
Go to Scotland and suck a little coal smoke up your nose and get back to us.

When I lived in Victoria, I recall hiking to the top of Mount Douglas, looking east, and looking at the sepia haze globe that indicated the  location of Greater Vancouver.  I know full well the degree of air-pollution that afflicts the area. That sepia haze is the result of human activity, human activity that a great many people depend on for their livelihood. If living without that sepia haze was so easy, it would have happened already.  Why don't they already have wind-powered cranes and solar-powered bulldozers building Premier Horgan's affordable housing?

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 11, 2018, 10:46:37 pm
When I lived in Victoria, I recall hiking to the top of Mount Douglas, looking east, and looking at the sepia haze globe that indicated the  location of Greater Vancouver.  I know full well the degree of air-pollution that afflicts the area. That sepia haze is the result of human activity, human activity that a great many people depend on for their livelihood. If living without that sepia haze was so easy, it would have happened already.  Why don't they already have wind-powered cranes and solar-powered bulldozers building Premier Horgan's affordable housing?

 -k

Flying to the moon wasn't "easy" but it was done. I t just took focus. Why not focus on cleaning up that "sepia haze"?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 11, 2018, 10:47:30 pm
Flying to the moon wasn't "easy" but it was done. I t just took focus. Why not focus on cleaning up that "sepia haze"?

Go ahead and do that.  Ms Notley's going to help.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 11, 2018, 10:58:51 pm
Trudeau would be smart to stop backing lame-duck Notley and the oily province and concentrate on the parts of Canada that may actually vote for him.

I think Kenney is right, Trudeau may be stalling on purpose.  He knows where the votes are.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 11, 2018, 11:18:20 pm
Trudeau would be smart to stop backing lame-duck Notley and the oily province and concentrate on the parts of Canada that may actually vote for him.

I think Kenney is right, Trudeau may be stalling on purpose.  He knows where the votes are.

Vancouver is really the only place where Horgan's stance is very popular.  Most of the province outside Vancouver isn't even on board with Horgan. Saskatchewan is also backing Alberta, and the rest of Canada understands that even if they don't exactly love oily Alberta, there are still billions of dollars of tax revenue at stake here.

  -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 11, 2018, 11:53:45 pm
Vancouver is really the only place where Horgan's stance is very popular.  Most of the province outside Vancouver isn't even on board with Horgan. Saskatchewan is also backing Alberta, and the rest of Canada understands that even if they don't exactly love oily Alberta, there are still billions of dollars of tax revenue at stake here.

  -k

Oh no, not Saskatchewan!  He got one whole seat there in 2015.  BC's 17 are nothing in comparison.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 12, 2018, 12:04:22 am
Oh no, not Saskatchewan!  He got one whole seat there in 2015.  BC's 17 are nothing in comparison.

(whatever.)  The federal Liberals understand that dicking around with billions of dollars of investment and revenue is a bad idea. Trudeau's advisers and paymasters understand that.  I expect that most of Canada understands that as well. I could be wrong.

 -k

 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 12:06:58 am
(whatever.)  The federal Liberals understand that dicking around with billions of dollars of investment and revenue is a bad idea. Trudeau's advisers and paymasters understand that.  I expect that most of Canada understands that as well. I could be wrong.

 -k


Joking aside, I do agree with you.  We both know it'll get built, but I see Trudeau's dilemma in all this.  Saskatchewan and Alberta aren't really in his political interest whereas pissing off lower mainland could fair badly for him next year.  But on the flip side there's the $$$$.  Conundrum. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 12, 2018, 12:18:23 am

Joking aside, I do agree with you.  We both know it'll get built, but I see Trudeau's dilemma in all this.  Saskatchewan and Alberta aren't really in his political interest whereas pissing off lower mainland could fair badly for him next year.  But on the flip side there's the $$$$.  Conundrum.

Joking aside, I really do want to see Notley flip the existing TransMountain pipeline over to 100% diluted bitumen for the duration of this stand-off, just to give would-be NDP/Green Party voters something to remember next election.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 12:26:30 am
Joking aside, I really do want to see Notley flip the existing TransMountain pipeline over to 100% diluted bitumen for the duration of this stand-off, just to give would-be NDP/Green Party voters something to remember next election.

 -k

Joking rescinded, it's a really crappy thing to put the environment at risk just to settle a score when the other party is just trying to protect its own constituents.

That's some real petty **** you're spewing right there. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 12:55:00 am
Joking rescinded, it's a really crappy thing to put the environment at risk just to settle a score when the other party is just trying to protect its own constituents.
The idea that this is about "protecting constituents" is BS. This is about pandering to people with an ideological obsession with fossil fuels who are too hypocritical to go after the port of Vancouver expansion which is a much greater threat to coastal waters than the relatively small number oil tankers.
 
That's some real petty **** you're spewing right there.
What is petty are the self righteous NIMBYs who actually believe they are entitled to screw over other Canadians in order to gratify their own need to believe they are "saving the world' while expecting to enjoy all of the benefits that fossil fuels provide. If people in Vancouver don't want a pipeline they should learn to live without fossil fuels. It won't be pretty.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 01:24:26 am
Joking aside, I do agree with you.  We both know it'll get built, but I see Trudeau's dilemma in all this.  Saskatchewan and Alberta aren't really in his political interest whereas pissing off lower mainland could fair badly for him next year.  But on the flip side there's the $$$$.  Conundrum.
If Trudeau fails to get the pipeline built he will lose every red tory across the country. This could easily cost him a lot more in Ontario than in the lower mainland. Also, the BC environmental vote is already gone and nothing he does now will change that. This meanshis prospects for re-election depend more on demonstrating strong economic leadership than worrying about 5 or so BC seats that he might be able to keep if he kept waffling.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 12, 2018, 02:05:55 am
Joking aside, I really do want to see Notley flip the existing TransMountain pipeline over to 100% diluted bitumen for the duration of this stand-off, just to give would-be NDP/Green Party voters something to remember next election.

You mean 0% flow when BC rips it out of the ground.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 12, 2018, 02:10:20 am
If Trudeau fails to get the pipeline built he will lose every red tory across the country.

10 years in office and Haper failed to get 1mm of pipeline to tidewater, but every red tory is too stupid to recognize that fact according to you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 07:35:23 am
10 years in office and Harper failed to get 1mm of pipeline to tidewater, but every red tory is too stupid to recognize that fact according to you.
Harper left before the process could complete on any of the pipeline. The process has completed on KM. It has been approved. Construction has started. This raises the stakes immensely for people smart enough to understand that you can't have a high wealth economy if the government is unable to ensure that approved projects get built.

You mean 0% flow when BC rips it out of the ground.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 12, 2018, 08:42:38 am
Joking rescinded, it's a really crappy thing to put the environment at risk just to settle a score when the other party is just trying to protect its own constituents.

That's some real petty **** you're spewing right there.

I thought you'd be happy.  Think of all the carbon that won't be in the Vancouver air once the pipeline is shut off.  Horgan is trying to protect the environment, he's about to get a whole bunch of help!

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 09:19:58 am
10 years in office and Haper failed to get 1mm of pipeline to tidewater, but every red tory is too stupid to recognize that fact according to you.

Might as well stop it at the BC border then.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 10:01:09 am
I thought you'd be happy.  Think of all the carbon that won't be in the Vancouver air once the pipeline is shut off.  Horgan is trying to protect the environment, he's about to get a whole bunch of help!

 -k

Notley will probably get the legislation passed then sit on it, using the threat at first, only putting it into action if needed and when it will have the greatest effect. She will be able to use it at any time and the more intransigent Horgan becomes, the more justified she will be seen in using it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 10:27:21 am
Notley will probably get the legislation passed then sit on it, using the threat at first, only putting it into action if needed and when it will have the greatest effect. She will be able to use it at any time and the more intransigent Horgan becomes, the more justified she will be seen in using it.
The radicals in Vancouver may think they can import gas from Washington State (at great expense), however, the Okanagan would be completely screwed. Horgan would have decide if he wants to sacrifice the interior to placate the greens.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 10:57:06 am
The radicals in Vancouver may think they can import gas from Washington State (at great expense), however, the Okanagan would be completely screwed. Horgan would have decide if he wants to sacrifice the interior to placate the greens.

Maybe not. Apparently quite a bit of the existing line’s capacity goes to those Wa refineries and is imported back into B.C. as refined product by truck, rail and barge. Up to 35 truckloads a day to YVR alone plus the barge traffic. Imports don’t seem to bother anyone, just exports
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 11:01:19 am
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

Unlike 'shutting off the valve'    ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 12, 2018, 11:31:29 am
even if Trans Mountain expansion were a go... 5+ years out before any actual increased export (tanker traffic) - so... in the interim just how is poor KM to survive? Wait, what - rail? Who said rail (dilbit or raw)... who said that? Well then, if the industry isn't capable of presenting representative case study in just how dilbit will be recovered after a tanker "incident"... who said rail?

besides, isn't KXL a go? Does every bigOil outfit get its own pipeline to tidewater?

(https://i.imgur.com/3zkuEip.png)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 12:33:23 pm
Kinder Morgan is the largest independent energy transporter in North America and is much more than a single pipeline. Besides, those trains are too busy carrying coal to Roberts Bank.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 01:05:28 pm
Looks like there's some Team BC brewing in Quebec.  Good thing Notley still has the powerhouse Saskatchewan on her side!

"The support that you continue to provide to the pipeline project casts a serious cloud on your credibility as a leader in the fight against climate change," the groups told Trudeau in the letter, dated April 12. "Know that the population of Quebec attaches great importance to provincial and municipal authority on environmental issues. Allowing Kinder Morgan to move forward while overstepping municipal regulations and the provincial jurisdiction of British Columbia over its territory is unacceptable."

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/12/news/trudeau-summons-notley-horgan-ottawa-over-kinder-morgan-quebec-groups-enter-debate


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 12, 2018, 01:32:41 pm
Meanwhile, NZ bans offshore drilling while Canada is still a suckling at the teat of petroleum.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Goddess on April 12, 2018, 01:37:04 pm
Looks like there's some Team BC brewing in Quebec.  Good thing Notley still has the powerhouse Saskatchewan on her side!

"The support that you continue to provide to the pipeline project casts a serious cloud on your credibility as a leader in the fight against climate change," the groups told Trudeau in the letter, dated April 12. "Know that the population of Quebec attaches great importance to provincial and municipal authority on environmental issues. Allowing Kinder Morgan to move forward while overstepping municipal regulations and the provincial jurisdiction of British Columbia over its territory is unacceptable."

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/12/news/trudeau-summons-notley-horgan-ottawa-over-kinder-morgan-quebec-groups-enter-debate


Is this the same Quebec that dumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 01:41:46 pm
Is this the same Quebec that dumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence?

Let's just say they really give a ****  ;) about provincial rights.

The Angus Reid study shows a significant amount of support for the B.C. government comes from Quebec. Sixty-two per cent of people surveyed in Quebec believe provincial governments should have the power to stop pipelines from being built in their jurisdictions. In B.C. 48 per cent believe that, and in Alberta, 20 per cent.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 01:59:35 pm
Meanwhile, NZ bans offshore drilling while Canada is still a suckling at the teat of petroleum.
ROTFL. The NZ economy depends on huge bunker oil fueled ships taking their agricultural exports to market and returning with manufactured goods. They will be "sucking at the teat" of petroleum for a long time. Get back to us when NZ does something that actually impacts their existing industries like banning fossil fuel power cargo ships...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 12, 2018, 02:03:29 pm
Is this the same Quebec that dumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence?

Victoria's Mr. Floatie says hi!

(https://i.imgur.com/xkMbwjC.jpg)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 02:10:51 pm
ROTFL. The NZ economy depends on huge bunker oil fueled ships taking their agricultural exports to market and returning with manufactured goods. They will be "sucking at the teat" of petroleum for a long time. Get back to us when NZ does something that actually impacts their existing industries like banning fossil fuel power cargo ships...

NZ is like Vancouver, they have no qualms about importing fossil fuels to run their economy but convince themselves they are good guys by not producing what they themselves use.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 02:14:50 pm
Quebec just doesn’t want Ottawa to get any ideas about using economic pressure against provinces. It isn’t really about supporting BC’s pipeline position. They probably couldn’t care less about that.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 12, 2018, 02:15:28 pm
You guys really are clueless. You're concerned too much about where the parade is instead of paying attention to where the parade is going.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 12, 2018, 02:19:02 pm
Let's just say they really give a ****  about provincial rights.
Federations, by definition, divide powers and certain powers, such as international transportation networks, are the exclusive domain of the federal government.
When provincial powers may infringe on federal domain the doctrine of Federal Paramountcy applies:

Quote
The Doctrine of Federal Paramountcy[20]
Federal paramountcy protects federal powers from provincial intrusion. While both the provincial and the federal governments may legislate on a common matter, the federal legislation will prevail in the event of a conflict. [21] There are two types of potential conflict, the first is where “it is impossible to comply with both laws” and the second occurs where “to apply the provincial law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law.”[22] Courts have found federal paramountcy preferable over the application of the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine as it will only limit the provincial legislation to the extent that it conflicts with federal jurisdiction and no further.[23]

IOW - even if the court affirmed the provinces roles in regulating waterways this power could NOT be used to frustrate a federal law.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 12, 2018, 02:21:22 pm
Quebec just doesn’t want Ottawa to get any ideas about using economic pressure against provinces. It isn’t really about supporting BC’s pipeline position. They probably couldn’t care less about that.

Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool you eh?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 12, 2018, 03:43:54 pm
Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool you eh?

Guess I deserve that for pointing out the obvious.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 11:27:42 am
Oh BC, say it ain't so! You wondrous environmentalists! You great thundering demonizers of the fossil fuel industry! Surely not! LOL. Brainless **** hypocrites!

Vancouver’s various coal facilities exported 36.8 million tonnes of coal in 2017, according to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

This places the B.C. city well above Norfolk, Virginia, the busiest coal port in the United States. Despite a massive spike in U.S. coal exports for 2017, only 31.5 million tonnes of coal moved out of Norfolk last year.

Vancouver’s coal exports also dwarf the total coal production for the entire country of Mexico. According to data gathered by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, Mexican mines have produced no more than 16 million tonnes of coal per year since 2006.

“Coal production is a mainstay of the province’s economy, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue and supporting thousands of well-paid jobs,” reads the website for B.C.’s Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Coal is the province’s number one export commodity, with $3.32 billion of coal mined in 2016. Much of this is metallurgical coal, which is exported to Asia for the making of steel.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/yes-anti-pipeline-vancouver-really-is-north-americas-largest-exporter-of-coal
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 13, 2018, 12:52:27 pm
Oh BC, say it ain't so! You wondrous environmentalists! You great thundering demonizers of the fossil fuel industry! Surely not! LOL. Brainless **** hypocrites!

Vancouver’s various coal facilities exported 36.8 million tonnes of coal in 2017, according to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

dammit Jim! The leakage is bigly huuuuge!  ;D

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/4c/c0/b04cc03aa9a0d78ba7e407e2487c149c.jpg)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 01:05:07 pm
dammit Jim! The leakage is bigly huuuuge!  ;D

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/4c/c0/b04cc03aa9a0d78ba7e407e2487c149c.jpg)

So let's be clear here. This has nothing to do with CO2 emissions because coal produces 30% more than oil for the same amount of energy produced. Importing oil is OK because others take the environment risk in producing what you need. Exporting oil is bad because you have to take some risk to supply others needs. Is that about right?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 01:29:56 pm
Interesting days ahead.

https://www.bnn.ca/top-kinder-morgan-canada-investor-urges-trans-mountain-shutdown-1.1056175
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on April 13, 2018, 02:02:10 pm
Oh BC, say it ain't so! You wondrous environmentalists! You great thundering demonizers of the fossil fuel industry! Surely not! LOL. Brainless **** hypocrites!

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/21/72/fa21721c32857ea3eb8ceeb7b2f0830b.jpg)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 13, 2018, 09:59:22 pm
BC lost the first 14 court challenges, and they're going to lose #15 too.  At this point, the issue isn't whether the pipeline is getting built or not, it's providing Mr Horgan an exit strategy.  So what's the move?

I am picturing:

 -a "Putting Indigenous People First" endowment to give native people scholarships to attend college and study environmental sciences.

 -a "Saving the Environment" endowment to buy land for natural reserves.

 -an "Environmental Emergency Readiness" endowment to set aside money for clean-ups and for doing research on new cleanup technology.

 -a "Stephane Dion Green **** Endowment" to buy wind-powered scooters for disadvantaged BC kids.


Thoughts?


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Peter F on April 13, 2018, 10:54:01 pm
all of them would be good.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 12:11:59 am
At this point, the issue isn't whether the pipeline is getting built or not, it's providing Mr Horgan an exit strategy.  So what's the move?
The trouble is not Horgan but the Greens. If Horgan caves he faces a revolt in his caucus, loss of Green support and an inevitable election. This would ensure the chaos would continue way beyond the May 31st deadline. Horgan will have to strong arm the Greens and I am afraid that may include rigging the referendum to make it very hard for FTPT to win.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 14, 2018, 08:07:03 am
The trouble is not Horgan but the Greens. If Horgan caves he faces a revolt in his caucus, loss of Green support and an inevitable election. This would ensure the chaos would continue way beyond the May 31st deadline. Horgan will have to strong arm the Greens and I am afraid that may include rigging the referendum to make it very hard for FTPT to win.

Total and complete utter bull crap. Hogan is the man with the power, he has lots of alternatives. Blambing this on the greens is ridiculous beyond measure. The problem is fptp and the divisive nature of party politics.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:38:13 am
Total and complete utter bull crap. Hogan is the man with the power, he has lots of alternatives. Blambing this on the greens is ridiculous beyond measure. The problem is fptp and the divisive nature of party politics.

Huh? A coalition needed for governing, and the disproportionate power wielded by tiny parties is the heart and soul of the complaints about changing fptp to proportional rep. This is actually a perfect example of what proportionate rep leads to, only it leads to it continuously.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 09:50:24 am
Total and complete utter bull crap. Hogan is the man with the power, he has lots of alternatives. Blambing this on the greens is ridiculous beyond measure. The problem is fptp and the divisive nature of party politics.
Huh? Horgan does not "have the power" since his government can be toppled by the Greens at any time. By approving Site C, Horgan has shown that he can be sensible so if he does not back down on KM and starts a nasty trade war with Alberta the only reason for it will be the obsessions of small group of ideologues who care nothing for the welfare of the country or the people of BC. This is a perfect illustration of why we DON'T want PR or anything that leads to perpetual minority parliments because the concerns of ideologically driven minorities will cause great harm to majority of people in the moderate center.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 14, 2018, 11:52:01 am
A coalition needed for governing, and the disproportionate power wielded by tiny parties is the heart and soul of the complaints about changing fptp to proportional rep. This is actually a perfect example of what proportionate rep leads to, only it leads to it continuously.

Even deeper pile of crap. Governing is about making compromises, only a fascist dictator thinks otherwise.

Horgan does not "have the power" since his government can be toppled by the Greens at any time.

Hogan is free to deal with anyone else than the Greens, if the "moderate center" cannot come together then they are anything but moderate. Heck the other "moderate center" parties are free to make their own coalition and overtake Hogan if they want. Just because the fascist dictator Harper poisoned the brain dead in Canada into thinking that was not possible, does not make it true. This is a democracy of the intelligent, not a fascist dictatorship of the brainless.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 14, 2018, 11:55:38 am
Even deeper pile of crap. Governing is about making compromises, only a fascist dictator thinks otherwise.

Hogan is free to deal with anyone else than the Greens, if the "moderate center" cannot come together then they are anything but moderate. Heck the other "moderate center" parties are free to make their own coalition and overtake Hogan if they want. Just because the fascist dictator Harper poisoned the brain dead in Canada into thinking that was not possible, does not make it true. This is a democracy of the intelligent, not a fascist dictatorship of the brainless.

Facist dictator Harper. Melodramatic drivel. You have no **** clue what a fascist dictator really is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 12:08:20 pm
Even deeper pile of crap. Governing is about making compromises, only a fascist dictator thinks otherwise.
The problem today is the Greens are NOT willing to compromise. No pipeline is the only answer they would accept. Compromise is what the big tent parties are able to do when they have a majority. In minorities the different parties need to posture to pander to their voter base and compromise is seen as failure. Look at how Trudeau's "carbon tax for pipelines" plan is vilified by the Greens. That plan is an excellent example of compromise that fell apart because the Greens have dispropotionate control of the government in Victoria.

If you actually believe compromise makes good governance then big tent parties and FPTP is the way to go.
However, I suspect what you call compromise is really about you getting the policies that you want even if the majority disagree.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 14, 2018, 12:17:36 pm
of the government in Victoria.
If you actually believe compromise makes good governance then big tent parties and FPTP is the way to go.
However, I suspect what you call compromise is really about you getting the policies that you want even if the majority disagree.

A shoot and a miss.

Big tent parties are a voter compromise, not a governance compromise. You need to step back and understand the difference.

You call compromise, dictating your entire agenda.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 14, 2018, 12:59:38 pm
all of them would be good.

I was serious about the first three, but mostly kidding about the wind-powered scooters endowment.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 01:05:38 pm
You call compromise, dictating your entire agenda.
ROTFL. I held up Trudeau's "carbon tax for pipelines" as an example of a political compromise. I think I have made my opinion on GHG regulation quite clear so my using that as an example demonstrates that I understand what compromise requires. The fact that you can't see that means you don't have a clue what compromise is and you seem to think that "compromise" means "you get what you want and only what you want". Your are poster boy for why PR would be a disaster.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 14, 2018, 01:08:30 pm
ROTFL.

Exactly, your idea of compromise is throwing a minor bone in order to get your entire agenda and then some for eternity.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 01:13:16 pm
Exactly, your idea of compromise is throwing a minor bone in order to get your entire agenda and then some for eternity.
Of course you see it that way because you are an ideologue who don't understand what compromise means.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 14, 2018, 01:24:01 pm
you are an ideologue

Your mother wears army boots
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:25:03 pm
Even deeper pile of crap. Governing is about making compromises, only a fascist dictator thinks otherwise.

And yet, the Greens are about no compromise. None.

Quote
Hogan is free to deal with anyone else than the Greens, if the "moderate center" cannot come together then they are anything but moderate.

That's a bizarre statement.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 14, 2018, 04:48:14 pm
Wind Powered Scooter

[img]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFdL5nX8S7g[/im
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 15, 2018, 03:28:01 am
And yet, the Greens are about no compromise. None.

Get back to me when the Conservatives support right to choose, or gun control, or even impelement a tax to balance the budget (preferably one that actually taxes those with wealth)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 15, 2018, 09:57:48 am
Get back to me when the Conservatives support right to choose, or gun control, or even impelement a tax to balance the budget (preferably one that actually taxes those with wealth)

They support all those things now. They always have.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 15, 2018, 11:59:03 am
Get back to me when the Conservatives support right to choose, or gun control,

And yet, during 8 years in power the Harper government took no action to limit reproductive freedom or make guns easier to buy or make gun classifications less restrictive or anything, other than eliminate the (failed) Long Gun Registry.

That's because while some of them would no doubt have preferred more dramatic action on this issues, they understood that the bulk of Canadians disagree, and decided to leave well enough alone.  That's what we call... compromise.

or even impelement a tax to balance the budget (preferably one that actually taxes those with wealth)

Making "the rich" pay more would be a fine thing for Trudeau to do, considering it was one of his key campaign promises. When are we going to see some action on that file? Panama Papers? Paradise Papers?  Despite promises of action on increasing inequality, we seem to see the same cozy relationship between the government and the big accounting firms and the wealthy donors that we've seen from every Canadian government, and that's the one thing that genuinely disappoints me about Trudeau.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 15, 2018, 12:13:35 pm
Victoria's Mr. Floatie says hi!

(https://i.imgur.com/xkMbwjC.jpg)

Howdy-Ho, Mr Hankey!

When I lived in Victoria, like over 20 years ago, I remember that dumping raw sewage straight into the ocean was an issue that was talked about quite a bit... I honestly thought something would have been done about it by this time.

Apparently there is FINALLY a plan to build a sewage treatment plant for the capital region.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-sewage-plant-1.3914690


It is amusing to hear the hot air emanating from Victoria about how much they love their coastline when the capital region has been killing its ocean with 25 billion liters of untreated sewage per year and will keep doing so for several more years until the new system comes online.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 15, 2018, 12:18:57 pm
The summit is apparently happening right now:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-horgan-notley-ottawa-1.4620367

Quote
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her government and the federal government have developed a financial plan that will ensure Kinder Morgan's financial risk associated with the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline is mitigated, paving the way for the pipeline to be built.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 15, 2018, 12:40:29 pm
Trudeau also said, during his comments, that the federal government will be drafting legislation that will restate and emphasize its authority on this issue.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 15, 2018, 09:05:16 pm
And yet, during 8 years in power the Harper government took no action to limit reproductive freedom or make guns easier to buy or make gun classifications less restrictive or anything, other than eliminate the (failed) Long Gun Registry.

That's because while some of them would no doubt have preferred more dramatic action on this issues, they understood that the bulk of Canadians disagree, and decided to leave well enough alone.  That's what we call... compromise.

Never mind the bulk of Canadians, the bulk of Conservatives disagree. If the harper Tories had held a free vote in the House on banning abortion but only they could vote there would still be abortion. And I think most of the party, like I do, considers those yankee lunatics who want to walk around town with an AR-15 strapped across their backs wearing camo as basically retarded, and members of the tiny **** squad.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 15, 2018, 09:07:16 pm
It is amusing to hear the hot air emanating from Victoria about how much they love their coastline when the capital region has been killing its ocean with 25 billion liters of untreated sewage per year and will keep doing so for several more years until the new system comes online.

Kinda like Montreal not wanting a pipeline despite both Montreal and Quebec city dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: JMT on April 16, 2018, 10:21:33 am
Kinda like Montreal not wanting a pipeline despite both Montreal and Quebec city dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence.

Because oil and sewage are so the same.  Montreal dumped raw sewage in order to prevent further dumps in the future, btw.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 10:40:49 am
Quebec has the same mentality though. Tankers and pipelines are just fine if they are used to supply Quebec but heaven forbid they supply anyone else.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 16, 2018, 11:37:40 am
Quebec has the same mentality though. Tankers and pipelines are just fine if they are used to supply Quebec but heaven forbid they supply anyone else.
There is some opportunity for schadenfreude as Quebec Hydro has seen the same NIMBY crap used to block a new transmission line to the US:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/23/sparks_fly_in_new_hampshire_over_hydroquebecs_northern_pass_power_line.html

Storie like this illustrate why it is insane to suggest that local governments should have any kind of veto over transportation infrastructure.


Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 16, 2018, 11:48:42 am
it is insane to suggest that local governments should have any kind of veto over transportation infrastructure.

I want to put a highway through your living room - too bad for you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 11:54:58 am
I want to put a highway through your living room - too bad for you.

Actually they can do that as long as they give you at least fair market value for your property. It's called expropriation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 16, 2018, 11:56:10 am
Actually they can do that as long as they give you at least fair market value for your property. It's called expropriation.

I want to put a railroad beside your bedroom, but you get zero because it is not your property I am expropriating.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 16, 2018, 11:57:22 am
Because oil and sewage are so the same. 

I started typing this yesterday and then decided against posting it.  If someone really can't tell why poop and bitumen are different there is really no use arguing.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 12:00:12 pm
I started typing this yesterday and then decided against posting it.  If someone really can't tell why poop and bitumen are different there is really no use arguing.

No one is advocating pumping bitumen into the ocean.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 12:02:04 pm
I want to put a railroad beside your bedroom, but you get zero because it is not your property I am expropriating.

Maybe. You do get a say at public hearings, just like with any development built next to your property.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 16, 2018, 12:16:39 pm
No one is advocating pumping bitumen into the ocean.

Yet another reason why the sewer argument has no place in the discussion.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 12:19:46 pm
Yet another reason why the sewer argument has no place in the discussion.

I think the point is, concern for the environment can be very selective.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 16, 2018, 12:24:37 pm
I think the point is, concern for the environment can be very selective.

Which bring us back to JMT’s post with which I agreed.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 16, 2018, 12:26:24 pm
I want to put a railroad beside your bedroom, but you get zero because it is not your property I am expropriating.
Yep. And that is the way it has to be because sometimes the greater good from infrastructure exceeds to harm caused to locals. Any other position would be like saying governments can never build infrastructure ever again because someone, somewhere will always be adversely affected. Locals can express opposition but if the government decides the project needs to go forward they should not be able to stop it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 12:33:24 pm
Which bring us back to JMT’s post with which I agreed.

I was thinking more of Victoria which was finally shamed into building treatment after decades of claiming dumping raw sewage was doing no harm.

Including a former  Federal Minster of Environment who's riding was Victoria.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 04:19:19 pm
Your move John.

https://biv.com/article/2018/04/alberta-introduces-bill-restrict-oil-gas-exports
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on April 16, 2018, 04:30:58 pm
I think the point is, concern for the environment can be very selective.

Mr Hanky is not promoting more poo into the ocean....    he’s the mascot to protest against pumping raw sewage.  In other words, there are plenty of protests and opposition to pumping raw sewage.   If you didn’t know that, and you live in BC, then you’ve been living under a rock maybe....?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2018, 04:38:27 pm
Mr Hanky is not promoting more poo into the ocean....    he’s the mascot to protest against pumping raw sewage.  In other words, there are plenty of protests and opposition to pumping raw sewage.   If you didn’t know that, and you live in BC, then you’ve been living under a rock maybe....?

No opposition from governments though. Municipal, provincial or federal.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 16, 2018, 06:08:43 pm
I started typing this yesterday and then decided against posting it.  If someone really can't tell why poop and bitumen are different there is really no use arguing.

I think we can all tell that they're different kinds of pollution. And I think we can also all tell what raging hypocrites people are who have no problem filling their rivers with **** but complain about the 'possibility' that oil might leak, or for that matter, have no problem tearing your mountains apart and exporting coal while sobbing about CO2 and global warming coming from oil.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 16, 2018, 06:09:35 pm
I want to put a railroad beside your bedroom, but you get zero because it is not your property I am expropriating.

Are you Nine?  ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 16, 2018, 07:07:39 pm
Are you Nine?  ::)

I like to play with trains.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on April 16, 2018, 07:24:42 pm
I think the point is, concern for the environment can be very selective.

Oh yeah...

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/04/17/b-c-quietly-grants-mount-polley-mine-permit-pipe-mine-waste-directly-quesnel-lake

https://www.wltribune.com/news/quesnel-lake-water-quality-improving-with-time/
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 16, 2018, 11:58:16 pm
Your move John.

https://biv.com/article/2018/04/alberta-introduces-bill-restrict-oil-gas-exports

I'm sure this'll calm Kinder Morgan's nerves about Canada being a level-headed country to do business in. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 17, 2018, 09:11:54 am
They want to get more bitumen to export... shipping more bitumen and less refined product through the existing pipeline would be one way to do that.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 17, 2018, 09:30:44 am
They want to get more bitumen to export... shipping more bitumen and less refined product through the existing pipeline would be one way to do that.

satisfying it's BigOil overlords and favouring export/Asian countries over British Columbian's seems like a sure-fire approach to "winning" the hearts/minds of BC residents...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 17, 2018, 09:44:41 am
If it does happen, Horgan might be pointing his finger at Alberta, but his political opponents are already making the case that this whole standoff has been precipitated by Horgan himself.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 09:48:36 am
I'm sure this'll calm Kinder Morgan's nerves about Canada being a level-headed country to do business in.

I think any illusions about Canada being a level headed country to do business went up in smoke a while ago and KM is out over a billion dollars to prove it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 09:53:19 am
Oh yeah...

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/04/17/b-c-quietly-grants-mount-polley-mine-permit-pipe-mine-waste-directly-quesnel-lake

https://www.wltribune.com/news/quesnel-lake-water-quality-improving-with-time/

Just a few years ago the valley communities had to fight tooth and nail against a GVRD plan to incinerate it’s garbage. They weren’t too concerned about polution they send other people’s way.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 09:59:31 am
If it does happen, Horgan might be pointing his finger at Alberta, but his political opponents are already making the case that this whole standoff has been precipitated by Horgan himself.

 -k

BC is divided on this issue, Alberta isn’t. Horgan could find himself representing only the GVRD and Vancouver Island even more than he is already.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 17, 2018, 10:33:23 am
BC is divided on this issue, Alberta isn’t. Horgan could find himself representing only the GVRD and Vancouver Island even more than he is already.

Yeah, I think Horgan is making a mistake here.  I am, personally, ok wth paying more for gas if there is a clear path to other alternatives for affordable transportation but I don't see that.  Even if Horgan wins this battle, he will lose the war.  I am surprised neither he nor Weaver seem to get that.    It's too bad too, because some of the other stuff they've done I really like and I would prefer not to have the Liberals back in.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 11:07:39 am
I think any illusions about Canada being a level headed country to do business went up in smoke a while ago and KM is out over a billion dollars to prove it.

You're not refuting anything.  I'm saying this does not help the existing trepidation on the part of KM, I never blamed Alberta for the trepidation.  Obviously Alberta wants the pipeline.

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but BC's government changed hands during the time KM spent that billion dollars. 



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 11:35:40 am

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but BC's government changed hands during the time KM spent that billion dollars.

Yes and like I said before, who wants to invest billions getting a project approved when a few protesters and one provincial election can blow the whole thing out of the water, after it has been approved and you have started work.

Would you call that a level headed country to do business? Investors have to believe that agreements made in good faith with this country's governments can be counted on, even if those governments change. If they can't, there will be future consequences.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 11:42:02 am
Yes and like I said before, who wants to invest billions getting a project approved when a few protesters and one provincial election can blow the whole thing out of the water, after it has been approved and you have started work.

Would you call that a level headed country to do business? Investors have to believe that agreements made in good faith with this country's governments can be counted on, even if those governments change. If they can't, there will be future consequences.

Again, I never disputed that BC's change in government and policy started KM's trepidation, I just said that Alberta's oil embargo isn't going to help their cause. 

So for example, the idea of the federal and Alberta government investing their own money will go further to ease KM's trepidation should there not be a resolution by May 31st, but by turning it into a complete ****-show, they're not helping their own cause.

You can keep arguing against something I never said though, of course.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 11:45:03 am
Again, I never disputed that BC's change in government and policy started KM's trepidation, I just said that Alberta's oil embargo isn't going to help their cause. 



Maybe from your point of view but you don't speak for everyone in this province.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 11:52:04 am
Maybe from your point of view but you don't speak for everyone in this province.

???

How on earth did you get that I said I'm speaking for the province in what I just posted?

Seriously, please elaborate.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 17, 2018, 11:58:48 am
Yes and like I said before, who wants to invest billions getting a project approved when a few protesters and one provincial election can blow the whole thing out of the water, after it has been approved and you have started work.

so... KM invested billions in getting Trans Mountain expansion approved (federally)? Really? Citation request
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 12:06:03 pm
so... KM invested billions in getting Trans Mountain expansion approved (federally)? Really? Citation request

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kinder-morgan-canada-limited-suspends-non-essential-spending-on-trans-mountain-expansion-project-300626072.html

1.1 billion spent on approval process and completed work.

It was also approved by the former provincial government.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 12:07:40 pm
???

How on earth did you get that I said I'm speaking for the province in what I just posted?

Seriously, please elaborate.

Your insistence that this will not help Alberta's cause. You don't know that at all.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 12:10:59 pm
Your insistence that this will not help Alberta's cause. You don't know that at all.

It's an opinion just like you have your opinion, but why on earth would you say that I think I'm speaking for the province??
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 12:13:58 pm
It's an opinion just like you have your opinion, but why on earth would you say that I think I'm speaking for the province??

Well, I don't know if it will or not. I hope it doesn't go that far but if it does, Alberta will have little to lose by trying it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 17, 2018, 12:23:18 pm
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kinder-morgan-canada-limited-suspends-non-essential-spending-on-trans-mountain-expansion-project-300626072.html

1.1 billion spent on approval process and completed work.

It was also approved by the former provincial government.

notwithstanding your rhetoric stated "billions", plural, that KM propaganda statement isn't a legitimate audited accounting of your stated reference to "approval"... besides, the only reason KM has put the artificial deadline date forward is to maximize weather imposed construction restrictions - nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 12:25:09 pm
notwithstanding your rhetoric stated "billions", plural, that KM propaganda statement isn't a legitimate audited accounting of your stated reference to "approval"... besides, the only reason KM has put the artificial deadline date forward is to maximize weather imposed construction restrictions - nothing more, nothing less.

Doesn't matter what you think, it's their money.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 12:31:27 pm
Well, I don't know if it will or not. I hope it doesn't go that far but if it does, Alberta will have little to lose by trying it.

First, you still haven't acknowledged that you accused me of speaking for the province when I did no such thing.

Second, I already gave you my reason for why I don't think this will not help Alberta's cause.  I reiterate:  *I believe* (not the province) that an approach like Trudeau's about investing federal money will go further in calming the concerns of KM should there not be a resolution by May 31st, than to turn the whole thing into a ****-show the way Alberta is doing.  It doesn't fair well in creating an air reassurance.

It's one thing to have one player create a **** show, it's a whole other thing for both parties to start behaving that way.  That's my point.

Third, saying trepidation already existed or that I'm speaking for the province does not refute the point I'm raising.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 12:40:28 pm
First, you still haven't acknowledged that you accused me of speaking for the province when I did no such thing.

Second, I already gave you my reason for why I don't think this will not help Alberta's cause.  I reiterate:  *I believe* (not the province) that an approach like Trudeau's about investing federal money will go further in calming the concerns of KM should there not be a resolution by May 31st, than to turn the whole thing into a ****-show the way Alberta is doing.  It doesn't fair well in creating an air reassurance.

It's one thing to have one player create a **** show, it's a whole other thing for both parties to start behaving that way.  That's my point.

Third, saying trepidation already existed or that I'm speaking for the province does not refute the point I'm raising.


BC is claiming they have jurisdiction over what gets shipped from BC. What is Alberta doing that is different?

I doubt Alberta wants to use this but I don't think it does them any harm by making it clear they prepared to if there is no resolution. I believe it is aimed at the Federal government as much as BC. 

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 12:55:52 pm

BC is claiming they have jurisdiction over what gets shipped from BC. What is Alberta doing that is different?

I doubt Alberta wants to use this but I don't think it does them any harm by making it clear they prepared to if there is no resolution. I believe it is aimed at the Federal government as much as BC.

And the latest I hear is that Alberta is considering trying to curb the flow of fuels into BC as an arm twisting technique, which apparently could drive the price of gas up ~45%. The god damn stuff is already ridiculously over priced.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 01:00:43 pm
And the latest I hear is that Alberta is considering trying to curb the flow of fuels into BC as an arm twisting technique, which apparently could drive the price of gas up ~45%. The god damn stuff is already ridiculously over priced.

To show how mad they are for not selling more oil, they are going to sell even less oil!

Genius.   ???
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 01:09:56 pm
To show how mad they are for not selling more oil, they are going to sell even less oil!

Genius.   ???

Well the BC government is intent on making sure they can't sell more oil. Alberta will ship bitumen only while the BC economy grinds itself into the ground in short order due to fuel shortages and having to ship what they can get by rail and truck with the resulting increase in cost and environmental risk. In short, we find out who needs who more and it won't take very long.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 01:25:01 pm
Well the BC government is intent on making sure they can't sell more oil. Alberta will ship bitumen only while the BC economy grinds itself into the ground in short order due to fuel shortages and having to ship what they can get by rail and truck with the resulting increase in cost and environmental risk. In short, we find out who needs who more and it won't take very long.

Yeah but now BC is threatening to sue Alberta. 

If the end goal is to keep KM reassured of Canada being a stable player, you really don't see how a one-sided ****-show is better than a two-sided **** show?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 01:41:34 pm
Yeah but now BC is threatening to sue Alberta. 

If the end goal is to keep KM reassured of Canada being a stable player, you really don't see how a one-sided ****-show is better than a two-sided **** show?

If you are going to start a **** show, don't complain if others oblige you.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 01:45:16 pm
If you are going to start a **** show, don't complain if others oblige you.


If it facilitates in keeping the air uncertain, it's definitely in Horgan's interest.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 01:48:46 pm

If it facilitates in keeping the air uncertain, it's definitely in BC's interest.

It is BC that is keeping the air uncertain, that is why KM is threatening to walk away. This is in no ones interest, least of all BC's. When investors look at this, who do you think they will believe is the least risky place to invest, BC or Alberta?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:01:46 pm
It is BC that is keeping the air uncertain, that is why KM is threatening to walk away. This is in no ones interest, least of all BC's. When investors look at this, who do you think they will believe is the least risky place to invest, BC or Alberta?

There's always Keystone.  Trump loves pipelines.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:03:28 pm
It's ok to kill Energy East because Ontario and Quebec have more voters, but BC shouldn't have the same right?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 02:05:36 pm
There's always Keystone.  Trump loves pipelines.

Same problem, it goes to the US which means Alberta has to sell at a discount.

Saskatchewan to.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/saskatchewan-premier-says-his-province-will-also-table-oil-ban-bill
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 02:06:46 pm
It's ok to kill Energy East because Ontario and Quebec have more voters, but BC shouldn't have the same right?

Politics. No, it isn't OK, they should both be approved.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:11:48 pm
Politics. No, it isn't OK, they should both be approved.

Yeah but one didn't!  And it just happened to be the only with the two most populous provinces. 

Either approve both or give BC the same courtesy as you do the mass voting blocs of Quebec and Ontario.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:15:05 pm
Same problem, it goes to the US which means Alberta has to sell at a discount.

Saskatchewan to.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/saskatchewan-premier-says-his-province-will-also-table-oil-ban-bill

I'm aware.  That was my point.  If both coasts in Canada and previously Obama are objecting to something, maybe it's time for a little self-reflection for Alberta.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 02:45:45 pm
I'm aware.  That was my point.  If both coasts in Canada and previously Obama are objecting to something, maybe it's time for a little self-reflection for Alberta.

Again, you presume to speak for everyone in this province. A provincial government elected by the people of this province approved this pipeline and the party of the present premier does not constitute a majority.

It is not both coasts. Atlantic Canada is pissed that Energy East was cancelled.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:48:33 pm
Again, you presume to speak for everyone in this province. A provincial government elected by the people of this province approved this pipeline and the party of the present premier does not constitute a majority.

I'm sure there were people in Ontario and Quebec who also didn't object, what's your point?

At the end of the day, the more populous provinces didn't get a pipeline rammed through them.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 02:52:24 pm
I'm sure there were people in Ontario and Quebec who also didn't object, what's your point?

At the end of the day, the more populous provinces didn't get a pipeline rammed through them.

The people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the total opposite of nimby BC when it comes to exporting the products of other province

Quote
Nova Scotia Liberal Premier Stephen McNeil also weighed in.
“I think anytime you bring a resource across the country and in the process share it with Canadians, but also provide another export market, I've said this all along, when you look at commodities that we have, the more customers we have for those commodities, it’s better for the price, which in turn comes back to people of the province,” said McNeil.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 02:56:45 pm
The people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the total opposite of nimby BC when it comes to exporting the products of other province

Sure, but I was talking about Quebec and Ontario.  You said both pipelines should have been approved and I said sure, or by the same logic both should be denied.

Not fair to force one province and not the others, who just happen to be huge voting blocs.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 03:00:29 pm
Sure, but I was talking about Quebec and Ontario.  You said both pipelines should have been approved and I said sure, or by the same logic both should be denied.

Not fair to force one province and not the others, who just happen to be huge voting blocs.

Sure but that has nothing to do with whether this pipeline should be built or not.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on April 17, 2018, 03:04:48 pm
What do you think of him forcing a pipeline through BC against the wishes of the government? 

You haven't commented much on that thread, but from the posts you "Agree" with, I get the feeling you don't mind a little selective dictatorship from the feds.

I don't know a lot about the issue.  But i'd say if the people of BC don't want the pipeline, that's their choice, it's their province.  If Alberta pays them enough for the use of land and maybe they'll change their mind.

I dunno i see both sides, it's tough.  It's for the national interest for the economy but also it's BC's territory, it's not fed land.  I believe in local sovereignty.  I don't know what the constitution says about this though, provinces and the fed negotiated this stuff back in 1867.  Provinces got health care and education (not a big deal back then), the feds got control over canals (a big deal back then) lol.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 03:08:53 pm
I don't know a lot about the issue.  But i'd say if the people of BC don't want the pipeline, that's their choice, it's their province.  If Alberta pays them enough for the use of land and maybe they'll change their mind.

I dunno i see both sides, it's tough.  It's for the national interest for the economy but also it's BC's territory, it's not fed land.  I believe in local sovereignty.  I don't know what the constitution says about this though, provinces and the fed negotiated this stuff back in 1867.  Provinces got health care and education (not a big deal back then), the feds got control over canals (a big deal back then) lol.

In the case of Energy East, you have Ontario and Quebec dictating to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia what can run through their land. Is that right?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 03:24:39 pm
I don't know a lot about the issue.  But i'd say if the people of BC don't want the pipeline, that's their choice, it's their province.
We are all canadians and that is supposed to mean something. BC has a moral obligation to facilitate the export of goods from other provinces. If one province can prohibit the transport of goods from another province then what is the point of having a country?

