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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #795 on: April 19, 2018, 10:07:05 pm »
Masked for your safety.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #796 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
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #797 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
Masked for your safety.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #798 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.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5955
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #799 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?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #800 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
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #801 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??
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 11:29:50 pm by Coonlight Graham »
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #802 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.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #803 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.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #804 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!
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #805 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):



(thanks for further cementing your acceptance of Canadian subservience  ;D)
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #806 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!
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #807 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

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #808 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!

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #809 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