Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 9893 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #60 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #61 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?

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #62 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2236
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #63 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? 
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #64 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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 11:08:43 am by TimG »

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #65 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #66 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #67 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #68 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #69 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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 01:33:28 pm by TimG »

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #70 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #71 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #72 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #73 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.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #74 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC