B.C. and Alberta in dirty fight over oil profit

[mentalfloss]

Divisions deepen as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn

As premiers gather in Halifax this week, the divide between Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan over the spoils of energy development is growing. B.C. is demanding its fair share of benefits from oil pipelines cutting through the province and Saskatchewan has got to be nervous that Alberta’s oil sands production is going full tilt, pushing down prices for its conventional crude because there’s not enough pipeline space to move both.

All this makes talk of a national energy strategy, championed by Alberta and expected to be one of the main topics of discussion at the Council of the Federation meeting, naïve at best, explosive at worst.

Given Canada’s bad experiences with central planning in energy, Alberta’s Premier, Alison Redford, and the strategy’s diverse cheerleaders, should have seen it coming.

The rift between Alberta and British Columbia over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline cracked wide open this week and a quick fix is unlikely. In fact, it could be all downhill from here if the anti-Northern Gateway NDP gains power in the coming provincial election, as polls suggest.

“There is no way this pipeline is going to happen without B.C.’s approval,” Premier Christy Clark told CBC Radio from Halifax Tuesday. “So, Alberta needs to sharpen their pencils … and have a discussion about this if this pipeline is something they want to see go ahead. I am not going to step back and stop fighting for B.C.’s interests in this.”

Reflecting the views of British Columbians, Ms. Clark has demanded a bigger share of the benefits from the $6-billion project to compensate for the risk it faces if there is environmental damage. It’s a fair ask. Gaining access to the ocean means more customers and higher world prices for Alberta oil.

With her political future on the line, Ms. Clark said she’s doing what Alberta’s premier is doing: fighting for “every penny” she can get.

“I am fighting for B.C. jobs, I am fighting for revenue for our province, but I also have the added responsibility of fighting for our environment, because we are taking 100% of the risk on the marine side and the bulk of the risk on the land side.”

Alberta shot back aggressively. Premier Redford expressed disappointment with Ms. Clark’s comments, after saying B.C. would “fundamentally change confederation” by demanding increased compensation.

“That means every single time that you have an economic project or a commercial project there has to be a new negotiation of the balance sheet,” she said. “It’s not how Canada has worked, it’s not how Canada has succeeded and I’m disappointed to hear the comments.”

Meanwhile, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said he doesn’t agree with revenue sharing with B.C.
He told CBC Radio that cutting B.C. a share of the royalties would set a “troubling precedent,” especially for landlocked provinces that have no ports to get their exports to foreign markets.

“This is the thin edge of a very big wedge,” Mr. Wall said.

“You can’t just say look we only want to do this in the case of bitumen. What about the rail transport of other minerals? Or perhaps … potentially dangerous chemicals that are manufactured in other parts of Canada and shipped across?”

Mr. Wall has his own issues with Alberta’s oil sands ambitions.

With pipeline space to the United States expected to be short for the next two to three years, aggressive oil sands growth is depressing prices for all Canadian crudes, cutting into his government’s revenue and industry’s ability to grow tight oil, of which Saskatchewan has lots.

As one oil industry executive put it: “Brad [Wall] is the guy getting screwed here.”

National energy strategy? It feels like the idea alone, because it is so Alberta-centric, is creating divisions rather than unity.

Growth of all types of energy has occurred in spades in Canada in response to market signals and that’s the way it needs to continue. But growth comes with more risk, more impacts on communities, more debate and more vested interests. All will have to be accommodated or growth won’t go ahead. That’s what happens in a democracy that, coincidentally, is attracting a pile of foreign energy cash because of the way it is.

Northern Gateway pipeline debate spurs deeper divisions as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn | Energy | News | Financial Post

 

[JLM]

Divisions deepen as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn

As premiers gather in Halifax this week, the divide between Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan over the spoils of energy development is growing. B.C. is demanding its fair share of benefits from oil pipelines cutting through the province and Saskatchewan has got to be nervous that Alberta’s oil sands production is going full tilt, pushing down prices for its conventional crude because there’s not enough pipeline space to move both.

All this makes talk of a national energy strategy, championed by Alberta and expected to be one of the main topics of discussion at the Council of the Federation meeting, naïve at best, explosive at worst.

Given Canada’s bad experiences with central planning in energy, Alberta’s Premier, Alison Redford, and the strategy’s diverse cheerleaders, should have seen it coming.

The rift between Alberta and British Columbia over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline cracked wide open this week and a quick fix is unlikely. In fact, it could be all downhill from here if the anti-Northern Gateway NDP gains power in the coming provincial election, as polls suggest.

“There is no way this pipeline is going to happen without B.C.’s approval,” Premier Christy Clark told CBC Radio from Halifax Tuesday. “So, Alberta needs to sharpen their pencils … and have a discussion about this if this pipeline is something they want to see go ahead. I am not going to step back and stop fighting for B.C.’s interests in this.”

Reflecting the views of British Columbians, Ms. Clark has demanded a bigger share of the benefits from the $6-billion project to compensate for the risk it faces if there is environmental damage. It’s a fair ask. Gaining access to the ocean means more customers and higher world prices for Alberta oil.

With her political future on the line, Ms. Clark said she’s doing what Alberta’s premier is doing: fighting for “every penny” she can get.

“I am fighting for B.C. jobs, I am fighting for revenue for our province, but I also have the added responsibility of fighting for our environment, because we are taking 100% of the risk on the marine side and the bulk of the risk on the land side.”

Alberta shot back aggressively. Premier Redford expressed disappointment with Ms. Clark’s comments, after saying B.C. would “fundamentally change confederation” by demanding increased compensation.

“That means every single time that you have an economic project or a commercial project there has to be a new negotiation of the balance sheet,” she said. “It’s not how Canada has worked, it’s not how Canada has succeeded and I’m disappointed to hear the comments.”

Meanwhile, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said he doesn’t agree with revenue sharing with B.C.
He told CBC Radio that cutting B.C. a share of the royalties would set a “troubling precedent,” especially for landlocked provinces that have no ports to get their exports to foreign markets.

“This is the thin edge of a very big wedge,” Mr. Wall said.

“You can’t just say look we only want to do this in the case of bitumen. What about the rail transport of other minerals? Or perhaps … potentially dangerous chemicals that are manufactured in other parts of Canada and shipped across?”

Mr. Wall has his own issues with Alberta’s oil sands ambitions.

With pipeline space to the United States expected to be short for the next two to three years, aggressive oil sands growth is depressing prices for all Canadian crudes, cutting into his government’s revenue and industry’s ability to grow tight oil, of which Saskatchewan has lots.

As one oil industry executive put it: “Brad [Wall] is the guy getting screwed here.”

National energy strategy? It feels like the idea alone, because it is so Alberta-centric, is creating divisions rather than unity.

Growth of all types of energy has occurred in spades in Canada in response to market signals and that’s the way it needs to continue. But growth comes with more risk, more impacts on communities, more debate and more vested interests. All will have to be accommodated or growth won’t go ahead. That’s what happens in a democracy that, coincidentally, is attracting a pile of foreign energy cash because of the way it is.

Northern Gateway pipeline debate spurs deeper divisions as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn | Energy | News | Financial Post

And we thought our Premier is a bitch!

 

[Kreskin]

Alberta has fought against a federal strategy since forever. The only thing left to do is negotiate Provincially. I support the pipeline at the right price.

 

[taxslave]

What did Alberta think? We were going to the shipment of their product without a share of the benefits? View this as political posturing for the home town audience. No different than union negotiations.

Tricky Dix has painted himself into a corner with his stance on pipelines since all the major construction unions have voiced support for these projects and they control a lot of votes that have traditionally gone to the dippers.