  I don't know what the constitution says about this though, provinces and the fed negotiated this stuff back in 1867.
The constitution deals quite specifically with this kind of issue because the founders understood that allowing local governments to extort tolls from other provinces wishing to export goods would cause the country to disitigrate. The net result is the feds have 100% authority to approve transportation projects that are for the benefit of Canada (or at least 3 provinces). I provided a reference to the exact clause in the thread above.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 03:31:46 pm
Ontario and Quebec derived zero benefit from Energy East pipeline. There is only one refinery capable of taking dilbit, Levis, and it is supplied by the pipeline through Sarnia to Montreal and there by tanker down the St. Lawrence.

Our country would be in a much better situation if say 35 years ago or so we decided to focus on energy self sufficiency and built infrastructure for the benefit of all Canadians. Alas, nobody had the foresight.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Goddess on April 17, 2018, 03:49:11 pm

Our country would be in a much better situation if say 35 years ago or so we decided to focus on energy self sufficiency and built infrastructure for the benefit of all Canadians. Alas, nobody had the foresight.

We don't seem to have the hindsight, either.

I'm all for reducing drastically or completely eliminating our need for oil.  But what do we do in the meantime?  If all the protesters had their way and the oil industry was KAPUT/FINISHED in Canada tomorrow - what would they do?  There is nothing to replace it with.

I'd like to see our government make solar and wind power affordable.  Make some investments in alternative power sources.  Grants to help Canadians make the switch.  PETA and Greenpeace can still demonstrate over all the birds killed by wind turbines, bless their hearts.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 03:55:50 pm
I'd like to see our government make solar and wind power affordable.  Make some investments in alternative power sources.  Grants to help Canadians make the switch.
More money won't make a technically inadequate power source viable. The only things governments can do at this point is fund R&D into finding viable alternatives and hope something appears. Wind and solar can only supplement fossil fuel/nuclear/hydro sources and only at a great cost (i.e. it invariably cheaper to simply use the backup power directly instead of wasting money on renewables since renewables are optional but the backup power is mandatory).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 03:59:32 pm
Ontario and Quebec derived zero benefit from Energy East pipeline. There is only one refinery capable of taking dilbit, Levis, and it is supplied by the pipeline through Sarnia to Montreal and there by tanker down the St. Lawrence.



Much better to buy 650,000 barrels a day at world price from such stellar suppliers as Saudi Arabia, Angola and Nigeria than from those A holes in Alberta.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 04:04:32 pm
Much better to buy 650,000 barrels a day at world price from such stellar suppliers as Saudi Arabia, Angola and Nigeria than from those A holes in Alberta.

I guess you didn't read the second part of my post.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 04:08:00 pm
I guess you didn't read the second part of my post.

I did. Other countries are building refineries to handle the stuff, we won’t even if it means using our own resources instead of from some of the worst regimes out there.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 04:08:11 pm
More money won't make a technically inadequate power source viable. The only things governments can do at this point is fund R&D into finding viable alternatives and hope something appears. Wind and solar can only supplement fossil fuel/nuclear/hydro sources and only at a great cost (i.e. it invariably cheaper to simply use the backup power directly instead of wasting money on renewables since renewables are optional but the backup power is mandatory).

Canada already gets ~60% of it's electrical energy from a renewable (hydro) and others continue to increase in use and decrease in cost. Fossil's will eventually rise infinitely in cost as we get to the last barrels. The need to get off fossil fuel is obvious.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 04:09:41 pm
simply use the backup power directly instead of wasting money on renewables since renewables are optional but the backup power is mandatory).

You ignore the reality that a fossil fuel backup when idle doesn't use any of the fossil fuel. NG turbines make great backup because they are fast to start/stop and relatively inexpensive to construct.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 04:10:56 pm
we won’t

You mean the mostly foreign owners won't. Again get back to building a national infrastructure that you keep missing.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 04:15:46 pm
You mean the mostly foreign owners won't. Again get back to building a national infrastructure that you keep missing.

Chicken or egg what.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 04:19:18 pm
Canada already gets ~60% of it's electrical energy from a renewable (hydro)
BC, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland have enough hydro for their current populations. The rest need fossil fuel or nuclear baseload. Even if renewables were free to build they cannot eliminate the need for reliable power sources and no amount of wishful thinking will change this.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 04:22:13 pm
[attach=2]
Chicken or egg what.

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 04:23:36 pm
You ignore the reality that a fossil fuel backup when idle doesn't use any of the fossil fuel. NG turbines make great backup because they are fast to start/stop and relatively inexpensive to construct.
Yep - but they are still fossil fuels and will be a permanent part of any grid. As for the cost of building: they are ridiculously expensive to build if they have to be left in an idle state most of the time (i.e. not generating revenue from power sales). So if you want to cost renewables you must include the cost of building and maintaining these backup generators because renewables are useless without them. Almost no one includes that cost when they want to pretend that renewable economics is better than it is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 04:37:58 pm
Almost no one includes that cost when they want to pretend that renewable economics is better than it is.

When you look at all in, no generation is cheap. Those who propose nuclear and fossil fuels only look at very short term costs. There is very little run of the river hydro in Canada, Carillon in Quebec being the only really large one. There are several in BC, but they are small by comparison. The next level of major impact by hydro is diversion, and we have a lot of those (e.g. Adam Beck) but mostly we are reservoir which can have a significant impact (even Adam Beck II has some reservoir).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on April 17, 2018, 07:53:25 pm
They want to get more bitumen to export... shipping more bitumen and less refined product through the existing pipeline would be one way to do that.

 -k

Empty threats....    you think it’s more profitable to sell a pipeline full of unrefined oil, or a pipeline full of refined gas?   The math is simple.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 17, 2018, 08:02:27 pm
Empty threats....    you think it’s more profitable to sell a pipeline full of unrefined oil, or a pipeline full of refined gas?   The math is simple.

They will just change what they ship through the pipeline, the other stuff can come by rail and truck. BC has no other sources of crude or refined product to replace what comes through the Trans Mountain, so they will still have to buy from Alberta.

Anyone who thinks this is an empty threat is kidding themselves.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 08:45:06 pm
I'm aware.  That was my point.  If both coasts in Canada and previously Obama are objecting to something, maybe it's time for a little self-reflection for Alberta.

Obama was playing pure politics, solidifying the left wing of the Democratic party. His decision had nothing to do with the danger of a pipeline spill or environmental damage.
And Atlantic Canada doesn't seem to have much objectiont to all the oil tankers and refineries they've got, not to mention the oil wells offshore.

BC, meanwhile has no problem with digging up massive quantities of coal and exporting that through their prescious Vancouver port.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: bcsapper on April 17, 2018, 08:59:35 pm
Obama was playing pure politics, solidifying the left wing of the Democratic party. His decision had nothing to do with the danger of a pipeline spill or environmental damage.
And Atlantic Canada doesn't seem to have much objectiont to all the oil tankers and refineries they've got, not to mention the oil wells offshore.

BC, meanwhile has no problem with digging up massive quantities of coal and exporting that through their prescious Vancouver port.

That's because coal from Robert's Bank doesn't contribute any greenhouse gases to the atmosphere when it's burned.

That's the only explanation I can think of, anyway.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:02:51 pm
I don't know a lot about the issue.  But i'd say if the people of BC don't want the pipeline, that's their choice, it's their province.  If Alberta pays them enough for the use of land and maybe they'll change their mind.

I dunno i see both sides, it's tough.  It's for the national interest for the economy but also it's BC's territory, it's not fed land.  I believe in local sovereignty.  I don't know what the constitution says about this though, provinces and the fed negotiated this stuff back in 1867.  Provinces got health care and education (not a big deal back then), the feds got control over canals (a big deal back then) lol.

If you believe in 'local sovereignty' then you don't believe in Canada. You can't believe in both. Is BC an independent nation with control and sovereignty over its own land or is it a subordinate government under a federation? If the latter then it doesn't 'control' its territory except as defined by the constitution. And the constitution makes it very, very clear the federal government makes the decisions when it comes to issues of national importance, including the transit of goods and materials from province to province and for export. The province has NO legal say in it. The federal government can expropriate the land if it needs to. Its done it before. Look into how BC tried to pressure the Amricans over salmon fishing a while back by threatening to close down a torpedo training area the US navy uses. The federal government expropriated the area, and that was that.

No society can be ruled by NIMBYism, which is what this is. Nobody wants a pipeline, a highway, a garbage dump, a prison, an oil refinery, a railroad track or any other unpleasant things near them. If you believe in 'local control' then you believe locals have the right to refuse all such things. Which means no highways, no railroads, no airports, sewage treatment plants, etc.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:05:18 pm
Empty threats....    you think it’s more profitable to sell a pipeline full of unrefined oil, or a pipeline full of refined gas?   The math is simple.


First of all, you need to build the refinery. Got twenty billion bucks you're not using?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:07:33 pm
Ontario and Quebec derived zero benefit from Energy East pipeline. There is only one refinery capable of taking dilbit, Levis, and it is supplied by the pipeline through Sarnia to Montreal and there by tanker down the St. Lawrence.

Ontario and Quebec get large amounts of money from the federal government. The federal government taxes economic activity. The cost to our economy of shipping oil to the US at a $30 a barrel discount amounts to billions of dollars. We need that money to pay for the slops for the troughs Quebec and Ontario keep filling for their herds. So Energy East was most certainly in the interest of Canada's economy, which means to Quebec and Ontario.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:09:22 pm
I guess you didn't read the second part of my post.

The one that suggested we should build a time machine?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:09:57 pm
Canada already gets ~60% of it's electrical energy from a renewable (hydro) and others continue to increase in use and decrease in cost. Fossil's will eventually rise infinitely in cost as we get to the last barrels. The need to get off fossil fuel is obvious.

Fossil fuels are not going to run out for many decades.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 09:22:26 pm
Fossil fuels are not going to run out for many decades.

Well at least you seem to understand that they ARE going to run out. Hopefully we are not standing around scratching our heads when it does. And why burn it all if we have smarter cleaner ways of producing energy? Which we do.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 10:34:38 pm
Well at least you seem to understand that they ARE going to run out.
You do realize that the rare earths and lithium need for high tech batteries, wind power and solar panels are going to run out eventually?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 10:42:58 pm
You do realize that the rare earths and lithium need for high tech batteries, wind power and solar panels are going to run out eventually?

You think the wind is going to stop blowing and the sun is going to stop shining? Perhaps you also think the moon will stop causing tidal waters to move up and down. How about atoms that can emit heat and create steam to drive a turbine. I thought you were touting yourself as scientifically knowledgeable.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 17, 2018, 11:00:28 pm
You think the wind is going to stop blowing and the sun is going to stop shining?
No. But we will eventually run out of the materials needed to turn the wind and sun into useful energy.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 11:06:17 pm
No. But we will eventually run out of the materials needed to turn the wind and sun into useful energy.

I'm not sure why you think how we would run out of magnets or copper wire and the water to spin them around, or reflectors to focus the suns rays onto photo voltaic s,  but I can tell you we will run out of oil sludge a lot more predictably.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 08:33:19 am
BC has no other sources of crude or refined product to replace what comes through the Trans Mountain, so they will still have to buy from Alberta.

Just across the border are a half dozen refineries with a combined output of about 5 times BC's demand, they should have some spare capacity. Like them, the Burnaby refinery could use Alaskan crude and make up the difference. Shut down that pipeline completely.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on April 18, 2018, 09:08:20 am
Just across the border are a half dozen refineries with a combined output of about 5 times BC's demand, they should have some spare capacity. Like them, the Burnaby refinery could use Alaskan crude and make up the difference. Shut down that pipeline completely.

FFS: yeah go ahead and shut the pipeline, we don’t want no tankers in our waters.  We’ll just get oil from Alaska....  ::)

HolyF this is stupid but duh, I guess Alaska oil is better than dilbit, duh ....

Also, I don’t think those refineries have the spare capacity you think they have.

But ultimately I look forward to higher prices as that will, in the long run, change behaviour making Alberta nothing less than North Montana.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 09:18:25 am
Just across the border are a half dozen refineries with a combined output of about 5 times BC's demand, they should have some spare capacity. Like them, the Burnaby refinery could use Alaskan crude and make up the difference. Shut down that pipeline completely.
.

I suggest you do a little research on the existing Trans Mountain. 53% of its capacity goes to those WA refineries because we don’t have the refinery capacity to supply our needs. Only 33% goes to Burnaby.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2018, 09:31:53 am
Just across the border are a half dozen refineries with a combined output of about 5 times BC's demand, they should have some spare capacity. Like them, the Burnaby refinery could use Alaskan crude and make up the difference. Shut down that pipeline completely.
So you figure people living in the Okanagan can go screw themselves so the self absorbed hypocrites in the lower mainland can "take a stand"? 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 09:47:31 am
Current Trans Mountain Output

54% Puget Sound system (Washington State Refineries)
33% Burnaby Terminal
9% Westridge Marine Terminal
4% Kamloops Terminal

By shutting down Trans Mountain, they would be squeezing the American's supply as well.

https://www.transmountain.com/product-destination
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 10:08:12 am
.

I suggest you do a little research on the existing Trans Mountain. 53% of its capacity goes to those WA refineries because we don’t have the refinery capacity to supply our needs. Only 33% goes to Burnaby.

How much of that 53% comes back into BC as refined product?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 10:15:30 am
So you figure people living in the Okanagan can go screw themselves so the self absorbed hypocrites in the lower mainland can "take a stand"?


No, this is about the adopted child who was given everything and continually whines and makes threats. Time for Alberta to grow up.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2018, 10:42:12 am
No, this is about the adopted child who was given everything and continually whines and makes threats. Time for Alberta to grow up.
Adopted child? As if BC's status is any different. You also mean the adopted child that has been putting more money into equalization than any other province: BC included.

The fact is legally and morally BC has an obligation to facilitate transport of goods from other provinces. Anyone who thinks these legal and moral obligations can be ignored is an self centered child that does not understand what being part of a family means.

None of that changes the fact that without ports the Okanagan would be screwed if transmountain was turned off or do you picture convoys of fuel rations going through the Coquihalla?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 10:56:45 am
You also mean the adopted child that has been putting more money into equalization than any other province: BC included.
So what? Does Alberta pay a higher federal tax rate? No they don't. They pay the exact same thing as everyone else.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 18, 2018, 10:57:56 am
even if Trans Mountain expansion were a go... 5+ years out before any actual increased export (tanker traffic) - so... in the interim just how is poor KM to survive? Wait, what - rail? Who said rail (dilbit or raw)... who said that? Well then, if the industry isn't capable of presenting representative case study in just how dilbit will be recovered after a tanker "incident"... who said rail?

besides, isn't KXL a go? Does every bigOil outfit get its own pipeline to tidewater?

Same problem, it goes to the US which means Alberta has to sell at a discount.

Saskatchewan to.

no - as intended for U.S. Gulf Coast Refineries... for principally Asian/South Pacific export... KXL price projections reflect upon the price for tar sludge significantly narrowing the current price gap to the U.S. benchmark. As it stands, Trans Canada states it has secured 2/3 of the 830,000 bbd KXL expansion (on 20 year contract commitments from Gulf Coast shippers).

meanwhile Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain (intended) expansion would increase capacity from the current 300,000 bbd to 890,000 bbd.

like I said:

(https://i.imgur.com/3zkuEip.png)



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 18, 2018, 11:01:16 am
So what? Does Alberta pay a higher federal tax rate? No they don't. They pay the exact same thing as everyone else.

all these nobs that continue to play the equalization card without actually understanding just how equalization works... or more pointedly, recognizing the overall balance sheet in terms of federal funding to provinces that makes equalization payments look like mice-nuts - notwithstanding the overall tax base of respective provinces filling the federal coffers in the first place.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 11:14:34 am
So what? Does Alberta pay a higher federal tax rate? No they don't. They pay the exact same thing as everyone else.

Are you kidding? That is oil that won’t be refined for anyone’s use if it is shut off. You should really do a little research of your own.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 11:33:59 am
Are you kidding? That is oil that won’t be refined for anyone’s use if it is shut off. You should really do a little research of your own.
So what? We need to be focused on going where the parade is going to be, not grasping at a dying commodity.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 11:36:50 am
So what? We need to be focused on going where the parade is going to be, not grasping at a dying commodity.

The parade won't be going anywhere if Alberta shuts off the tap. Neither will anything else.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 11:39:20 am
Well at least you seem to understand that they ARE going to run out. Hopefully we are not standing around scratching our heads when it does. And why burn it all if we have smarter cleaner ways of producing energy? Which we do.

If it was cheaper we'd be using it. It's not. We will use more of it as it becomes cheaper. What part of this confuses you?

In the meantime, we have a product that helps pay for the social services of all the people in this country who pay no taxes but continue to insist on more services.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 11:42:54 am
So what? Does Alberta pay a higher federal tax rate? No they don't. They pay the exact same thing as everyone else.

You do understand the difference between tax rates and actual taxes paid? Doesn't sound like it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 01:41:56 pm
You do understand the difference between tax rates and actual taxes paid? Doesn't sound like it.
If you're talking about actual taxes paid then Ontario and Quebec put more into federal revenues than Alberta, since the majority of tax payers live there.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 01:54:37 pm
If you're talking about actual taxes paid then Ontario and Quebec put more into federal revenues than Alberta, since the majority of tax payers live there.

Then why are they receiving equalization payments?

Payments are based on per capita revenue yield. Alberta has the highest per capita income and GDP in Canada and as a result contribute more on average than any other province.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 04:21:00 pm
Now you’re talking per capita yield. That’s a function of the businesses operating there as well, which by the way, still pay the same federal tax rate as every other business across the country.

If you don’t understand equalization payments and how they’re determined, then look it up.

Alberta doesn’t “give” anything to anyone.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 04:26:36 pm
Alberta doesn’t “give” anything to anyone.

I disagree, they give a lot of aggravation to the ROC.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 05:34:37 pm
Now you’re talking per capita yield. That’s a function of the businesses operating there as well, which by the way, still pay the same federal tax rate as every other business across the country.

If you don’t understand equalization payments and how they’re determined, then look it up.

Alberta doesn’t “give” anything to anyone.

Yes and they pay more because they produce more, when is that going to sink in?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 05:48:36 pm
Yes and they pay more because they produce more, when is that going to sink in?

pumping money out of the ground is not production, it is pillaging
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 06:21:56 pm
pumping money out of the ground is not production, it is pillaging

Oh, Jesus Christ.  ::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 08:01:05 pm
Yes and they pay more because they produce more, when is that going to sink in?
Ontario and Quebec make up nearly 60% of the country’s GDP. Alberta’s GDP is behind both. They don’t “pay more” than either Ontario or Quebec.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 08:10:22 pm
Ontario and Quebec make up nearly 60% of the country’s GDP. Alberta’s GDP is behind both. They don’t “pay more” than either Ontario or Quebec.

They pay more per capita because that is what it is based on. A larger percentage of each Albertan's tax dollar goes to equalization than any other province.

Energy products are this country's biggest export at 20.1% of total exports. Vehicles are second at 14.8%

The only provinces not receiving transfer payments are the three western provinces and Newfoundland Labrador. Energy is the largest export of all four including BC and coal makes up over 60% of BC's energy exports.

So you guys better get of you asses and sell some windmills because right now, the energy producing provinces are carrying the biggest export load.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2018, 08:29:09 pm
If you want to qualify per capita, then the idea that Alberta pays anything is moot. Per capita, the federal tax rate is still the same for everyone, regardless of who is paying. So no...Alberta’s taxpayers don’t pay more. They pay the exact same rate,
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 08:36:46 pm
If you want to qualify per capita, then the idea that Alberta pays anything is moot. Per capita, the federal tax rate is still the same for everyone, regardless of who is paying. So no...Alberta’s taxpayers don’t pay more. They pay the exact same rate,

So let's get rid of equalization. Simple.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on April 18, 2018, 08:39:10 pm
So let's get rid of equalization. Simple.

Sure....   and BC can charge a toll for pipelines running through it and a levy on goods coming through its ports.   Simple.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2018, 09:15:01 pm
If you want to qualify per capita, then the idea that Alberta pays anything is moot. Per capita, the federal tax rate is still the same for everyone, regardless of who is paying. So no...Alberta’s taxpayers don’t pay more. They pay the exact same rate,
Nonsense. Every taxpayer pays the same rate but taxpayers in Alberta tend to be richer so they pay proportionately more taxes because of the progressive tax rates. That means Alberta disproportionately funds the federal government. To add insult to injury, the equalization system rewards provinces that kill their economy with excessive taxation and regulation while punishing provinces like Alberta that choose to keep provincial tax rates low.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 09:17:40 pm
Sure....   and BC can charge a toll for pipelines running through it and a levy on goods coming through its ports.   Simple.

I'm actually not against equalization but cybercoma is making a good case for getting rid of it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 09:19:28 pm
Sure....   and BC can charge a toll for pipelines running through it and a levy on goods coming through its ports.   Simple.

And then Alberta charges a toll for every truck or train which carries goods to or from BC. And then all the other provinces do the same.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 09:36:17 pm
A larger percentage of each Albertan's tax dollar goes to equalization than any other province.

Wrong. There are far more people in Ontario that contribute more to equalization than in Alberta, it is just that there are fewer in Alberta that don't.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 09:42:05 pm
Wrong. There are far more people in Ontario that contribute more to equalization than in Alberta, it is just that there are fewer in Alberta that don't.

The point is, Alberta gets less back in transfers compared to other provinces, relative to the amount it sends to Ottawa. Do you not understand what equalization means?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 09:56:39 pm
Do you not understand what equalization means?

Probably far better than the whiners. If Alberta wants out of confederation then they can have what they contributed, which is a big fat zero. Manitoba is the only western province to join confederation (BC is not western, they are left coast).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 18, 2018, 09:57:26 pm
Probably far better than the whiners. If Alberta wants out of confederation then they can have what they contributed, which is a big fat zero. Manitoba is the only western province to join confederation (BC is not western, they are left coast).

So you don't.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 18, 2018, 11:28:33 pm
Probably far better than the whiners. If Alberta wants out of confederation then they can have what they contributed, which is a big fat zero. Manitoba is the only western province to join confederation (BC is not western, they are left coast).

Is that based on the idea that Alberta was created by an act of parliament rather than being a pre-existing colony that opted in? Because if so, that's an extremely shitty argument.

Just a reminder that for a long time Alberta was the poorest province in confederation.  Alberta used to receive grants-in-lieu of resource royalties.   When the great depression hit, the feds decided "ok, you can be a full province now" and ended the grants-in-lieu scheme and gave Alberta (and Saskatchewan) the same resource royalty rights as other provinces had.   At the time, of course, neither Alberta nor Saskatchewan had any resource revenues to speak of, and the royalties amounted to practically nothing. Alberta went bankrupt the same year.  At the time, maybe the feds thought this was a clever money-saving maneuver, but whatever their rationale, an act of parliament established that Alberta and Saskatchewan had the same right to their resource revenues that other provinces had.   If you have some notion that Alberta is a lesser province than BC because it was created by parliament rather than a colony that opted in, you should dispense with that.  Parliament deliberately made Alberta and Saskatchewan an equal of other provinces. End of story. You can take that narrative and blow it out your ass.

Giving provinces the right to the own resources probably seemed like a fantastic idea when Canada's petroleum industry was centered in Sarnia.  After 1947 it might have seemed like a less fantastic idea, but the only constitutional response to that is "No take-backsies". 

Alberta has contributed far more to confederation than any province except for Ontario.  Alberta's resource industry has been **** FANTASTIC for all of confederation.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 18, 2018, 11:29:42 pm
Sure....   and BC can charge a toll for pipelines running through it and a levy on goods coming through its ports.   Simple.

wrong.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 18, 2018, 11:35:42 pm
Empty threats....    you think it’s more profitable to sell a pipeline full of unrefined oil, or a pipeline full of refined gas?   The math is simple.

The Saudis are spending 44 billion dollars to build oil refineries... in INDIA.

Do you think that if refining the oil before exporting it was such an economic no-brainer, that the Saudis would be spending $44 billion to do the exact opposite?

Horgan and Weaver have been talking about what a great idea building refineries instead of pipelines is.  When Horgan himself was BC's opposition energy critic, he was saying the exact opposite in response to proposals to expand BC refinery capacity, because he knew that the economic case wasn't supported.

If refining the diluted bitumen before putting it in tankers was such an economic win, why doesn't Horgan take that project on for BC?  If he thinks making dil-bit into refined products to export is a huge win, he could bring BC onboard to do that here, so that the dil-bit doesn't ever reach the port. He could save the environment, create BC jobs, and support national unity all at once! He'd be a big hero. 

But he won't, because he knows that in reality, all his talk about the economic benefits of doing the refining in Canada aren't supported by a real-world economic case.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 18, 2018, 11:49:02 pm
I disagree, they give a lot of aggravation to the ROC.

No, this is about the adopted child who was given everything and continually whines and makes threats. Time for Alberta to grow up.

Hey, Jean Cretien called from 1997 and he wants his talking-points back.

Horgan is the one who is trying to subvert federal authority using the courts and threat of shenanigans. Horgan is the one attempting to scuttle a duly- approved project by harassing the proponent. Horgan is the one who needs to grow up.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 01:03:51 am
If refining the diluted bitumen before putting it in tankers was such an economic win, why doesn't Horgan take that project on for BC?  If he thinks making dil-bit into refined products to export is a huge win, he could bring BC onboard to do that here, so that the dil-bit doesn't ever reach the port. He could save the environment, create BC jobs, and support national unity all at once! He'd be a big hero. 

But he won't, because he knows that in reality, all his talk about the economic benefits of doing the refining in Canada aren't supported by a real-world economic case.

tru dat! Notwithstanding no new refineries are being built in North America... only limited/few expansions to existing refineries... BigOil companies choose to build those expansions in the U.S. - prevailing market size, dominant distribution networking and all that! These being the same BigOil companies reaping mega-profits from the tarsands while casting off royalty crumbs to the province of Alberta.

the only economic cases left to support new output capacity investment in Alberta are to build upgraders; notwithstanding market forces driven by U.S. shale sourced light and ultra-light oil has dramatically reduced the demand for Alberta's upgrader output of light/sweet crude... leaving the real/only economic viable output from Alberta upgraders to be that of heavy diluted bitumen. There may be a case for so-called 'partial upgrading' to raise the quality of bitumen while reducing the level of expensive diluent that in itself also takes up pipeline capacity.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 01:33:19 am
The Saudis are spending 44 billion dollars to build oil refineries... in INDIA.

Do you think that if refining the oil before exporting it was such an economic no-brainer, that the Saudis would be spending $44 billion to do the exact opposite?

huh! What 'exact opposite' is the Saudi Aramco company doing?

as an aside:

Saudis, SoftBank Plan World's Largest Solar Project - 200GW of solar capacity @ $200 billion investment

Quote
Saudi Arabia and SoftBank Group Corp. signed a memorandum of understanding to build a $200 billion solar power development that’s exponentially larger than any other project.

At 200 gigawatts, the Softbank project planned for the Saudi desert would be about 100 times larger than the next biggest proposed development and more than double what the global photovoltaic industry supplied last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Saudi Arabia touts US$500 billion wind and solar powered investment zone

Quote
Saudi Arabia has announced a US$500 billion investment for an industrial and business zone spanning 26,000 square km (10,230 square miles) over three countries, to be fully powered by solar energy and wind power.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 19, 2018, 06:25:31 am
So let's get rid of equalization. Simple.
Let’s end the confederacy. Simple.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 07:45:47 am
Alberta has contributed far more to confederation than any province except for Ontario.  Alberta's resource industry has been **** FANTASTIC for all of confederation.

Ontario has never once whined and cried like the little spoiled brat Alberta which does that continually. You forgot to mention the District of Athabaska where all those resources are was another gift to the rotten little child.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:08:27 am
huh! What 'exact opposite' is the Saudi Aramco company doing?

They are building refineries where their customers are, as opposed to this notion Horgan and Weaver are promoting that exporting refined products is the wave of the future.


as an aside:

Saudis, SoftBank Plan World's Largest Solar Project - 200GW of solar capacity @ $200 billion investment

Saudi Arabia touts US$500 billion wind and solar powered investment zone

That's pretty great, but I don't anticipate the Saudis leaving the oil business any time soon.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 09:12:39 am
Let’s end the confederacy. Simple.


And do what?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 09:15:24 am
Ontario has never once whined and cried like the little spoiled brat Alberta which does that continually. You forgot to mention the District of Athabaska where all those resources are was another gift to the rotten little child.

Gift from who? Or are you one of those who thinks the rest of the country exists at the pleasure of central Canada?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 19, 2018, 09:28:59 am
Gift from who? Or are you one of those who thinks the rest of the country exists at the pleasure of central Canada?
It is also revisionist history. Ontario wanted provincial control of resources because in 1860s Ontario was a major producer of oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Canada
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:33:29 am
Ontario has never once whined and cried like the little spoiled brat Alberta which does that continually.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that just inflames the resentment of Albertans, especially ones old enough to remember the NEP.

You forgot to mention the District of Athabaska where all those resources are was another gift to the rotten little child.

It wasn't a "gift" to Alberta. It was an older jurisdiction that was eliminated along with other prairie jurisdictions in the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan.  At the time, they didn't think there was anything up there except muskeg and natives.  If they had a time-machine to see the future, maybe they would have done things differently, but again the constitutional precedent is "no takebacksies."

And of course the Alberta oil industry didn't start in the far north of the province. It started in Leduc, a stone's throw south of Edmonton. The south of the province was dotted with "ponies" a long time before the industry expanded north.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:35:19 am
It is also revisionist history. Ontario wanted provincial control of resources because in 1860s Ontario was a major producer of oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Canada

Like I said, it probably seemed like a great idea when Canada's oil capital was Sarnia.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on April 19, 2018, 10:09:20 am
The NEP is nothing more than a bogey man Albertans are spoon fed since they are children.  It’s practically indocrinated  into every Albertan that the scary federal guvmint tried to steal their **** and now they must hate Liberals and whine about transfer payments. 

Ironic that they are now siding with federal Liberal guvmint to oppose BC’s stand on provincial authorities. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 10:30:02 am
Personally, I would rather live in a province that contributes to equalization than receives it, but it must wear a little thin when people use you as the country's whipping boy for your trouble.

Quote
The goals of the Program were "security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market; opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the energy industry; particularly oil and gas, and to share in the benefits of its expansion; and fairness, with a pricing and revenue-sharing regime which recognizes the needs and rights of all Canadians".[1]

The NEP was designed to promote oil self-sufficiency for Canada, maintain the oil supply, particularly for the industrial base in eastern Canada, promote Canadian ownership of the energy industry, promote lower prices, promote exploration for oil in Canada, promote alternative energy sources, and increase government revenues from oil sales through a variety of taxes and agreements.[19]



The NEP's Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) instituted a double-taxation mechanism that did not apply to other commodities, such as gold and copper (see "Program details" item (c), below). The program would "... redistribute revenue from the [oil] industry and lessen the cost of oil for Eastern Canada..." in an attempt to insulate the Canadian economy from the shock of rising global oil prices[20] (see "Program details" item (a), below). In 1981 Scarfe argued that by keeping domestic oil prices below world market prices, the NEP was essentially mandating provincial generosity and subsidizing all Canadian consumers of fuel, thanks to Alberta and the other oil producing provinces (such as Newfoundland, which as a result of the NEP received funding for the Hibernia project).[14]:8

In other words, use Alberta to subsidize eastern imports.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 10:34:22 am
They are building refineries where their customers are, as opposed to this notion Horgan and Weaver are promoting that exporting refined products is the wave of the future.

no - your failed analogy makes no sense. The India refinery output financed by Saudi company money isn't intended for Saudi domestic use/need (obviously)... isn't for export use at all - it's intended for domestic consumption within India.

That's pretty great, but I don't anticipate the Saudis leaving the oil business any time soon.

any time soon is relative and fits within the broader global shifts? Saudi's own pronouncements were profound - to diversify and to begin to 'wean off fossil fuels'... that even in a country where oil is most plentiful renewables beckon as a cheap/clean alternative to fossil-fuels... to positioning Saudi Arabia as a world leader in renewable investment (internally and abroad).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 19, 2018, 10:36:39 am
And do what?
You miss the point. Either we are a confederacy and federal resources are shared federally or we're just a collective of disparate provincial interests going it alone.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 10:43:05 am
Personally, I would rather live in a province that contributes to equalization than receives it, but it must wear a little thin when people use you as the country's whipping boy for your trouble.

In other words, use Alberta to subsidize eastern imports.

the equalization play is meaningless in the face of actual tax bases contributing to federal coffers... equally, the tired talking point about "giving and not receiving" is disingenuous for anyone to use equalization monies as "the determiner" in presumed inequality in the share of dispersed federal monies.

equalization monies, proper, are relatively mice-nuts small in relation to overall federal revenues and TOTAL federal expenditures to the respective provinces. There is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta monies" to the federal government. What you're really speaking to is the difference between revenues and expenditures... in that regard, more pointedly, the federal government does not receive anything directly from any province; rather, federal taxes/revenue are collected WITHIN a respective province, not FROM a respective province... be that personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, investment income, etc. And most pointedly, federal expenditures to the provinces are, of course, more than just the so-called 'formal transfers' like health (CHT), social (CST) and equalization... they also include all manner of spending like for infrastructure, transportation, education, national defence, grant/funds for recreation & cultural events/festivals, environment, security, etc..
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 10:45:13 am
You miss the point. Either we are a confederacy and federal resources are shared federally or we're just a collective of disparate provincial interests going it alone.

So why do you think it is OK for individual provinces to block other provinces from getting their products to foreign markets?

If the feds put a special tax only on Ontario's biggest revenue generator, then distributed all those tax revenues to the other provinces, you would be OK way with that.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 10:50:19 am
the equalization play is meaningless in the face of actual tax bases contributing to federal coffers... equally, the tired talking point about "giving and not receiving" is disingenuous for anyone to use equalization monies as "the determiner" in presumed inequality in the share of dispersed federal monies.

equalization monies, proper, are relatively mice-nuts small in relation to overall federal revenues and TOTAL federal expenditures to the respective provinces. There is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta monies" to the federal government. What you're really speaking to is the difference between revenues and expenditures... in that regard, more pointedly, the federal government does not receive anything directly from any province; rather, federal taxes/revenue are collected WITHIN a respective province, not FROM a respective province... be that personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, investment income, etc. And most pointedly, federal expenditures to the provinces are, of course, more than just the so-called 'formal transfers' like health (CHT), social (CST) and equalization... they also include all manner of spending like for infrastructure, transportation, education, national defence, grant/funds for recreation & cultural events/festivals, environment, security, etc..
s

 Alberta receives back a smaller percentage of the money it sends to Ottawa than other provinces. That is what equalization is about, is it not? If it isn't, why have it.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 10:54:59 am
Alberta receives back a smaller percentage of the money it sends to Ottawa than other provinces. That is what equalization is about, is it not? If it isn't, why have it.

Alberta doesn't send any money to Ottawa, but if you took a second to actually read and understand waldo's post you would know that
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 10:57:07 am
no - your failed analogy makes no sense. The India refinery output financed by Saudi company money isn't intended for Saudi domestic use/need (obviously)... isn't for export use at all - it's intended for domestic consumption within India.

any time soon is relative and fits within the broader global shifts? Saudi's own pronouncements were profound - to diversify and to begin to 'wean off fossil fuels'... that even in a country where oil is most plentiful renewables beckon as a cheap/clean alternative to fossil-fuels... to positioning Saudi Arabia as a world leader in renewable investment (internally and abroad).

Solar works really well in a country that is almost 2000 miles closer to the equator than Canada's southern border and also has basically 365 day sunshine.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 10:57:26 am
The NEP is nothing more than a bogey man Albertans are spoon fed since they are children.  It’s practically indocrinated  into every Albertan that the scary federal guvmint tried to steal their **** and now they must hate Liberals and whine about transfer payments. 

Ironic that they are now siding with federal Liberal guvmint to oppose BC’s stand on provincial authorities.

winner winner, chicken dinner!!! These revisionist types conveniently overlook the 2 lead-up global energy crisis within the 70s that precipitated the goals/intents of the National Energy Program. The absence of a national strategy/plan is what acted to position Canada/provinces as lapdogs to the U.S. BigOil companies... to not being actual players. Perhaps these forever whining malcontents might ask themselves what the state of pipelines across Canada might be with a natural strategy/plan... like NEP.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:00:14 am
Alberta doesn't send any money to Ottawa, but if you took a second to actually read and understand waldo's post you would know that

You saying Alberta and Albertans don't pay taxes? What do you think equalization actually means if it doesn't mean the unequal transfer of revenues between provinces?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 11:05:28 am
You saying Alberta and Albertans don't pay taxes? What do you think equalization actually means if it doesn't mean the unequal transfer of revenues between provinces?

equalization is a tool - it is not indicative of overall equality of the disbursement of federal monies to respective provinces... here, I'll try again:



the equalization play is meaningless in the face of actual tax bases contributing to federal coffers... equally, the tired talking point about "giving and not receiving" is disingenuous for anyone to use equalization monies as "the determiner" in presumed inequality in the share of dispersed federal monies.

equalization monies, proper, are relatively mice-nuts small in relation to overall federal revenues and TOTAL federal expenditures to the respective provinces. There is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta monies" to the federal government. What you're really speaking to is the difference between revenues and expenditures... in that regard, more pointedly, the federal government does not receive anything directly from any province; rather, federal taxes/revenue are collected WITHIN a respective province, not FROM a respective province... be that personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, investment income, etc. And most pointedly, federal expenditures to the provinces are, of course, more than just the so-called 'formal transfers' like health (CHT), social (CST) and equalization... they also include all manner of spending like for infrastructure, transportation, education, national defence, grant/funds for recreation & cultural events/festivals, environment, security, etc..
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:05:57 am
winner winner, chicken dinner!!! These revisionist types conveniently overlook the 2 lead-up global energy crisis within the 70s that precipitated the goals/intents of the National Energy Program. The absence of a national strategy/plan is what acted to position Canada/provinces as lapdogs to the U.S. BigOil companies... to not being actual players. Perhaps these forever whining malcontents might ask themselves what the state of pipelines across Canada might be with a natural strategy/plan... like NEP.

So you would be good with the Feds imposing a special tax on the auto industry and using it to subsidize vehicle buyers in Western provinces.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:07:14 am
equalization is a tool - it is not indicative of overall equality of the disbursement of federal monies to respective provinces... here, I'll try again:

There isn't equality in the disbursement of federal monies. That's the point.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 11:10:48 am
There isn't equality in the disbursement of federal monies. That's the point.

yeesh! Again, equalization payments are not the only kind of disbursement of federal monies!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:15:35 am
yeesh! Again, equalization payments are not the only kind of disbursement of federal monies!

I know that so I’ll ask you the same question, WTF is equalization because all I have heard from you is a bunch of bafflegab about what it isn’t.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 11:17:03 am
So you would be good with the Feds imposing a special tax on the auto industry and using it to subsidize vehicle buyers in Western provinces.

please rephrase to recognize goals to boost Canadian ownership in the auto industry, to make Canada a self-sufficient auto producer and to increase the federal share of auto industry revenue
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 11:20:30 am
There isn't equality in the disbursement of federal monies. That's the point.

no - if your sole basis for determining that is simply the Equalization Program, you have no basis to offer qualification on equality of federal money disbursement to provinces. Try to read my post again... I shouldn't have to repeat it for a third time!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 19, 2018, 11:40:02 am
You miss the point. Either we are a confederacy and federal resources are shared federally or we're just a collective of disparate provincial interests going it alone.

If we're a confederacy which shares in resources then individual provinces should not be permitted to block the export of those resources given the profits go to all of Canada.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:42:35 am
please rephrase to recognize goals to boost Canadian ownership in the auto industry, to make Canada a self-sufficient auto producer and to increase the federal share of auto industry revenue

No, why should I. The tax imposed by the NEP was used to subsidize consumers of imported oil.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 11:48:12 am
no - if your sole basis for determining that is simply the Equalization Program, you have no basis to offer qualification on equality of federal money disbursement to provinces. Try to read my post again... I shouldn't have to repeat it for a third time!

I read your post and you still haven’t explained what it is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 12:06:00 pm
No, why should I. The tax imposed by the NEP was used to subsidize consumers of imported oil.

clearly you're not a big-picture thinker! A national strategy/plan wouldn't see Canada importing oil today... it would have positioned Canada to be a leader in self-determination of it's resource base for domestic use and export intent. I expect your next false/revisionist NEP talking point will be that it caused the world-wide bursting of the oil bubble... with the resulting global oil glut plunging the world into economic recession.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 12:10:02 pm
I read your post and you still haven’t explained what it is.

you've finally read it! Great... I expect that should dispense with any more of your nonsensical statements about the relative equality of federal expenditures. Since you're the one having trouble understanding the Equalization Program and where it actually positions in terms of overall federal expenditures, you need to, as you say, "explain what it is". Please proceed Governor!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 12:20:24 pm
clearly you're not a big-picture thinker! A national strategy/plan wouldn't see Canada importing oil today... it would have positioned Canada to be a leader in self-determination of it's resource base for domestic use and export intent. I expect your next false/revisionist NEP talking point will be that it caused the world-wide bursting of the oil bubble... with the resulting global oil glut plunging the world into economic recession.

A national strategy would have included an energy east pipeline. No?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 01:35:47 pm
A national strategy would have included an energy east pipeline. No?

good on ya! Good for you in reversing your position on the NEP... and relinquishing any further issuance of false/misleading statements concerning the goals/intents of the NEP. Good on ya man, good on ya!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 02:11:19 pm
good on ya! Good for you in reversing your position on the NEP... and relinquishing any further issuance of false/misleading statements concerning the goals/intents of the NEP. Good on ya man, good on ya!

So where was the plan to build a pipeline east and refine Canadian oil for Canadian consumption instead of taxing Alberta’s oil in order to buy foreign oil?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 19, 2018, 02:16:43 pm
So why do you think it is OK for individual provinces to block other provinces from getting their products to foreign markets?\
Why do you assume that I do?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 02:19:14 pm
So where was the plan to build a pipeline east and refine Canadian oil for Canadian consumption instead of taxing Alberta’s oil in order to buy foreign oil?

The nationalization of the industry (goal was 50% by 1990) was to allow for projects to ensure Canada self sufficiency. Compare Canada to Norway, they both had similar idea and Norway did extremely well but Alberta screwed Canada and we sold out to foreign companies that buy tarsands oil at 15% discount.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 19, 2018, 02:21:10 pm
If we're a confederacy which shares in resources then individual provinces should not be permitted to block the export of those resources given the profits go to all of Canada.
Find a safe way to get it there, where the province, rather than industry, won't have to pay to clean up the inevitable environmental disasters. Asking BC to take on all the risks, while Alberta reaps the bulk of the benefits is not fair terms.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 02:53:59 pm
The nationalization of the industry (goal was 50% by 1990) was to allow for projects to ensure Canada self sufficiency. Compare Canada to Norway, they both had similar idea and Norway did extremely well but Alberta screwed Canada and we sold out to foreign companies that buy tarsands oil at 15% discount.

So where was the plan to get Canadian oil east instead of taxing Alberta’s resources to feed eastern Canada’s foreign oil addiction. Show me.

Alberta has no alternative to selling to the US at a discount because BC and Central Canada block their access to any other markets and Central Canada would rather pay world price to some of the armpits of the world than buy it from Canadians.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 03:04:59 pm
So where was the plan to get Canadian oil east

What the frig do you think energy self sufficiency means?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 19, 2018, 03:13:46 pm
Find a safe way to get it there, where the province, rather than industry, won't have to pay to clean up the inevitable environmental disasters. Asking BC to take on all the risks, while Alberta reaps the bulk of the benefits is not fair terms.
We are either a country or not. There is no BC coastline - it is a Canadian coastline and if BC is fine with putting the Canadian coastline at risk in order to expand shipping through port of Vancouver, international coal shipments and LNG then there is really no argument that transport of Alberta oil is a significant additional risk.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 03:15:56 pm
coal shipments and LNG

Are a bizillion times less dangerous to the coastline than dilbit.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 03:34:30 pm
What the frig do you think energy self sufficiency means?

Show me the friggin plan.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 03:44:27 pm
Show me the friggin plan.

You are 35 years too late.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 04:07:28 pm
You are 35 years too late.

Ya, there never was one.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 05:12:00 pm
you've finally read it! Great... I expect that should dispense with any more of your nonsensical statements about the relative equality of federal expenditures. Since you're the one having trouble understanding the Equalization Program and where it actually positions in terms of overall federal expenditures, you need to, as you say, "explain what it is". Please proceed Governor!

Listen there is a formula for equalization and you know it. Other federal expenditures that are not mandatory are at the discretion of the federal government, they can be a whole bunch, they can be nothing or something in between. Are you claiming the federal government makes up for what Alberta gives up in equalization by other means, over and above what it does for other provinces? If so, cite.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 19, 2018, 05:53:21 pm
Are a bizillion times less dangerous to the coastline than dilbit.
The only fuel spills have been from non-oil related ships. An actual fuel spill does a bazillion times more damage than a hypothetical one.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 06:08:22 pm
The only fuel spills have been from non-oil related ships.

