Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 9894 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #900 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?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #901 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.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #902 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.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #903 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 while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here - or here... 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #904 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #905 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
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #906 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. 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.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #907 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!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #908 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!

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #909 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #910 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... and... here... and...  here

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!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 09:29:51 am by waldo »

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #911 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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 09:41:47 am by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #912 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... and... here... and...  here



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?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #913 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?


Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #914 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?




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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC