Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 4943 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #780 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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #781 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?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #782 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.

Like Like x 3 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #783 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!

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #784 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!

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5955
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #785 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5955
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #786 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?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #787 on: April 19, 2018, 08:03:48 pm »
A whopping 10%

That means 1000% increase over current tanker traffic.
Like Like x 1 View List

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5955
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #788 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #789 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.

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5955
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #790 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #791 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
Masked for your safety.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #792 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.
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #793 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
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #794 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
Masked for your safety.