? are you talking about port of Vancouver here

Currently about 1% of the ships visiting the port of Vancouver transport crude oil, the KM expansion will increase that to over 10%
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 19, 2018, 07:19:00 pm
? are you talking about port of Vancouver here

Currently about 1% of the ships visiting the port of Vancouver transport crude oil, the KM expansion will increase that to over 10%

One would assume just the port of YVR unless he hasn't heard of Exxon Valdez etc.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 19, 2018, 07:22:12 pm
Currently about 1% of the ships visiting the port of Vancouver transport crude oil, the KM expansion will increase that to over 10%
A whopping 10%. My point exactly. The risk of fuel spills comes from every ship and probability of a spill from poorly regulated cargo or cruise ship is much higher than the risk for tightly regulated oil shippers. We see the difference in actual data on spills.

The bottom line: people in BC are happy to accept risk to Canada's coastline for their own economic well being but suddenly get risk adverse when there is not a direct link to the BC economy. So the "we won't accept risk" argument is clearly self centered BS. We either have a country are we don't. Which is it?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 07:31:24 pm
So where was the plan to build a pipeline east and refine Canadian oil for Canadian consumption instead of taxing Alberta’s oil in order to buy foreign oil?

I suggest you quit showcasing your ignorance of the subject; in its short time frame, the NEP was a most successful program.  Its changes/incentives allowed Canada to effectively become self-sufficient in oil production... Canadian ownership of the industry was expanded rapidly (to 41% by 1984), federal petroleum revenues grew significantly, and a pan-Canadian price was maintained.

get off the NEP malcontent talking point bandwagon and spend a few cycles in actually reviewing what the NEP was able to accomplish in a very short period of (essentially) 3-to-4 years... before Lougheed and Mulroney effectively dismantled it to position Canada and Canadian ownership as nothing more than aspects for the U.S. multi-nationals to manipulate and leverage for their self-determination and gain. You keep harping on about the discount price of Alberta oil relative to the U.S. benchmark - you can thank Mulroney and the iterative shifts within FTA to NAFTA for that. Mexico refused to go along with joining/integrating into the so-called continental market... it will be most interesting to realize what this current Trump initiated NAFTA do-over does (if anything) to the energy provisions of the FTA and NAFTA that currently run contrary to Canada’s interests.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 07:40:25 pm
So where was the plan to build a pipeline east and refine Canadian oil for Canadian consumption instead of taxing Alberta’s oil in order to buy foreign oil?
So where was the plan to get Canadian oil east instead of taxing Alberta’s resources to feed eastern Canada’s foreign oil addiction. Show me.

no - again, the NEP was only in place for a short period of (essentially) 3-4 years... and accomplished much in that short time frame. It's obviously quite difficult to presume to champion national infrastructure initiatives in a presumed federal-provincial partnership... when the official Conservative Opposition and principal province (Alberta) move to undercut anything/everything about the NEP. Notwithstanding, of course, the shifts to increased Canadian ownership (and resulting self-determination/self-sufficiency)... coupled with the NEP incentive programs, were targeted to bring Canadian investment forward to shape/drive that very national infrastructure you keep beaking off about!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2018, 07:49:41 pm
Alberta has no alternative to selling to the US at a discount because BC and Central Canada block their access to any other markets and Central Canada would rather pay world price to some of the armpits of the world than buy it from Canadians.

no; unless you have a mega-scoop to suggest Trans Canada's KXL won't get built... again:
no - as intended for U.S. Gulf Coast Refineries... for principally Asian/South Pacific export... KXL price projections reflect upon the price for tar sludge significantly narrowing the current price gap to the U.S. benchmark. As it stands, Trans Canada states it has secured 2/3 of the 830,000 bbd KXL expansion (on 20 year contract commitments from Gulf Coast shippers).

notwithstanding, of course, U.S. multi-nationals effectively control the level of excess Canadian/Alberta supply... the glut of which effectively positions Canada within that current discount play.

I've put it up a couple of times now... highlighting just what KXL will mean for the tarsands - emphasizing that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain isn't the only pipeline capacity increase to factor. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya, no one wants to recognize Alberta already has a pipeline gain/win even before considerations of TM - shocked I tells ya!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 07:59:47 pm
no - again, the NEP was only in place for a short period of (essentially) 3-4 years... and accomplished much in that short time frame. It's obviously quite difficult to presume to champion national infrastructure initiatives in a presumed federal-provincial partnership... when the official Conservative Opposition and principal province (Alberta) move to undercut anything/everything about the NEP. Notwithstanding, of course, the shifts to increased Canadian ownership (and resulting self-determination/self-sufficiency)... coupled with the NEP incentive programs, were targeted to bring Canadian investment forward to shape/drive that very national infrastructure you keep beaking off about!

There was no mention it, all the NEP did was tax Alberta's resources and use the money to buy assets and subsidize Eastern oil consumption. We'll tax you now and plan later. Maybe if they had done it the other way around, it might have flown.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 08:01:12 pm
no; unless you have a mega-scoop to suggest Trans Canada's KXL won't get built... again:
notwithstanding, of course, U.S. multi-nationals effectively control the level of excess Canadian/Alberta supply... the glut of which effectively positions Canada within that current discount play.

I've put it up a couple of times now... highlighting just what KXL will mean for the tarsands - emphasizing that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain isn't the only pipeline capacity increase to factor. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya, no one wants to recognize Alberta already has a pipeline gain/win even before considerations of TM - shocked I tells ya!

Where does the KXL go again?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 08:03:48 pm
A whopping 10%

That means 1000% increase over current tanker traffic.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 08:41:35 pm
That means 1000% increase over current tanker traffic.

Stop the melodrama. A 1000% of one is only 10 and a 100% of nothing is still nothing.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 08:47:26 pm
Stop the melodrama. A 1000% of one is only 10 and a 100% of nothing is still nothing.

You will be moving from 1 tanker every week or two to multiple a day.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 08:50:36 pm
You will be moving from 1 tanker every week or two to multiple a day.

So, it's a port, ships come and go. That's the reason it is there.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:34:15 pm
The nationalization of the industry (goal was 50% by 1990) was to allow for projects to ensure Canada self sufficiency. Compare Canada to Norway, they both had similar idea and Norway did extremely well but Alberta screwed Canada and we sold out to foreign companies that buy tarsands oil at 15% discount.

The Alberta oil industry was never "sold out" to foreigners.  The Alberta oil industry was *built* by foreigners, principally American.  Alberta entrepreneurs tried raising money in Canada for many years and couldn't get Bay Street to invest a cent. 

And the plan to "increase the Canadian ownership" of the oil industry was based around a regime of punitive measures aimed at foreign companies developing "old oil" resources (ie, drilling and exploring in Alberta).  This had an obvious negative effect on the industry and employment in Alberta.  Perhaps the plan's creators had the idea that (largely fictional) Canadian investors would simply step in and fill the void seamlessly, but it didn't turn out that way.  The net result was that trying to pitch this as a great thing for Albertans sounded pretty much like:  "We're going to burn your house down, but trust us, once we get it rebuilt you're going to love it!"


What the frig do you think energy self sufficiency means?

One of the principal uses for the money looted from the Alberta oil industry was to subsidize oil exploration elsewhere.  Principally offshore and in the northern territories.  (Why the enthusiasm for offshore and the north? Because the royalties from the oil would go straight into federal coffers. Go figure.)

There was no plan to build a pipeline to bring Alberta oil any further east. The plan was to produce oil in other parts of Canada.

The actual plan to bring Alberta oil to eastern Canada happened much earlier.   Diefenbaker's "National Oil Policy" built the pipeline, and required refineries in Ontario and west to buy Canadian oil.  The pipeline was originally intended to go all the way to Montreal, but Quebec refused. They didn't want to buy Alberta oil, they wanted to buy imported oil, which was cheaper at the time.  Ontario and provinces west of Ontario subsidized the early days of Alberta oil by buying it at prices higher than they would have paid for world oil at the time.   This was a great investment that has paid Canada back many times over.  Quebec and the Maritimes didn't help, though-- they continued buying import oil that arrived in tankers, because it was cheaper.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 09:40:29 pm
Yes thanks for reminding me of the time Ontario paid hansomly for Alberta to develop its oil industry, just one in a long string of handouts they took.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:55:59 pm
no - again, the NEP was only in place for a short period of (essentially) 3-4 years... and accomplished much in that short time frame.

Such as?


It's obviously quite difficult to presume to champion national infrastructure initiatives in a presumed federal-provincial partnership... when the official Conservative Opposition and principal province (Alberta) move to undercut anything/everything about the NEP.

The NEP was a dud because ... of Joe Clark?  As for Peter Lougheed, he fought the NEP in court, winning a minor victory on a point of taxation, and signed an agreement because there was nothing left to do.

In fact the reason the NEP flopped had little to do with Lougheed, nothing to do with Joe Clark, and a whole lot to do with bad assumptions.

Bad assumption 1:
It was assumed that the price of oil would keep on rising to stratospheric new heights. In fact it had already peaked, and dropped heavily soon after.  The anticipated windfall of new revenue never appeared.   In fact if the NEP had been continued for much longer it's possible that the price of oil might have reached the price floor written into the NEP which was intended to boost the income of producers if oil prices crashed far enough.

Bad assumption 2:
It was envisioned that the subsidies for "new oil" exploration would unearth a treasure-trove of new oil in other parts of Canada, especially the north and offshore, which would provide the federal government even more new revenue.  But no new treasure-trove of oil was found.


Notwithstanding, of course, the shifts to increased Canadian ownership (and resulting self-determination/self-sufficiency)... coupled with the NEP incentive programs, were targeted to bring Canadian investment forward to shape/drive that very national infrastructure you keep beaking off about!

That very national infrastructure people are beaking off about would be getting built right now if Mr Horgan weren't attempting to waylay the project.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 09:56:46 pm
Yes thanks for reminding me of the time Ontario paid hansomly for Alberta to develop its oil industry, just one in a long string of handouts they took.

That investment has been paid back many times over.  Why cry about it?

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 10:07:05 pm
Politically, Horgan isn't even winning this fight in BC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-supporters-in-bc-poll-1.4624611

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 10:13:04 pm
That very national infrastructure people are beaking off about would be getting built right now if Mr Horgan weren't attempting to waylay the project.

Hogan has nothing to do with a east-west pipeline

That investment has been paid back many times over.  Why cry about it?

Double bull crap, Alberta has never done anything for Ontario
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 10:40:15 pm
Hogan has nothing to do with a east-west pipeline

There's no need for an additional east-west pipeline for the foreseeable future.  There's barely a need for the existing one, as eastern Canada is well-supplied with US oil right now.

Double bull crap, Alberta has never done anything for Ontario

Saying something like this makes you look like a complete moron.

Central Canada did not set out to find settlers to populate the prairies out of the goodness of their hearts.  Central Canadian producers have done very well making finished goods from the raw materials obtained from the regions. In earlier times that may have been principally grain, but since then other products as well.  And while Ontario may have subsidized the early days of the Alberta oil industry, but the 1970s it turns out that Ontario was very well served by having access to oil that wasn't subject to Middle Eastern instability. (Quebec refineries at the time were also receiving Alberta oil... sporadically at best... by tanker, via Vancouver and the Panama Canal.)  Ontario was already receiving oil below world market price by the 1970s, and of course that culminated in Ontario getting oil for drastically below the world price at the height of the NEP.

As well, the revenue generated by the oil industry has benefited all of Canada.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 10:45:11 pm
Likewise the west continues to benefit from the eastern marketplace, and infrastructure. This is a partnership, but the continual whining of the urban cowboys is counter productive. If the west would just grow up and get past the whiny two stage we might move forward.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 19, 2018, 10:59:48 pm
Likewise the west continues to benefit from the eastern marketplace, and infrastructure. This is a partnership, but the continual whining of the urban cowboys is counter productive. If the west would just grow up and get past the whiny two stage we might move forward.


Move forward to what?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 11:04:07 pm
Likewise the west continues to benefit from the eastern marketplace, and infrastructure. This is a partnership, but the continual whining of the urban cowboys is counter productive. If the west would just grow up and get past the whiny two stage we might move forward.

I'm not aware of any conflict going on between Alberta and the federal government, or between Alberta and Ontario.   Horgan is the one in his "terrible twos".

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on April 19, 2018, 11:27:46 pm
I don;'t understand why so many people in BC don't want it.  That's the main reason? I don't know many details of this issue. Can't BC receive compensation so they benefit too?

72,000 miles of crude pipeline crisscrossing the US, i don't hear about a lot of major spills.  Or maybe there are??
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 20, 2018, 12:06:25 am
72,000 miles of crude pipeline crisscrossing the US, i don't hear about a lot of major spills.  Or maybe there are??
There are remarkably few given the huge amount of pipe and most of them are cleaned up quickly. Spills used to be no-news events until the enviros started obsessing about them.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2018, 12:28:29 am
There are remarkably few given the huge amount of pipe and most of them are cleaned up quickly. Spills used to be no-news events until the enviros started obsessing about them.

Being concerned about a pipeline leaking for 17 hours and flooding the Kalamazoo River until it flowed into peoples driveways is "obsessing"? And they are still cleaning up the mess from the Exxon-Valdez.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 02:22:34 am
The actual plan to bring Alberta oil to eastern Canada happened much earlier.   Diefenbaker's "National Oil Policy" built the pipeline, and required refineries in Ontario and west to buy Canadian oil.  The pipeline was originally intended to go all the way to Montreal, but Quebec refused. They didn't want to buy Alberta oil, they wanted to buy imported oil, which was cheaper at the time.  Ontario and provinces west of Ontario subsidized the early days of Alberta oil by buying it at prices higher than they would have paid for world oil at the time.   This was a great investment that has paid Canada back many times over.  Quebec and the Maritimes didn't help, though-- they continued buying import oil that arrived in tankers, because it was cheaper.

that's quite the self-serving revisionist spin there! Points-in fact:

- your revisionism has you confusing gas versus oil pipelines. The IPL oil pipeline was built in 1950 (Edmonton to Superior Wisconsin); extended to Sarnia in 1953; further extended to Montreal in 1976. The pipeline your revisionist spin relies upon is a gas pipeline started in 1957.

- Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker established a Royal Commission on Energy (1957); principal agenda item was to address the viability of an oil pipeline from Edmonton to Montreal. That 'east versus west' divide you speak to wasn't at a political provincial level (you say Quebec)... the rift was between eastern versus western oil refiners and precipitated PM Diefenbaker's Royal Commission to establish the National Energy Board (NEB) in 1959. The history I review has the NEB accepting the recommendation of a U.S. oil consultant advising that the Edmonton-to-Montreal pipeline not be built... based on the "economics of the day". The NEB accepted that recommendation, which was subsequently formally adopted in the Diefenbaker National Oil Policy of 1961... as a result, coming up on 6 decades later, Western Canadian oil producers have never had meaningful access to domestic markets... and why the majority of Canada's population is still subject to, "the vagaries of international oil geopolitics and continental energy economics".

- further to that Conservative PM Diefenbaker National Oil Policy: east of the Ottawa Valley, Canadians were to be supplied with cheap imported Middle East/Venezuela oil... west of the Ottawa Valley, Canadians were to be supplied with Western Canadian oil. That PM Diefenbaker policy formalized a pattern whereby Western Canada exported oil to the US and Central/Eastern Canada imported overseas oil... integrating Western Canada into the continental oil market while dominated by American ownership. Of course "Irish Eyes" Mulroney, by formal FTA trade agreement with the U.S., further cemented the loss of Canadian sovereignty while substantially weakening Canadian control of our own energy resources... further extended by NAFTA's formalization of the original FTA's so-called "proportionality clause" whereby, effectively, Canadian oil and gas became North American oil and gas with little to no Canadian control of our own resources.

... and you have the ignorance and audacity to challenge the rationale behind a national energy program intended to (ultimately) circumvent what's transpired... to ultimately establish Canadian control, determination and ownership of our own resources. What a concept!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 02:42:04 am
There's no need for an additional east-west pipeline for the foreseeable future.  There's barely a need for the existing one, as eastern Canada is well-supplied with US oil right now.

Saying something like this makes you look like a complete moron.

geezaz! Although it doesn't pertain to your initial statement I'm replying to, I purposely left in your "complete moron" comment... it's quite germane to your own statement! Pipelines don't get built in a matter of weeks - ya think! At the moment U.S. imports (based on shale oil extraction) have displaced some of the traditional foreign import sources - the long(er) term viability of shale reserves suggests the time is ripe for that pipeline (notwithstanding the level of existing foreign (non U.S.) imports):

(https://i.imgur.com/VhpfVr3.png)

(thanks for further cementing your acceptance of Canadian subservience  ;D)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 02:59:33 am
The Alberta oil industry was never "sold out" to foreigners.  The Alberta oil industry was *built* by foreigners, principally American.  Alberta entrepreneurs tried raising money in Canada for many years and couldn't get Bay Street to invest a cent.

geezaz! Before NEP, 14 foreign owned/controlled companies accounted for 82% of Canada's total oil output... working with an ultimate goal/impact to squeeze independents/Canadian companies out of the market. Even at that: it was Canadian investment that fueled actual exploration/drilling/production. It was American multi-national corporation investment that bought/leased land, refined product and built pipelines - all positioned to suck maximum profits into corporate U.S. coffers... while leaving mice-nuts royalties for subservient Canadians in their wake!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:02:59 am
And the plan to "increase the Canadian ownership" of the oil industry was based around a regime of punitive measures aimed at foreign companies developing "old oil" resources (ie, drilling and exploring in Alberta).

One of the principal uses for the money looted from the Alberta oil industry was to subsidize oil exploration elsewhere.  Principally offshore and in the northern territories.  (Why the enthusiasm for offshore and the north? Because the royalties from the oil would go straight into federal coffers. Go figure.)

citation request
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:11:22 am
Where does the KXL go again?

you already replied to my earlier post... why are you asking again? This earlier post:

no - as intended for U.S. Gulf Coast Refineries... for principally Asian/South Pacific export... KXL price projections reflect upon the price for tar sludge significantly narrowing the current price gap to the U.S. benchmark. As it stands, Trans Canada states it has secured 2/3 of the 830,000 bbd KXL expansion (on 20 year contract commitments from Gulf Coast shippers).

but by all means - step-up and actually substantiate one of your statements (it will certainly be your first!)... show something that states/projects that tarsands sludge via KXL to the Gulf Coast (for export to Asia/South Pacific) will price at the current deep discount level relative to the U.S. benchmark. Sure you can!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:20:00 am
So, it's a port, ships come and go. That's the reason it is there.

says you... the guy who championed dredging 1st & 2nd narrows to support 'suezmax class tankers' into Burnaby/Westridge Marine terminal  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:50:15 am
Such as?

I've previously stated the principal gains the NEP brought forward in its short existence

The NEP was a dud because ...

In fact the reason the NEP flopped had little to do with Lougheed, nothing to do with Joe Clark, and a whole lot to do with bad assumptions.

That very national infrastructure people are beaking off about would be getting built right now if Mr Horgan weren't attempting to waylay the project.

not a dud... didn't flop. If your sole determination on the rationale for NEP was the relative world oil price... but then again, you seem to have no problem with the earlier Eastern subsidization of Alberta's oil industry while whining about a shift to offset higher Eastern costs - go figure! Of course, prices rise and fall... it would be foolhardy to work to isolate Canada from that fluctuating price impact!  ;D As an aside, see self-determination and self-sufficiency... see Canadian ownership... why, gdamnit... see Canadian sovereignty and control of our own resources!

notwithstanding your complete failure in confusing oil and gas pipelines, that national strategy plan (some 35 year ago) was tailored for and positioned to work towards Canadian self-sufficiency and control; i.e. see national infrastructure opportunities well in advance of the current lobby interests (Mr. Horgan among those). Why... you wouldn't have Harper Conservatives pissing away a decade in doing absolutely nothing to promote pipelines - meaning lil' Jason Kenney wouldn't need to feign ignorance of his own participation in that Harper Conservative doNothingNess!   
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 04:01:03 am
I don;'t understand why so many people in BC don't want it.  That's the main reason? I don't know many details of this issue. Can't BC receive compensation so they benefit too?

72,000 miles of crude pipeline crisscrossing the US, i don't hear about a lot of major spills.  Or maybe there are??

the optics of tanker leaks prevail... the absence of legitimate scaled recovery results for dilbit sinking to the ocean floor prevail. Notwithstanding, of course, what significant expansions to tarsands output means when exported countries utilize the refined product... notwithstanding, of course, how that further extension of longer-term world reliance on fossil-fuels means... notwithstanding, of course, what influence exported tarsands product has on respective export countries (more) actively working to shift their own reliance away from fossil-fuels toward alternate energy sources... etc..
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 08:07:44 am
There are remarkably few given the huge amount of pipe and most of them are cleaned up quickly. Spills used to be no-news events until the enviros started obsessing about them.
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 08:45:37 am
I take it Waldo is anti NAFTA.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 08:51:57 am
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.

If you are so concerned about rising sea levels, why no concern about Vancouver being North America’s largest coal exporter? A lot of which is US produced thermal coal. No outrage about exporting US crap coal that produces 30% more CO2 than oil per ton.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 09:09:28 am
If you are so concerned about rising sea levels, why no concern about Vancouver being North America’s largest coal exporter? A lot of which is US produced thermal coal. No outrage about exporting US crap coal that produces 30% more CO2 than oil per ton.

Why your assumption that I'm not concerned about coal exports?   

My stance is that we have to move to greener alternatives, the sooner the better.  We are going to experience lots of effects from climate change, many challenging, but possibly some benefits.  While I think it's really important that we mitigate the damage we've already done, I recognize the difficulty of abruptly turning off the 'fossil fuel' tap.   If we do nothing at all, then I think it will essentially spell the end of our civilization, if not the extinction of humans altogether.   I think there is a middle ground between doing nothing and suddenly implementing "No more fossil fuels of any kind".  We have to get there, but doing so too abruptly is not likely to be successful.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 09:18:16 am
What is your middle ground because I don't think one exists for many activists.

I see no concern over coal exports being expressed by those who oppose Trans Mountain so vehemently for alleged environmental reasons. I think part of that is because it doesn't fit the agenda of their American supporters.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 09:24:53 am
What is your middle ground because I don't think one exists for many activists.
Implementing carbon taxes, additional taxes on heavy users of fossil fuel energy,  investing in green energy technologies, subsidizing consumer purchase of low energy\green products, ensuring any additional extraction and movement of fossil fuels is as earth-friendly as possible and gradually reducing those sources as green alternatives become more available.  It seems to me that this is already occuring, more or less, although I might be pushing a little harder against fossil fuels and for green energy.

What is your middle ground?

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 10:22:56 am
Implementing carbon taxes, additional taxes on heavy users of fossil fuel energy,  investing in green energy technologies, subsidizing consumer purchase of low energy\green products, ensuring any additional extraction and movement of fossil fuels is as earth-friendly as possible and gradually reducing those sources as green alternatives become more available.  It seems to me that this is already occuring, more or less, although I might be pushing a little harder against fossil fuels and for green energy.

What is your middle ground?

Taxes can be self defeating if they make businesses uncompetitive. We don't live in a bubble. Will this tax revenue go into developing sources of alternate energy that are competitive with fossil fuels, or just go into the big pot like BC's carbon tax? I doubt the federal tax will be any different.

BC is in no position to criticize Alberta when it comes to the earth friendly extraction and movement of fossil fuels. Nor is it in a position to preach to others regarding CO2 emissions.

http://www.mining.com/top-10-british-columbias-biggest-mines-87979/


My middle ground doesn't include blocking other Canadians from selling their products to foreign markets while prospering by selling our own to those same markets.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 10:25:40 am
because it doesn't fit the agenda of their American supporters.

The American puppetmasters that are pro KM outweigh the anti KM ones 100:1
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 10:28:38 am
The real test is what would happen if Alberta sent synthetic crude instead of dilbit through the pipeline?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 10:38:51 am
The American puppetmasters that are pro KM outweigh the anti KM ones 100:1

You really think all that support is from environmentalists? The US benefits by keeping Canada a captive supplier of oil.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 10:58:08 am
You really think all that support is from environmentalists? The US benefits by keeping Canada a captive supplier of oil.

Fair point, 20:1 then
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 20, 2018, 11:11:56 am
I'm not even against the pipeline, but the enviros starting obsessing because relying on the capitalistic earth rapers meant that
no safeguards and minimal or no clean up would be the goal.  Look at you, as representative: "Move along folks, nothing to see here" as sea levels rise and people relocate due to the effects of climate change.
Why don't you take the time to learn about what the science actual says instead of dismissing my opinions because I don't buy into the endless doom and gloom propaganda. Is is the first of a five part post that goes over the scientific literature and discusses the complexity of the issue: https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/16/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-i-introduction/

As short quote that illustrates the complexity I talk about:
Quote
And in many locations, even if were somehow successful at reducing/eliminating the component of sea level rise associated with anthropogenic global warming, this would address only a small fraction of local sea level rise in many of the most vulnerable locations.

The focus on emissions reductions as some sort of solution to sea level rise (apart from any determination of cause) is distracting from developing better land use policies and coastal engineering practices.
I know you won't even try to read it because you are not interested in understanding the issues.
It is easier for you to simply assume that anyone who disputes the catastrophe narrative is an "earth raping denier".

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 20, 2018, 11:17:10 am
Fair point, 20:1 then
Americans don't care about Canadian oil anymore because they have enough of their own. The Americans interfering in Canadian politics are overwhelmingly on the environmentalist side because Canada gives them a convenient whipping boy that can be used to "promote their cause" without the political blowback.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2018, 11:24:50 am
I don;'t understand why so many people in BC don't want it.  That's the main reason? I don't know many details of this issue. Can't BC receive compensation so they benefit too?

72,000 miles of crude pipeline crisscrossing the US, i don't hear about a lot of major spills.  Or maybe there are??

In fact there are 2.4 MILLION miles of pipeline crisscrossing the US and about 850,000 kilometers of pipeline in Canada.

Why the fuss? Because some years ago the progressive/environmental movement decided Alberta's 'tar sands' were a threat to the planet. Remember that idiot who said if the oil sands continued to go ahead it was 'game over' for the planet? They have been doing their level best since then to stop them anyway they can. That includes hemming in Alberta by paying millions and millions in organizational funding and legal fees to every environmental and native group in Canada willing to oppose them and fight them and fight any pipelines for them to ship their product. Most of that money comes from the US - the same place that stupid 'game over' statement originated.

Meanwhile, Canada's contribution to world CO2 is about 1.7%, and the oil sands contribute, I believe 12% of that.
Meanwile, India increased its CO2 last year by effectively the same as all of Canada's CO2 emissions (or 8 oil sands) and will do the same this year. But facts don't matter to these people.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 11:26:15 am
Americans don't care about Canadian oil anymore because they have enough of their own.

It is not just about oil, money is the dominant factor. There are many Americans invested in Kinder Morgan, along with British, Swiss, German and Japanese
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2018, 11:31:55 am
Implementing carbon taxes, additional taxes on heavy users of fossil fuel energy,  investing in green energy technologies, subsidizing consumer purchase of low energy\green products, ensuring any additional extraction and movement of fossil fuels is as earth-friendly as possible and gradually reducing those sources as green alternatives become more available.  It seems to me that this is already occuring, more or less, although I might be pushing a little harder against fossil fuels and for green energy.

And what percentage of your own income are you willing to sacrifice for all this - bearing in mind it will have NO impact on global warming whatsoever?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 11:34:36 am
It is not just about oil, money is the dominant factor. There are many Americans invested in Kinder Morgan, along with British, Swiss, German and Japanese


KM is in the transportation business, it is not an oil producer.

Canadians invest in foreign and multinational corporations as well.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 11:34:41 am
In fact there are 2.4 MILLION miles of pipeline crisscrossing the US and about 850,000 kilometers of pipeline in Canada.

Why the fuss? Because some years ago the progressive/environmental movement decided Alberta's 'tar sands' were a threat to the planet. Remember that idiot who said if the oil sands continued to go ahead it was 'game over' for the planet? They have been doing their level best since then to stop them anyway they can. That includes hemming in Alberta by paying millions and millions in organizational funding and legal fees to every environmental and native group in Canada willing to oppose them and fight them. Most of that money comes from the US - the same place that stupid 'game over' statement originated.

notwithstanding you have a mental block on the subject, let the waldo **** on your blockage one more time! The concern is "unfettered" tarsands expansion... up the ying-yang - and what that means for continued reliance on fossil-fuels and resulting climate change impacts. KXL will draw out 890,000 barrels per day... Trans Mountain another 600,000. Of course, BigOil has further aspirations for even more!

Meanwhile, Canada's contribution to world CO2 is about 1.7%, and the oil sands contribute, I believe 8% of that.

Meanwile, India increased its CO2 last year by effectively the same as all of Canada's CO2 emissions (or 12 oil sands) and will do the same this year. But facts don't matter to these people.

the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 11:39:58 am
Why don't you take the time to learn about what the science actual says instead of dismissing my opinions because I don't buy into the endless doom and gloom propaganda.

As short quote that illustrates the complexity I talk about:I know you won't even try to read it because you are not interested in understanding the issues.
It is easier for you to simply assume that anyone who disputes the catastrophe narrative is an "earth raping denier".

I trust member 'dia' won't follow your "go-fetch" from 'crazy Aunt Judy'... yet again, your "blog science" does not rule/prevail!  ;D

rather than play 'go fetch' presuming to make members read 5 fricken' doses of that fake skeptic/denier's blog, if you have something relevant to say... then say it - and provide legitimate substantiation to that end.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 12:23:40 pm
Quote

the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.

Maybe you should do the same for BC coal exports. Speaking of legitimate participation.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: TimG on April 20, 2018, 12:32:57 pm
I trust member 'dia' won't follow your "go-fetch" from 'crazy Aunt Judy'... yet again, your "blog science" does not rule/prevail!
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 12:45:53 pm
Maybe you should do the same for BC coal exports. Speaking of legitimate participation.

no worries - help a brother out! Start with segmenting out the source of that coal (U.S. versus Canada)... then move on up to distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Let's start there, hey! Please proceed Governor...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 12:52:01 pm
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.

says the guy, you, who ignores the consensus in favour of self-serving agenda driven "blog scientists"! You can't be serious if you actually expect anyone to follow your 'go-fetch'. Like I said, if you actually have something to say, say it... and provide legitimate substantiation. I'm shocked you have such an aversion to peer review... and, of course, peer response challenge. Shocked I tells ya - shocked! (as for the name, that's one well earned/deserved and long-standing - sorry to rain on your (and Republican deniers favourite go-to for U.S. Congressional committee testimoney))
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 01:05:05 pm
no worries - help a brother out! Start with segmenting out the source of that coal (U.S. versus Canada)... then move on up to distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Let's start there, hey! Please proceed Governor...

Links have already been posted on BC’s largest mines, their revenues and the fact Vancouver is NA’s largest coal exporting port. To quote someone called Waldo, “go fetch”

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2018, 01:16:30 pm
This is a perfect example of how the "consensus" is enforced in climate science. Instead of addressing the carefully reasoned arguments presented by people with scientific credentials in the appropriate fields in question you call them names. Name calling is easy because it does not require thought and means you don't need to deal with uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

I will take climate science seriously when and only when I see evidence that the consensus enforcers take the time to actually read dissenting opinions and acknowledge where the dissenters have valid points even if they disagree with the conclusions. As long as the consensus enforcers insist on vilifying dissenters and focus on "debunking" dissenting claims then nothing they say has any credibility.

And in the meantime you will ignore the vast majority of credentialed scientists in the field who conclude AGW is real and man made. Don't worry, it shouldn't take you long to read the dissenting claims.

"Geologist James Lawrence Powell did a similar if less painstaking examination of the abstracts of 24,210 peer-reviewed climate papers published in 2013 and 2014 and found only five (0.021 percent) that "in my judgment explicitly rejected AGW."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 01:28:55 pm
the day you start quoting the downstream emissions impact of tarsands sludge within export countries... will be the day you begin to take on any sense of legitimate participation in any of these related discussions.

So those talking about downstream emissions impact of BC coal are right? Of course those are the same ones who ignore downstream emissions of tarsands sludge.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 01:29:09 pm
Taxes can be self defeating if they make businesses uncompetitive. We don't live in a bubble. Will this tax revenue go into developing sources of alternate energy that are competitive with fossil fuels, or just go into the big pot like BC's carbon tax? I doubt the federal tax will be any different.

BC is in no position to criticize Alberta when it comes to the earth friendly extraction and movement of fossil fuels. Nor is it in a position to preach to others regarding CO2 emissions.

http://www.mining.com/top-10-british-columbias-biggest-mines-87979/


My middle ground doesn't include blocking other Canadians from selling their products to foreign markets while prospering by selling our own to those same markets.

That really wasn't your "middle ground", it was a rebuttal about taxes, with some bitching about BC thrown in.  Do you want to try again, ot should we just go with you don't have a middle ground?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 01:44:01 pm
Why don't you take the time to learn about what the science actual says instead of dismissing my opinions because I don't buy into the endless doom and gloom propaganda.

I think we have had a couple of actual conversations and I did look at some links you provided.  I was not entirely persuaded but some of what I previously believed was modified, mostly towards the notion that climate change is not a guaranteed catastrophe.   However, I still bbeliev it is a very serious issue that we must address.

In the meantime, you have failed to exhibit any desire to meet anyone else even partway; or listen to what they say or any indication that you give any credence to what the majority of scientists say.  You dismiss it all with "alarmists" and "they're all lying to get papers published, only my guys have the right of it."   

So basically I think we've gone as far as we can towards a "meeting of the mind" so to speak.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:01:00 pm
no worries - help a brother out! Start with segmenting out the source of that coal (U.S. versus Canada)... then move on up to distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Let's start there, hey! Please proceed Governor...
Links have already been posted on BC’s largest mines, their revenues and the fact Vancouver is NA’s largest coal exporting port. To quote someone called Waldo, “go fetch”

nice! For someone, you, who wants to posture over presumed hypocrisy concerning Canadian sourced export emissions (vis-a-vis coal versus tarsands sludge), the key is to start by distinguishing U.S. versus Canadian sources for that coal. The earlier referenced NP article (and its draw upon the Sierra Club link) does not provide that U.S. versus Canadian source distinction for coal. So... I suggest you, "go fetch", if you really want to get into the weeds further.

let me make a legitimate point you apparently can't: I would suggest a relatively small number of BC residents actually recognize/appreciate the amount of coal being mined/exported from BC ports. Simply stated I interpret the absence of any significant level of coal burning in BC might be a consideration in the lack of a profile recognition for coal... notwithstanding the principal 'Metro Vancouver' port is somewhat "out of sight" in Delta, while the North Van 'Neptune Terminal' exports a relatively smaller amount of coal - visibility and all that. Of course, my earlier 'run aground coal barge' pic that mocked SirArgus' stooopid comment is also another consideration... "leaking coal" discharge isn't going to get any attention... well, other than from the likes of SirArgus!  ;D

but hey, I wish you well in working to bring recognition to the level of coal exports and related 'downstream emissions' within respective export countries... let me know if I can help you and your team in any way! Best wishes.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 03:52:11 pm
That really wasn't your "middle ground", it was a rebuttal about taxes, with some bitching about BC thrown in.  Do you want to try again, ot should we just go with you don't have a middle ground?

A middle ground on what? Explain where a middle ground would be with this pipeline, bearing in mind it has to be profitable for the people who build it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2018, 03:56:41 pm
A middle ground on what? Explain where a middle ground would be with this pipeline, bearing in mind it has to be profitable for the people who build it.

what's the barrel/day break even point for Trans Mountain expansion? Speaking of, care to speak to revenue streams - mice-nut royalties versus your suggested BigOil profitability coin?  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: cybercoma on April 20, 2018, 04:35:53 pm
the "consensus" is enforced in climate science.
::)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 06:26:45 pm
what's the barrel/day break even point for Trans Mountain expansion? Speaking of, care to speak to revenue streams - mice-nut royalties versus your suggested BigOil profitability coin?  ;D


You think people invest 7 billion just so they can break even? Bet you think a bank savings account paying 1% is an investment.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2018, 06:30:58 pm

let me make a legitimate point you apparently can't: I would suggest a relatively small number of BC residents actually recognize/appreciate the amount of coal being mined/exported from BC ports. Simply stated I interpret the absence of any significant level of coal burning in BC might be a consideration in the lack of a profile recognition for coal... notwithstanding the principal 'Metro Vancouver' port is somewhat "out of sight" in Delta, while the North Van 'Neptune Terminal' exports a relatively smaller amount of coal - visibility and all that.

Couldn't agree more. Out of sight, out of mind, not my problem, don't give a ****.

During the eighties I kept a light aircraft parked outside at Boundary Bay airport. I was constantly washing coal dust off the thing that came from the trains headed for Roberts Bank.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 21, 2018, 12:13:26 am
More polling suggesting that Horgan isn't even winning the political battle in his own province:

http://www.news1130.com/2018/04/20/poll-trans-mountain-support/


By the time this fiasco is over, I expect that the BC NDP will have made themselves so unpopular that it'll be another 20 years before they get another chance to run the province.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on April 21, 2018, 09:35:30 am
The only polling I find interesting right now is the comparison of XEG.TO (CDN oil/tar sands producers) to XLE (US oil producers) to CL_F (price of oil).

So far the market thinks TMX is going to happen, imo. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 21, 2018, 12:20:51 pm
Interestingly, a consortium of First Nations groups and Canadian business interests has been promoting an alternative to Kinder Morgan:  a project called the "Eagle Spirit Pipeline".  Native communities from northern Alberta to northern BC have signed on, and would have equity in the project.

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/first-nations-pipeline-has-a-plan-to-get-around-b-c-oil-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-alaska

Now... given that it was environmentalists and Indigenous communities that lobbied furiously against tanker traffic on BC's northern coast in the first place, it's hard to see why this would be any better than the cancelled Northern Gateway project.    Their hope is that the tanker ban imposed by Trudeau when he canceled the Northern Gateway project could be lifted.  If not, they've come up with a backup plan: the ghost town of Hyder, Alaska. Instead of reaching the sea at Prince Rupert, the pipeline could angle north to reach Hyder, which has 87 residents, a post office, a bar, and most importantly sea access via a very long inlet that has Canadian land on one side and American land on the other.  Presumably a Canadian ban on tanker traffic would have no authority to ban tanker traffic from the US side of the inlet.

Canadian coastal First Nations in the Prince Rupert area are firmly opposed to the Eagle Spirit pipeline plan, but there would be little they could do about it if the pipeline went to Hyder instead of Prince Rupert.  Of course, the provincial and federal environmental reviews could kill the project regardless of whether it went to Hyder or Prince Rupert.  The proponent bands are no doubt hopeful that the participation and equity share of First Nations communities in this project would give both governments a strong incentive to approve it.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 21, 2018, 12:42:11 pm
Seems the locals aren't exactly ecstatic about it.

https://www.bnn.ca/over-my-dead-body-meet-the-man-standing-in-the-way-of-a-trans-mountain-alternative-1.1062998

Nimby Weaver wants someone else to take the risks he says are not acceptable on the south coast.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on April 21, 2018, 01:59:23 pm
BC residents, and the rest of Canadians besides Alberta, also lose if pipelines don't get built.  I get the concerns for not wanting it.  But what also has to be considered is that these pipelines contribute significantly to our overall economy since oil is among our most valuable trading resources. The oil sands helped get the country through the great recession on decent footing and still helps drive the economy.  If we can't get our oil to world markets we're screwed.  If our economy is slowed by slower & more expensive non-pipeline oil transport, it decreased the value of the loonie.  We've seen the loonie dip in price dramatically since the worldwide price of oil dropped a few years ago.  The loonie was at par to the US dollar as late as 2012 and it's taken a beating since down to 77-78 cents largely due to our oil revenues falling.

If we reduce/slow access for oil to the global trade markets, it devalues the loonie, which hurts every canadian since it obviously costs us more to buy goods from the US and worldwide.  It makes our gas prices higher based on a weaker loonie vs global oil prices & also decreases oil supply so again prices rise.  It also makes our economy/market/stockss less attractive to foreign investors who will be less likely to invest here.  For anyone with a pension plan or RRSP or own stocks/mutual funds etc. & you're invested at all in the Canadian markets then this hurts you too, and if you have any US stocks etc it costs more to buy them & you get less back when you sell them.

Not to mention slowing the Alberta economy which means less jobs.  If the pipelines need to go through aboriginal territory, well then compensate them with money, they certainly need it! BC should be financially compensated if their land is used.   Environmentally, these energy companies are very motivated to do everything they can to avoid spills, since they don't want to lose spilled oil, they don't want to pay to clean it up, they don't want the very bad PR which will make it harder to build new pipelines in the future as well as driving down their stock price.  Climate change wise, you aren't going to save the world by not building the pipeline. People still need to drive vehicles & use gas, it just might be a bit more expensive.

Read more here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gas-prices-analysis-1.4626692

No matter where they originate, oil products are priced in U.S. dollars. And the Canadian dollar has been the worst performing major currency against the U.S. this year — which may actually mean more money for Canadian oil companies when they convert those U.S. dollars back into loonies, but it's definitely not good news for gas buyers at the pumps.

The pipeline problems outlined above would send the Canadian benchmark oil price known as Western Canada Select even lower, which would drag the loonie down with it. "And if the loonie does a swan-dive, that's going to boost pump prices as well," McKnight says.

McTeague says a wobble of even a few dollars in the price of WCS could push the loonie down several cents, something Canadians across the country would feel each and every time they fill up.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 21, 2018, 02:21:33 pm
The loonie was at par to the US dollar as late as 2012 and it's taken a beating since down to 77-78 cents largely due to our oil revenues falling.

You mean the US dollar took a beating in the post 2008 recession, but has since recovered?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 21, 2018, 02:25:59 pm
Environmentally, these energy companies are very motivated to do everything they can to avoid spills, since they don't want to lose spilled oil, they don't want to pay to clean it up, they don't want the very bad PR which will make it harder to build new pipelines in the future as well as driving down their stock price.

Either that or subcontract to smaller companies that can go **** up and leave the taxpayer on the hook like Lac Megantic. The oil companies that ship any oil should be held 100% responsible for their product, and their executive face long jail time.

It is because of the multitude of oil spills from pipelines (eg. Kalamazoo) that these companies already have bad PR. Don't blame that on the environmentalists, that is 100% on the oil companies.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2018, 02:55:20 pm
Either that or subcontract to smaller companies that can go **** up and leave the taxpayer on the hook like Lac Megantic. The oil companies that ship any oil should be held 100% responsible for their product, and their executive face long jail time.

It is because of the multitude of oil spills from pipelines (eg. Kalamazoo) that these companies already have bad PR. Don't blame that on the environmentalists, that is 100% on the oil companies.

Some years ago I was taken on a tour of a pipeline pumping station on the line that runs along the Mackenzie River from Norman Wells to Zama Lake, and one of the safety features that was pointed out was that pressure monitors at each station would react to a pressure drop between them which, would be cause d by a rupture, and automatically close valves, and sound alarms. This would result in isolating the spill to that section of line. That would happen even if the people at the pumping stations were asleep. I guess they didn't have such devices on the line that ruptured at teh Kalamazoo River since it flowed unobstructed for something like 17 hours before anyone was aware. That's an older line for sure but I wonder if similar or improved safety devices would be included in this proposed new line. I guess I better study up on current pipeline construction techniques.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 22, 2018, 11:18:50 am
Rex Murphy has a way with words.

Government-to-government disagreement is not however, by any means, the real problem here. As was most saliently noted this week by Brian Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, those who believe that the interprovincial quarrel is the main obstacle to seeing the Trans Mountain built are fooling themselves. It is not, nor has it ever been. “Even (if) B.C. accepts it must obey the law, we are left with those who feel no such scruples: the hardline environmental movement.”

There is the real threat. Regardless of any future court resolutions, any accommodations worked out between the Alberta and B.C. governments, there remain the ninjas of extreme environmentalism: the various and legion NGOs, the acrobats of Greenpeace, the dubious think-tanks and “charities,” the foundations, foreign and domestic, the radical Indigenous groupings — all consortia who have been fully baptized and subscribe to every dogma of the science-settled Church of the Latter Day Apocalyptics of Global Warming. Professional scofflaws all, who claim the virtue of their cause is supreme over law, government, the national economy, or any other perspective other than their self-declared mission.


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-environmental-extremists-are-threatening-canada
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 22, 2018, 11:30:24 am
Rex Murphy has a way with words.

a kindred blowhard spirit of yours - clearly! A lot of words to simply say unlawful actions have recourse/consequences...  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 12:08:15 pm
geezaz! Although it doesn't pertain to your initial statement I'm replying to, I purposely left in your "complete moron" comment... it's quite germane to your own statement! Pipelines don't get built in a matter of weeks - ya think! At the moment U.S. imports (based on shale oil extraction) have displaced some of the traditional foreign import sources - the long(er) term viability of shale reserves suggests the time is ripe for that pipeline (notwithstanding the level of existing foreign (non U.S.) imports):

(https://i.imgur.com/VhpfVr3.png)

(thanks for further cementing your acceptance of Canadian subservience  ;D)

Energy East was dropped because there just wasn't a strong business case for it.  Ultimately the subservience here is to economics.

But, suppose there were some national body that said "you know what? We want to build this anyway.  It will reduce use of Middle East oil, reduce tanker traffic, and prepare us for some point in the future where foreign oil becomes unreliable." 

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  Ms Notley raised the prospect of going into the pipeline business if Kinder-Morgan pulls the pin. Mr Trudeau seemed interested as well.  Perhaps some consortium of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and/or the Federal Government could work together to build needed pipelines even if industry isn't interested.   Alberta did this once before-- the Alberta Energy Company was founded by the Alberta government to develop natural gas resources in the province. Half the shares were sold to the public, it was very popular at the time-- a province-building venture that people were apparently very excited about. I recall that dad was the proud owner of some small number of AEC shares (allegedly bought with beer money.)  That turned out to be a pretty big success-- later on the government sold its remaining stake in AEC to the public, and a few years and a few mergers later AEC had turned into Encana.   Maybe the pipeline difficulties could be addressed in a similar manner.


But supposing the plan to build Energy East were put forward by a federal government-led group, rather than a private company.  Would that make it any more popular?  I suggest it wouldn't.  Hundreds of First Nations groups between Alberta and Quebec hate the project.  Dozens of Quebec mayors, including the mayor of Montreal, had pledged to go to war against the project. Quebec voters hate the project, so politicians opposed it as well (as they should in a representative democracy.)

I don't think the federal government would have the guts to push for a pipeline if it was Quebec, rather than BC, standing in the way.  If it were Quebec rather than BC, the attempt to assert federal authority would just be fuel for Quebec sovereigntists and I don't think that's a bear that any federal politician wants to poke.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 22, 2018, 12:28:01 pm
I don't think the federal government would have the guts to push for a pipeline if it was Quebec, rather than BC, standing in the way.  If it were Quebec rather than BC, the attempt to assert federal authority would just be fuel for Quebec sovereigntists and I don't think that's a bear that any federal politician wants to poke.

which ultimately should have been the takeaway from my pointing out your multiple faux pas concerning NEP... I'm shocked you haven't acknowledged those yet - shocked I tells ya! The takeaway that the, as I stated, NEP presented an avenue toward natural infrastructure opportunities well in advance of today's well organized anti-pipeline forces... in which, western producers would have had access to a national market these past many decades, would have positioned Canada for control of its own resources, wouldn't have allowed Canada to relinquish resource sovereignty to the U.S., etc..
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 12:47:09 pm
which ultimately should have been the takeaway from my pointing out your multiple faux pas concerning NEP... I'm shocked you haven't acknowledged those yet - shocked I tells ya! The takeaway that the, as I stated, NEP presented an avenue toward natural infrastructure opportunities well in advance of today's well organized anti-pipeline forces...

The NEP didn't have a plan to build pipelines. As mentioned, it was based on the assumption that oil reserves would be found elsewhere rather than expanding capacity from Alberta.

And the idea that all the pipelines we needed could have been built already before anti-pipeline forces were organized enough to oppose it is wishful thinking, because needs always change. Kinder-Morgan 1 was all the trans-mountain pipeline we needed... until it wasn't.

in which, western producers would have had access to a national market these past many decades, would have positioned Canada for control of its own resources, wouldn't have allowed Canada to relinquish resource sovereignty to the U.S., etc..

There might have been noble aims, but it was badly executed. Choking the goose that lays the golden egg is always a bad plan, no matter how lofty your intentions.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2018, 12:55:29 pm
a kindred blowhard spirit of yours - clearly! A lot of words to simply say unlawful actions have recourse/consequences...  ;D

I used to enjoy listening to Rex when he hosted X Country and then I started reading some his columns in the Post and some of his rants on CBC TV and how wildly they differed. He should introduce himself as Rex Murphy, "I'm schizophrenic, and so am I"
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 22, 2018, 01:01:12 pm
The NEP didn't have a plan to build pipelines. As mentioned, it was based on the assumption that oil reserves would be found elsewhere rather than expanding capacity from Alberta.

And the idea that all the pipelines we needed could have been built already before anti-pipeline forces were organized enough to oppose it is wishful thinking, because needs always change. Kinder-Morgan 1 was all the trans-mountain pipeline we needed... until it wasn't.

There might have been noble aims, but it was badly executed. Choking the goose that lays the golden egg is always a bad plan, no matter how lofty your intentions.

please stop your self-serving revisionism and showcasing you haven't a clue concerning NEP. Notwithstanding western whining undercut anything NEP could have accomplished, it was Petro-Canada's revenue stream that was to target foreign companies... to expand Canada's supply... to promote self-sufficiency. You keep nattering on about an emphasis on higher-risk "frontier" exploration - clearly you haven't quite grasped yet just how entrenched foreign/U.S. multi-nationals were in Alberta (as say compared to offshore or NWT). Petro-Canada was ultimately intended to provide a continuous guaranteed revenue stream to the federal treasury as a corporation controlling pipelines, refineries, and retail... you know... the things foreign/U.S. multi-nationals had a lock on!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 22, 2018, 01:10:40 pm
a kindred blowhard spirit of yours - clearly! A lot of words to simply say unlawful actions have recourse/consequences...  ;D

Talk about pot calling kettle. :D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 22, 2018, 01:19:55 pm
Talk about pot calling kettle. :D

no - the waldo is certainly not Rex-Murphy/Argus verbose... I mean, c'mon - I come straight at your typical nonsense in this particular subject regard.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 22, 2018, 01:31:28 pm
no - the waldo is certainly not Rex-Murphy/Argus verbose... I mean, c'mon - I come straight at your typical nonsense in this particular subject regard.

I certainly can’t match your opinion of yourself.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 01:55:52 pm
please stop your self-serving revisionism and showcasing you haven't a clue concerning NEP.
The revisionism is that the NEP was a great plan that would have addressed all of the issues we're now facing.  Revisionism and wishful thinking are trying to turn it into something it wasn't and wasn't even intended to be.

Notwithstanding western whining undercut anything NEP could have accomplished,

The NEP ran for years without regard for the whining. Suggesting that the whining somehow impeded the NEP is funny and dumb.

it was Petro-Canada's revenue stream that was to target foreign companies... to expand Canada's supply... to promote self-sufficiency.

Petro-Canada was envisioned primarily with consumers in mind. As a safeguard against price collusion and gauging, and as a way to ensure that Canadian consumers would have access to oil and gas even if American companies pulled back supply in times of shortage, as happened in the 1970s.   It was never viewed as the revenue stream to fund the NEP's objectives.    The money came, mostly, from taxes imposed on producers of "old oil", and on exports of oil out of Canada.

You keep nattering on about an emphasis on higher-risk "frontier" exploration - clearly you haven't quite grasped yet just how entrenched foreign/U.S. multi-nationals were in Alberta (as say compared to offshore or NWT). Petro-Canada was ultimately intended to provide a continuous guaranteed revenue stream to the federal treasury as a corporation controlling pipelines, refineries, and retail... you know... the things foreign/U.S. multi-nationals had a lock on!

The bulk of revenue was intended to come from taxes on producers, not Petro-Canada.  The notion was that heavily taxing Alberta production would incentivize exploration for "new oil" while also incentivizing foreign producers to sell off their Alberta operations to Canadian owners or to the federal government.  Instead they just managed to disincentivize Alberta production.

The failure of the NEP isn't because of whining, it's because they punished the industry and because they never did find all this offshore and northern oil that they had anticipated would make all the pain worthwhile.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 22, 2018, 04:32:36 pm
Rex Murphy has a way with words.

Why, because all he does is insult people that are taking a stand? Would he say the same thing about civil rights activists, or those who opposed the Vietname war? Perhaps in the 60's he would, but looking back on history if he did that today he would be exposed for the vile  person that he is.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 22, 2018, 05:03:41 pm
The revisionism is

YOURS!

c'mon, for western whining & alienation sake, as is your typical way (earlier), you made all these bullshyte statements about the NEP... predicated upon your big-time failure in confusing gas versus oil pipelines!  ;D How does one take you serious after that bonehead play... that you still haven't acknowledged!  ;D Try to recover - start by providing the cite I asked you for earlier... for good measure add another to cover this latest reply's worth of... revisionism you're spinning, hey!

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 22, 2018, 07:24:27 pm
Why, because all he does is insult people that are taking a stand?

No, because he mocks fanatics.

I can understand why that would make YOU indignant.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2018, 08:18:39 pm
No, because he mocks fanatics.

I can understand why that would make YOU indignant.

Unfortunately because his attempts at mockery are so schizo he comes off sounding like a fanatic. Too bad, he used to be interesting to listen to.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: the_squid on April 22, 2018, 08:22:39 pm
Rex has turned into an angry old man who doesn’t want the world to change and doesn’t understand why the change is good. 

“What’s wrong with pollution???  I grew up with pollution and it never killed me.”
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2018, 08:33:18 pm
Cough, cough.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 22, 2018, 09:37:14 pm
Everyone needs some occasional mocking.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 11:57:11 pm
c'mon, for western whining & alienation sake, as is your typical way (earlier), you made all these bullshyte statements about the NEP...

The primary source of bullshyte here is you and your utterly false claims.

predicated upon your big-time failure in confusing gas versus oil pipelines!  ;D How does one take you serious after that bonehead play... that you still haven't acknowledged!  ;D

I mistook the 1953 pipeline with the 1957 pipeline?  Ok. I can acknowledge that itty-bitty error.  Will you acknowledge the king-sized error you've made in this thread?

Try to recover - start by providing the cite I asked you for earlier...

I'll provide a cite for that when you provide a cite for your claim that the NEP's ambitious goals would be paid for by Petro Canada profits.

You want a cite? National Energy Policy, Marc Lalonde, 1980. 

Tell you what you do:

 1)  use your googly prowess to find the document in the government archives.

 2) download the document.

 3) read the fuckin' document.

 4)  if you can't find the punitive measures I referred to for yourself, give me a shout and I will help you out.

for good measure add another to cover this latest reply's worth of... revisionism you're spinning, hey!

I have the NEP right in front of me.  I've been perusing it this weekend.  The only talk of new pipelines in this document is in regard to expanding pipelines in Canada is in regard to extending the natural gas pipeline to the Maritimes, and building a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.   

There was no intention of expanding oil pipeline capacity.

That's because the NEP was designed with the belief that Western Canadian production of conventional oil would drop within the near future, and that synthetic crude production from the oil sands would not be sufficient to replace the lost production of conventional oil.

This is explicitly stated in the NEP itself.

There was no intention of increasing oil pipeline capacity, because their projections indicated that Western Canada oil production would FALL, not RISE.

Talk of promoting Canadian energy self-sufficiency is primarily in reference to transitioning away from oil to natural gas and other energy sources.  There was no talk at all of expanding Canadian oil exports-- indeed it was hoped that Canadian oil exports would be reduced or eliminated.

And most germane to this discussion, there was no talk of increasing oil pipeline capacity out of Western Canada, because it was anticipated that Western Canadian oil production would decline.


Your claim that the NEP had any provisions that would address the current pipelines dilemma is utterly false.

Your claim that if the NEP had just been allowed to continue, all the necessary infrastructure that's needed today could have been built back then is utterly false.

The ideas you have been peddling in regard to the NEP having had the answers to these issues are fantasy, wishful thinking, and total revisionism.

You'd have been about as accurate if you'd claimed that the NEP contained the keys to unlocking nuclear fission and perpetual motion, or that we'd all be driving hovercars if the NEP had just been allowed to continue.  The claims you've made here are total make-believe.


So before you get to crowing and patting yourself on the back for catching my error in regard to the 1953 pipeline vs the 1957 pipeline, spend a moment to consider what a colossal ass you've made of yourself by having your claims regarding the NEP contradicted by the stuff that's actually written in the document you've been breathlessly promoting.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 23, 2018, 06:20:46 am
I mistook the 1953 pipeline with the 1957 pipeline?  Ok. I can acknowledge that itty-bitty error.

oh my! Considering your emphasis was on Montreal... that pipeline extension didn't happen until 1976... notwithstanding your false statement intended to cast further your misplaced western alienation stating "{the province of} Quebec refused" the pipeline to Montreal! What about that false statement? Since you brought up and emphasized Conservative PM Diefenbaker, how is it you can't acknowledge my corrections to your nonsense in terms of the Diefenbaker government denying the build of that actual direct Edmonton to Montreal pipeline. How is it you can't manage to acknowledge my correcting you in terms of the Diefenbaker National Oil Policy of 1961 that established a 5+ decade result where Western Canadian oil producers have never had meaningful access to domestic markets... and why the majority of Canada's population is still subject to, "the vagaries of international oil geopolitics and continental energy economics". All you can manage to muster is a lame-assed suggestion you made a, "itty-bitty" error!

of course you're all about ignoring the realities of what Conservative PM Diefenbaker's 'National Oil Policy' started... and Conservative PM Mulroney finished with FTA/NAFTA. You know: formalized a pattern whereby Western Canada exported oil to the US and Central/Eastern Canada imported overseas oil... integrating Western Canada into the continental oil market while dominated by American ownership..... cemented the loss of Canadian sovereignty while substantially weakening Canadian control of our own energy resources... effectively, Canadian oil and gas became North American oil and gas with little to no Canadian control of our own resources.

such disingenuous bluster and feigned indignation against the NEP... you're quite the apologist for U.S. multi-nationals, hey! I'm shocked you're completely ignoring what the FTA-to-NAFTA's proportionality clause did to set the table... the so-called "hard fought U.S. win for BigOil" (effectively in response to NEP and what it could have meant for Canadian ownership/control, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, etc..), that established the status-quo over the last many decades... that allowed the petro multi-nationals to export as much Canadian oil and natural gas to the U.S. as possible. Geezaz, Canada can't even limit the level of exports to the U.S. without first doing the same domestically! Notwithstanding that clause allowing petro multi-national corporations the power to sue governments over laws threatening their profits! Where's your western alienation against the status-quo established by past Conservative federal governments? Where's your western alienation against U.S. petro multi-national corporations? Oh wait... that's right... you're actually an apologist for BigOil - you actually championed that U.S. self-serving investment! Where's your western alienation against the loss of Canadian/Alberta control of resources... against the mice-nut royalties Alberta is forced to accept in the face of brazillions of profits heading south to the U.S.?

I see you're so loud & proud in your support of Alberta's multi-decades long inability to get product to a Canadian national level... so loud and proud of the entrenched policy result that has seen Canada importing foreign oil over those same multi-decades... so loud and proud of your misplaced/misdirected western alienation... so loud and proud that you're unable to cite your revisionism!  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 23, 2018, 09:19:16 am
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves. Them damn Amuricans.

kinmy is spot on.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 23, 2018, 09:38:43 am
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves. Them damn Amuricans.

kinmy is spot on.

does your western alienation need stroking? I'm shocked... yet another BigOil apologist!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 23, 2018, 09:46:32 am
does your western alienation need stroking? I'm shocked... yet another BigOil apologist!

I don’t feel alienated in spite of having been called a “blue eyed Arab” by you lot.


Still waiting for that special tax on the American controlled auto industry to subsidize the purchas of a foreign car. I want a new Audi
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2018, 11:36:34 am
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves.

We would except we are freezing in the dark here.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 24, 2018, 09:27:05 am
I see you're so loud & proud in your support of Alberta's multi-decades long inability to get product to a Canadian national level... so loud and proud of the entrenched policy result that has seen Canada importing foreign oil over those same multi-decades... so loud and proud of your misplaced/misdirected western alienation... so loud and proud that you're unable to cite your revisionism!  ;D

I like that you've completely ignored most of my post, where your claims regarding all the new oil pipelines that the NEP was going to build were demonstrated to be categorically false, and decided instead to go on an unhinged rant to distract from your epic failure.  That's classic waldo.  Have we hit Peak waldo, or can things get even more waldoish?

Until such time as you acknowledge that your claim regarding the NEP bringing new pipelines is pure fiction, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 09:51:17 am
I like that you've completely ignored most of my post, where your claims regarding all the new oil pipelines that the NEP was going to build were demonstrated to be categorically false, and decided instead to go on an unhinged rant to distract from your epic failure.  That's classic waldo.  Have we hit Peak waldo, or can things get even more waldoish?

Until such time as you acknowledge that your claim regarding the NEP bringing new pipelines is pure fiction, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

your post... your posts... are full of ****! full of statements you've failed to provide linked substantiation for... your "go-fetch" routine is simply you refusing to support your claims. Put up linked citation to support your statements/claims... not one big go-fetch catch all - sure you can! Make a statement - back that particular statement/claim with a linked citation speaking directly to that bit of "classic kimmy/ish". Point in fact: I didn't distract from anything - rather, I'm emphasizing your continued unsubstantiated puffery (aka misplaced/misdirected "western alienation"). You're so desperate to deflect from your mega-stream of errors, you've resorted to your standard strawman plays. Speaking about classic kimmy - peak kimmy (yet)?... even more kimmyish?  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 09:58:37 am
Methinks waldo is losing it. :(
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Peter F on April 24, 2018, 10:11:07 am
your post... your posts... are full of ****! Put up a linked citation to support your statements/claims - sure you can! I didn't distract from anything - other than your continued unsubstantiated puffery (aka misplaced/misdirected "western alienation"). You're so desperate to deflect from your mega-stream of errors, you've resorted to your standard strawman plays. Speaking about classic kimmy - peak kimmy (yet)?... even more kimmyish?  ;D
Peter F follows Thread! World pisses self

Quote
want a cite? National Energy Policy, Marc Lalonde, 1980. 

Tell you what you do:

 1)  use your googly prowess to find the document in the government archives.

 2) download the document.

 3) read the fuckin' document.

 4)  if you can't find the punitive measures I referred to for yourself, give me a shout and I will help you out.

Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 10:13:24 am
Methinks waldo is losing it. :(

losing what? Please step-in for the lack of kimmy linked substantiation... while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243) - or here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... waiting, waiting, waiting..... 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2018, 10:19:24 am
If we only had a moderator to get us back to the topic of the BC Liberals, Christie Clark in handcuffs, and the deplorable state of Vancouver housing.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 10:40:05 am
losing what? Please step-in for the lack of kimmy linked substantiation... while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243) - waiting, waiting, waiting.....

Well waldo, why is it that you are the only one who isn't required to provide cites to back up your bafflegab? I went back 12 pages on this topic and the only one you have provided was sources of Canadian oil imports.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 10:44:53 am
Well waldo, why is it that you are the only one who isn't required to provide cites to back up your bafflegab? I went back 12 pages on this topic and the only one you have provided was sources of Canadian oil imports.

I asked for citation... more pointedly, my statements are historical fact. If you presume to challenge the waldo, challenge historical fact, per my prior post to you, start here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243):
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 10:46:18 am
I asked for citation... more pointedly, my statements are historical fact. If you presume to challenge the waldo, challenge historical fact, per my prior post to you, start here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243):

Like I said, bafflegab. None of the sources you demand of others.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 10:52:50 am
Like I said, bafflegab. None of the sources you demand of others.

the only bafflegab is yours - you've added nothing to counter/challenge anything I've stated. Hard to believe such vitriolic western alienation can't muster anything but your continued pattern of drive-by swipes! Go figure, hey! Again, start here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243):
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 10:59:38 am
the only bafflegab is yours - you've added nothing to counter/challenge anything I've stated. Hard to believe such vitriolic western alienation can't muster anything but your continued pattern of drive-by swipes! Go figure, hey! Again, start here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243):

What does Diefenbaker have to do with Trudeau's NEP? Do you deny that there was no intention to supply Western oil to Eastern markets in the NEP? Do you deny that the resources of oil producing provinces were taxed in order to pay for the objectives of the NEP? That much of that tax was used to subsidize Eastern oil imports while forcing Alberta to sell its oil at only 40% of the current world price, while the rest of the world's oil producing countries were cashing in at Alberta's expense.?

You provided a quote not a source. You have a habit of quoting things out of context without a cite so people can see the whole article and its author. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 11:54:26 am
What does Diefenbaker have to do with Trudeau's NEP?

please educate yourself on what Diefenbaker's Royal Commission was intended for... what Diefenbaker's direction in creating NEB resulted in establishing - what the resulting formalized Diefenbaker 'National Oil Policy' caused - all of it laying the foundation against a direct national ("Edmonton-to-Montreal") oil pipeline... all of it (aided and abetted by Conservative PM Mulroney's FTA/NAFTA wizardry) establishing the 6+ decades status-quo of Eastern foreign oil imports and Western oil exports discounted to further satisfy the wants of U.S. petro multi-nationals. That resulted in the loss of, and any ability to establish, greater Canadian ownership and ultimately control of refineries/pipelines... that resulted in the loss of Canadian ownership/control of our own resources; the loss of Canadian sovereignty, loss of self-sufficiency, etc.. Where, Western Canadian oil producers have never had meaningful access to domestic markets... and why the majority of Canada's population is still subject to, "the vagaries of international oil geopolitics and continental energy economics" - look back in history at the price of oil and the significant world crisis events - no biggee, hey!

imagine a national energy/resource strategy, one in an early enough time frame that still allowed for countering today's status-quo where Canada/Alberta is simply the U.S./BigOil's feeder resource lapdog. Imagine a national energy/resource strategy intended to ultimately establish Canadian control, determination and ownership of our own resources... to maintain Canadian sovereignty, determine Canada's self-sufficiency, etc.. Imagine a national energy/resource strategy with policy goals to, "establish Canadian security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market; to create opportunities for all Canadians to participate in the energy industry; particularly oil and gas, and to share in the benefits of its expansion; and fairness, with a pricing and revenue-sharing regime that recognized the needs and rights of all Canadians. Imagine a national energy/resource strategy that was designed to promote oil self-sufficiency for Canada, maintain the oil supply, particularly for the industrial base in eastern Canada, promote Canadian ownership of the energy industry, promote lower prices, promote exploration for oil in Canada, promote alternative energy sources, and increase government revenues from oil sales through a variety of taxes and agreements.

imagine all that; or... simply play a kimmyish strawman or go classic kimmy and further pump your so-called "western alienation". As I stated, in the very short time frame it existed, there was a timely national strategy in place to work towards those goals/ends. Classic kimmy bellows, "wishful thinking"... multiple times now! One-way street wishful thinking - kimmyish at its best! Western alienation - aka, mice-nutRoyalties-R-Us!  ;D
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: msj on April 24, 2018, 02:22:03 pm

You provided a quote not a source. You have a habit of quoting things out of context without a cite so people can see the whole article and its author.

Yes and you know this so WhyTF do you continue to entertain the troll?

Bah, a pox on you too. 
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 02:35:19 pm
Yes and you know this so WhyTF do you continue to entertain the troll?

Bah, a pox on you too.

You’re right, besides I’m already reading a book.



Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 24, 2018, 03:35:56 pm
Yes and you know this so WhyTF do you continue to entertain the troll?

 ;D a drive-by troll! Are you also western alienated? If so, why so? It's a shame you haven't anything more to contribute beyond your trollish drive-by...
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2018, 04:07:54 pm
The Hill (http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/384468-canada-cant-have-it-both-ways-on-pipelines-and-climate) just posted a perspective (ok, opinion piece) on the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: SirJohn on April 24, 2018, 04:25:58 pm
The Hill (http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/384468-canada-cant-have-it-both-ways-on-pipelines-and-climate) just posted a perspective (ok, opinion piece) on the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

More specifically they posted the opinion of one Thomas D Fisk, with the notion that
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

So who is Thomas D Fisk? Why, he is an American environmentalist and a professor of environmental science at an American university.

Quote
The British Columbia government has good reason to oppose the Trans Mountain pipeline. Further development of the Canadian tar sands — vast deposits of unconventional petroleum that requires massive inputs of energy and disturbance of the boreal forest to extract — would threaten its coastline and lock in big increases in greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the chances of limiting climate

The pipelines will disturb the 'boreal forest'? Oh my! And they will lock in 'big increases in greenhouse gas emission, reducing the chances of limiting climate change'. Yet Canada's entire contribution to greenhouse gases is about the same as India's INCREASE this year. That's how small it is. It's insignificant. And the oil sands are only 12% of that. India's ADDITIONAL contributions are equivalent to 8 oil sands. Just this year. And they plan to do it again for 20 years.

A threat to the coastline is legitimate, which is why we need to have double hulled tankers and take precautions. But the rest is just ridiculous bleating.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 04:42:54 pm
More specifically they posted the opinion of one Thomas D Fisk, with the notion that
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

So who is Thomas D Fisk? Why, he is an American environmentalist and a professor of environmental science at an American university.

The pipelines will disturb the 'boreal forest'? Oh my! And they will lock in 'big increases in greenhouse gas emission, reducing the chances of limiting climate change'. Yet Canada's entire contribution to greenhouse gases is about the same as India's INCREASE this year. That's how small it is. It's insignificant. And the oil sands are only 12% of that. India's ADDITIONAL contributions are equivalent to 8 oil sands. Just this year. And they plan to do it again for 20 years.

A threat to the coastline is legitimate, which is why we need to have double hulled tankers and take precautions. But the rest is just ridiculous bleating.

You don't seem to get the fact that of course countries with higher population densities will consume more fossil fuels than others, such as us.  Countries with the funds and technology need to lead the way toward reducing AGW. to simply sit back and say Oh well India burns more oil than we do is simply an attempt to stick your head in the sand. Even India has signed onto the Paris Accord so at least they have realized the need to move that way.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 07:59:55 pm
Does anyone seriously believe these countries will stop using fossil fuels just because some people in BC don't want any sold to them?

Wait a minute, BC will sell them all the coal they want though.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 08:40:24 pm
Does anyone seriously believe these countries will stop using fossil fuels just because some people in BC don't want any sold to them?

Wait a minute, BC will sell them all the coal they want though.

So we just sit here with our thumbs up are arses until we suck the last barrel of sludge from the ground. That's good planning.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 08:49:05 pm
So we just sit here with our thumbs up are arses until we suck the last barrel of sludge from the ground. That's good planning.

You think we are so high and mighty that we have the right to enforce other peoples behaviour? Do you think we have one iota of influence when it comes to the planning of  India and China? I wonder how sanctimonious British Columbians would be if it was their oil and their economy was at stake.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 08:53:26 pm
You think we are so high and mighty that we have the right to enforce other peoples behaviour? Do you think we have one iota of influence when it comes to the planning of  India and China? I wonder how sanctimonious British Columbians would be if it was their oil and their economy was at stake.

Hopefully we are smart enough to do our own planning and that nudges us towards smarter alternatives to oil.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2018, 09:08:53 pm
Hopefully we are smart enough to do our own planning and that nudges us towards smarter alternatives to oil.

BC pats itself on the back at no cost, Alberta pays the price and some other country profits.  Aside from that, what is BC's plan?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on April 24, 2018, 09:10:30 pm
Rex has turned into an angry old man who doesn’t want the world to change and doesn’t understand why the change is good. 

“What’s wrong with pollution???  I grew up with pollution and it never killed me.”

Agreed.  Makes me realize how much the CBC censors his opinions though.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 09:27:17 pm
Agreed.  Makes me realize how much the CBC censors his opinions though.

They don't censor his opinions atall, otherwise he wouldn't weave from one extreme to the other depending what forum he's on.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 25, 2018, 12:06:07 am
losing what? Please step-in for the lack of kimmy linked substantiation... while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243) - or here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... waiting, waiting, waiting.....

I had sought to contrast an actual industry-building program-- the NOP-- with the destructive idiocy of the NEP.  I had been of the belief that the oil pipeline had been build as a result of the NOP, but it had been built earlier, by private industry.  I gave the NOP more credit than it deserved.  Mea culpa.

That said, the NOP was an actual industry-building program that served Canada well.  Creating a "captive market" for Alberta oil during the years when it wasn't cost-competitive with imported oil was a major boost for the industry.

For 12 years-- 1961 to 1973-- Quebec refineries and industries and consumers had a competitive advantage over their Ontario counterparts, because Ontario was on the wrong side of the "Borden Line".  And then everything changed.   If you google for "Borden Line", you'll discover it became a major point of anger in Quebec sovereigntist thought. Sovereigntist revisionism has the Borden Line as being a plot by Les Anglos to advantage Ontario's petrochemical industry at the expense of Quebec's, howling mad about the closure of Montreal refineries and the loss of jobs.  Ultimately it turns out that Ontario was on the right side of the Borden Line, not the wrong side.

And, while Ontario consumers may feel they were hard done by for having to pay ~$4/barrel for Alberta oil at a time when import oil could be purchase for ~$3 during those 12 years, I think it's reasonable to point out that the rest of Canada had been likewise been a "captive market" for Central Canada-manufactured products for a very long time, as tariffs and taxes and import duties made sure Central-Canadian producers weren't undercut by foreign competitors.

As for the other point-- whether the Borden Line was a result of Quebec opposition or a federal decision, yes, it appears to be the case that the decision was made at the federal level-- but I'm sure that the owners of Quebec refineries weren't unhappy about getting to continue to buy cheap import oil while their Ontario competitors were forced to buy more expensive Canadian oil.  How much say industry players had in shaping that decision is a matter of speculation.


So in summary, I acknowledge the mistake of attributing the oil pipeline to the NOP.  The main point-- the example of the NOP as a policy that benefited both the industry and the country-- remains.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 25, 2018, 12:13:01 am
Now let's get back to this fiction you've been peddling.

which ultimately should have been the takeaway from my pointing out your multiple faux pas concerning NEP... I'm shocked you haven't acknowledged those yet - shocked I tells ya! The takeaway that the, as I stated, NEP presented an avenue toward natural infrastructure opportunities well in advance of today's well organized anti-pipeline forces... in which, western producers would have had access to a national market these past many decades, would have positioned Canada for control of its own resources, wouldn't have allowed Canada to relinquish resource sovereignty to the U.S., etc..
...
that national strategy plan (some 35 year ago) was tailored for and positioned to work towards Canadian self-sufficiency and control; i.e. see national infrastructure opportunities well in advance of the current lobby interests (Mr. Horgan among those).

As stated earlier, this is pure make-believe. The NEP had no intention of building new oil pipelines.


As I said earlier:
I have the NEP right in front of me.  I've been perusing it this weekend.  The only talk of new pipelines in this document is in regard to expanding pipelines in Canada is in regard to extending the natural gas pipeline to the Maritimes, and building a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.   

There was no intention of expanding oil pipeline capacity.

That's because the NEP was designed with the belief that Western Canadian production of conventional oil would drop within the near future, and that synthetic crude production from the oil sands would not be sufficient to replace the lost production of conventional oil.

This is explicitly stated in the NEP itself.

There was no intention of increasing oil pipeline capacity, because their projections indicated that Western Canada oil production would FALL, not RISE.

Talk of promoting Canadian energy self-sufficiency is primarily in reference to transitioning away from oil to natural gas and other energy sources.  There was no talk at all of expanding Canadian oil exports-- indeed it was hoped that Canadian oil exports would be reduced or eliminated.

And most germane to this discussion, there was no talk of increasing oil pipeline capacity out of Western Canada, because it was anticipated that Western Canadian oil production would decline.

Your claim that the NEP had any provisions that would address the current pipelines dilemma is utterly false.

Your claim that if the NEP had just been allowed to continue, all the necessary infrastructure that's needed today could have been built back then is utterly false.

The ideas you have been peddling in regard to the NEP having had the answers to these issues are fantasy, wishful thinking, and total revisionism.

You'd have been about as accurate if you'd claimed that the NEP contained the keys to unlocking nuclear fission and perpetual motion, or that we'd all be driving hovercars if the NEP had just been allowed to continue.  The claims you've made here are total make-believe.


 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: kimmy on April 25, 2018, 12:34:40 am
please stop your self-serving revisionism and showcasing you haven't a clue concerning NEP. Notwithstanding western whining undercut anything NEP could have accomplished, it was Petro-Canada's revenue stream that was to target foreign companies... to expand Canada's supply... to promote self-sufficiency. You keep nattering on about an emphasis on higher-risk "frontier" exploration - clearly you haven't quite grasped yet just how entrenched foreign/U.S. multi-nationals were in Alberta (as say compared to offshore or NWT). Petro-Canada was ultimately intended to provide a continuous guaranteed revenue stream to the federal treasury as a corporation controlling pipelines, refineries, and retail... you know... the things foreign/U.S. multi-nationals had a lock on!

And this is also simply not true.  Petro-Canada's acquisition of competitors was financed by a surcharge on all oil and gas consumption in Canada (Canadian Ownership Charge). The federal government administered this tax, and gave Petro-Canada money to buy assets.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/time-to-pay-back-petro-canadas-real-underwriters/article745946/

And again, this increase of Canadian ownership was to be accomplished not just by giving Petro-Canada to buy its competitors, but also by giving its competitors strong incentive to sell and go home.  They changed the rules to significantly punish foreign-owned firms from doing exploration and drilling in Alberta. Choking the goose that lays the golden egg.

 -k
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 06:46:39 am
I had sought to contrast an actual industry-building program-- the NOP-- with the destructive idiocy of the NEP.  I had been of the belief that the oil pipeline had been build as a result of the NOP, but it had been built earlier, by private industry.  I gave the NOP more credit than it deserved.  Mea culpa.

That said, the NOP was an actual industry-building program that served Canada well.  Creating a "captive market" for Alberta oil during the years when it wasn't cost-competitive with imported oil was a major boost for the industry.

So in summary, I acknowledge the mistake of attributing the oil pipeline to the NOP.  The main point-- the example of the NOP as a policy that benefited both the industry and the country-- remains.

more of your bullshit - more of your revisionism. Again, your emphasis was on Montreal - an extension to which had nothing to do with Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker's NOP. Whatever presumed "credit" you thought to give... you flat out confused oil and gas... and you continue to try to recover from that by not acknowledging that distinction let alone everything that decision (not to build that direct Edmonton to Montreal oil pipeline) meant in terms of what I state - here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24337/#msg24337). You can presume to be relevant by speaking to the "Borden Line"... something I've already emphasized (if not by name directly) in terms of the Diefenbaker NOP and the policy decision that set in place that import/export split. And you suggest I do a googly on the "Borden Line"  ;D geezaz!

that's quite the spin when you presume to emphasize "benefits" realized... I guess like the benefits of discounted Alberta oil to the U.S. - that kind of benefit? The loss of Canadian determination and control of our own resources - that kind of benefit? The effective loss of Canadian sovereignty and self-sufficiency - that kind of benefit? The mice-nut royalties that BigOil dictates while scooping brazillions of profits - that kind of benefit?

you speak of $3 versus $4 bbd - yet somehow, for some reason, can't bring yourself to speak to the multiple energy crisis events and just what the leap to $40 bbd meant at that time, particularly as an impetus towards a national energy/resource strategy... and then there's $100+ bbd - ahhh, good times, hey! How is it you can't bring yourself to speak to retail level aspects in terms of the gas pump price and multi-decade differences across Canada - why... isn't it supposed to hit $1.60 a liter in the lower-mainland in the coming days - $1.50 in kimmyCountry? No biggee, hey?

hey, here's a thought: try to really get relevant and speak to the timing of pipeline reversal and aspirations toward... all in today's time frame of enhanced anti-pipeline forces. Of course, if you actually did that you'd simply reinforce everything I've stated in terms of the historical foundations given that Conservative PM Diefenbaker NOP decision to deny the build of the direct Edmonton-to-Montreal pipeline... way back when it would have been instrumental in positioning both Canada and Alberta against the self-serving forces of U.S. petro-multinationals (aka BigOil). While you're at it, why not emphasize the impact of new U.S. pipelines to Eastern Canada - bringing both gas and oil from U.S. shale developments... further cementing reliance on foreign (U.S.) oil imports and maintaining the status-quo... which won't last, of course; only a temporary reprieve from foreign (non-U.S.) oil imports.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 07:02:53 am
Now let's get back to this fiction you've been peddling.
...
As stated earlier, this is pure make-believe. The NEP had no intention of building new oil pipelines.

As I said earlier:

you can keep quoting your fiction... apparently,  it's all ya got! ;D C'mon - don't be shy - link cite your fiction! And no - claiming, "you have something in front of you" and throwing out a "go-fetch, find it", doesn't count as a linked citation!

clearly, your narrow-skewed and self-serving simplistic thinking has you unable to grasp what goals intend and lend opportunities toward... inclusive of establishing Canadian control/ownership of refineries and pipelines. Notwithstanding successful new exploration actually requires new pipelines - imagine that - go figure, hey! It shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you... even you... to grasp!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 08:12:12 am
And this is also simply not true.  Petro-Canada's acquisition of competitors was financed by a surcharge on all oil and gas consumption in Canada (Canadian Ownership Charge). The federal government administered this tax, and gave Petro-Canada money to buy assets.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/time-to-pay-back-petro-canadas-real-underwriters/article745946/

And again, this increase of Canadian ownership was to be accomplished not just by giving Petro-Canada to buy its competitors, but also by giving its competitors strong incentive to sell and go home.  They changed the rules to significantly punish foreign-owned firms from doing exploration and drilling in Alberta. Choking the goose that lays the golden egg.

oh ffs! This is 'classic kimmy'. You quote me and then proceed to reinforce just what I've stated... all the while fantasizing that you've actually countered the waldo! Classic kimmy! Just what introduced the levy... can you say... NEP?  ;D  Geezaz, your own link references the tie between NEP and the levy! Per wiki NEP:
Quote
"The main elements of the program included:
.
.
(g) a Canadian ownership levy to assist in financing the acquisition of the Canadian operations of one or more multinational oil companies, with the objective of achieving at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990, Canadian control of a significant number of the major oil and gas corporations, and an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada."

you keep nattering on about "benefits"... now ramping that up to, as you say, "the goose laying the golden egg" benefits!  ;D Clearly your favoured BigOil, "golden eggs", speak directly to Alberta mice-nut royalties in the face of mega BigOil profits. Hey here's a thought: instead of just continuing to throw down a nothing reference to "benefits", why not actually state just what those benefits are/were. Don't forget to speak to those/your perceived benefits by referencing everything, in balance, to what I've stated in terms of:
Quote
the 6+ decades status-quo of Eastern foreign oil imports and Western oil exports discounted to further satisfy the wants of U.S. petro multi-nationals. That resulted in the loss of, and any ability to establish, greater Canadian ownership and ultimately control of refineries/pipelines... that resulted in the loss of Canadian ownership/control of our own resources; the loss of Canadian sovereignty, loss of self-sufficiency, etc.. Where, Western Canadian oil producers have never had meaningful access to domestic markets... and why the majority of Canada's population is still subject to, "the vagaries of international oil geopolitics and continental energy economics"

as I said:
Quote
"Before NEP, 14 foreign owned/controlled companies accounted for 82% of Canada's total oil output... working with an ultimate goal/impact to squeeze independents/Canadian companies out of the market. Even at that: it was Canadian investment that fueled actual exploration/drilling/production. It was American multi-national corporation investment that bought/leased land, refined product and built pipelines - all positioned to suck maximum profits into corporate U.S. coffers... while leaving mice-nuts royalties for subservient Canadians in their wake!"
.
.
in its short time frame, the NEP was a most successful program.  Its changes/incentives allowed Canada to effectively become self-sufficient in oil production... Canadian ownership of the industry was expanded rapidly (to 41% by 1984), federal petroleum revenues grew significantly, and a pan-Canadian price was maintained.

of course, BigOil reacted big time and Conservative PM Mulroney was its willing (further) enabler with those FTA/NAFTA clauses to ensure/maintain the BigOil/U.S. favoured status-quo... you know, the actual golden eggs Big Oil laid for itself. Western alienation? No... western capitulation to BigOil! Riddle me this, hey Ms. kimmy: why did Mexico have the insight/fortitude to step-up and force the exemption it realized within NAFTA... while Conservative PM Mulroney simply cowtowed to the U.S. (and its BigOil lobby forces)? Riddle me that, hey!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 25, 2018, 09:12:19 am
waldo still won’t provide any links to what he quotes or back up anything he says.. Maybe the poor fellow just doesn't know how.

He also seems to think taxing the crap out of something and forcing producers to sell at bellow market value will somehow encourage people to invest in it.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 09:21:59 am
waldo still won’t provide any links to what he quotes or back up anything he says.. Maybe the poor fellow just doesn't know how.

He also seems to think taxing the crap out of something and forcing producers to sell at bellow market value will somehow encourage people to invest in it.

where's the kimmy linked cites you aren't asking for - notwithstanding the historical facts I rely upon?  ;D Other than continuing your troll act, you're adding SFA! Instead of trolling, try to counter anything I've stated at the links I've provided you; again: here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243)... and...  here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24337/#msg24337)

It's heeelarious to read westernWhiners railing on about a tax... yet somehow, accepting the BigOil imposed status-quo that forces a huuuuge discount Alberta oil price. Heeelarious!
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 25, 2018, 09:37:00 am
other than continuing your troll act, you're adding SFA! It's heeelarious to read westernWhiners railing on about a tax... yet somehow, accepting the BigOil imposed status-quo that forces a huuuuge discount Alberta oil price. Heeelarious!

It was foreign companies that built the Mexican oil industry so are you advocating the Federal government expropriate the entire industry as Mexico did in 1938. Mexico also exports oil to countries all over the world including Canada, where we restrict Alberta to just one. It's nimby provinces that are preventing Alberta's access to any new markets. 40% of US imports come from Canada, only 7% from Mexico.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 25, 2018, 10:26:51 am
where's the kimmy linked cites you aren't asking for - notwithstanding the historical facts I rely upon?  ;D Other than continuing your troll act, you're adding SFA! Instead of trolling, try to counter anything I've stated at the links I've provided you; again: here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg23962/#msg23962)... and... here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24243/#msg24243)... and...  here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/manitoba-politics/the-wreck-of-bc/msg24337/#msg24337)



Again, just out of context quotes that you don't even put in quotation marks, at least I assume some of it is quotes but with no links to the source one doesn't know if you are actually quoting something or just making it up. Do you know what a link is?
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 10:51:52 am
It was foreign companies that built the Mexican oil industry so are you advocating the Federal government expropriate the entire industry as Mexico did in 1938. Mexico also exports oil to countries all over the world including Canada, where we restrict Alberta to just one. It's nimby provinces that are preventing Alberta's access to any new markets.

I mentioned Mexico in the context of NAFTA... and the exemption clause Mexico insisted upon, and received - as distinct from the cowtowing Mulroney did and what those, in particular, 2 NAFTA clauses mean for Canada's loss of control/determination of our resources, loss of sovereignty, loss of self-sufficiency, etc. Things I've listed in more detail in the links you refuse to actually address. You're simply distracting with a reference to nationalization.

bark all you want about "nimby provinces"; again, that die was cast long ago when Conservative PM Diefenbaker refused to grant the build of the direct Edmonton-to-Montreal pipeline... when Conservative PM Mulroney further acted to enable and build upon the status-quo with FTA/NAFTA.

40% of US imports come from Canada, only 7% from Mexico.

twasn't always that way... notwithstanding Mexico production levels and its own market forces, what do you think is the reason for the shift shown in the following graph? Surely you won't need a hint, right?

(https://i.imgur.com/JIkbxN9.png)
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 25, 2018, 11:04:44 am
I mentioned Mexico in the context of NAFTA... and the exemption clause Mexico insisted upon, and received - as distinct from the cowtowing Mulroney did and what those, in particular, 2 NAFTA clauses mean for Canada's loss of control/determination of our resources, loss of sovereignty, loss of self-sufficiency, etc. Things I've listed in more detail in the links you refuse to actually address. You're simply distracting with a reference to nationalization.

bark all you want about "nimby provinces"; again, that die was cast long ago when Conservative PM Diefenbaker refused to grant the build of the direct Edmonton-to-Montreal pipeline... when Conservative PM Mulroney further acted to enable and build upon the status-quo with FTA/NAFTA.

twasn't always that way... notwithstanding Mexico production levels and its own market forces, what do you think is the reason for the shift shown in the following graph? Surely you won't need a hint, right?

(https://i.imgur.com/JIkbxN9.png)


Th reason for the shift in the graph should be obvious to anyone with a bit of insight. Mexico has the world for a customer. The US has Canada by the short and curly's as its only customer. Mexico has a lot more leverage when it comes to NAFTA and energy.


I don't think our governments should go into the oil business but think there might be a case for going into the oil transportation business, so we can have some control over our markets. This could actually benefit our industry by getting it better prices and be a big revenue generator for governments, provincial and federal.
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: waldo on April 25, 2018, 11:06:33 am
Again, just out of context quotes that you don't even put in quotation marks, at least I assume some of it is quotes but with no links to the source one doesn't know if you are actually quoting something or just making it up. Do you know what a link is?

save your trolling energies for actually challenging those linked posts. Nothing is out of context in those 3 posts I've linked and presented you to challenge - something you refuse to do. I believe the only words that aren't mine are a phrase that I've italicized to indicate as much (appearing in 2 of those linked posts; relying upon that same phrase in both posts). Of course the other statements are either, for the most part, historical fact... or phrased interpretations of related events to those historical facts. Of course, you could challenge those posts if you weren't so preoccupied with your troll efforts (efforts that, somehow, don't result in you trolling Ms. kimmy for the linked citations she refuses to provide to support her NEP revisionism).
Title: Re: The Wreck of BC
Post by: wilber on April 25, 2018, 11:12:22 am
Mexican oil exports to the US may be down but total oil exports are up, which just emphasizes the fact they don't have the dependency o