 

[JLM]

What did Alberta think? We were going to the shipment of their product without a share of the benefits? View this as political posturing for the home town audience. No different than union negotiations.

Tricky Dix has painted himself into a corner with his stance on pipelines since all the major construction unions have voiced support for these projects and they control a lot of votes that have traditionally gone to the dippers.

Tricky Dix may be out of tricks! I think Christy stole his thunder.

 

[petros]

What did Alberta think? We were going to the shipment of their product without a share of the benefits?

You don't like the shiny new Port Mann Bridge or fancy schmancy Kicking Horse Pass improvements?

 

[JLM]

It will be interesting to see if Allison wants the pipe worse than Christy doesn't want it. :lol:

 

[petros]

It will be interesting to see if Allison wants the pipe worse than Christy doesn't want it. :lol:

What woman doesn't want some prairie pipe?

 

[JLM]

What woman doesn't want some prairie pipe?

I'd give Christy the pipe before Allison!

 

[beaker]

Alberta has fought against a federal strategy since forever. The only thing left to do is negotiate Provincially. I support the pipeline at the right price.

What are the chances that the Premiers are going to arrive at a price that is right for covering the risks associated with land and river spills that would happen, or coastal and oceans spills that would also happen.

I expect not likely, and the result will be a promise that the insurance industry will cover those risks. The trouble then is that the spill and resulting mess has already occurred, leading to the problem of actually collecting from the insurance industry, and most people must have had some experience with that, and/or suing the shippers, who would disappear into the arms of some other company who would by corporate lawyers tricks turn out to be not responsible too.

It doesn't work.

What did Alberta think? We were going to the shipment of their product without a share of the benefits? View this as political posturing for the home town audience. No different than union negotiations.

Tricky Dix has painted himself into a corner with his stance on pipelines since all the major construction unions have voiced support for these projects and they control a lot of votes that have traditionally gone to the dippers.

I don't know whch unions have expressed support for this proposal, but Unions and their members can be pretty pragmatic too. If this energy project doesn't go ahead there will be proposals for others. Conservation and efficiency, geothermal, small hydro, tidal and wave, wind, and biomass. The list goes on and on. So will the jobs.

 

[BruSan]

Don't forget or downplay the re-elected first nations chief who has used phrases such as "equal partners" and "new energy policy with first nations" to describe their intentions. The tip of the iceberg in splitting up revenues and profits.

I wouldn't be surprised if some neighbourhood intitiative group from Toronto's Jane and Finch area don't try to grab some in the name of some new "hug a thug' programs.

Strange how politicians et-al think money is just laying on the gorund when it comes to oil isn't it?

 

[mentalfloss]

I'd give Christy the pipe before Allison!

..X2

B.C., Alberta pipeline tiff may have unwelcome echo in Ottawa | The Chronicle Herald

 

[Ron in Regina]

.....The rift between Alberta and British Columbia over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline cracked wide open this week and a quick fix is unlikely. In fact, it could be all downhill from here if the anti-Northern Gateway NDP gains power in the coming provincial election, as polls suggest.

“There is no way this pipeline is going to happen without B.C.’s approval,” Premier Christy Clark told CBC Radio from Halifax Tuesday. “So, Alberta needs to sharpen their pencils … and have a discussion about this if this pipeline is something they want to see go ahead. I am not going to step back and stop fighting for B.C.’s interests in this.”

Reflecting the views of British Columbians, Ms. Clark has demanded a bigger share of the benefits from the $6-billion project to compensate for the risk it faces if there is environmental damage. It’s a fair ask. Gaining access to the ocean means more customers and higher world prices for Alberta oil.

With her political future on the line, Ms. Clark said she’s doing what Alberta’s premier is doing: fighting for “every penny” she can get.

“I am fighting for B.C. jobs, I am fighting for revenue for our province, but I also have the added responsibility of fighting for our environment, because we are taking 100% of the risk on the marine side and the bulk of the risk on the land side.”

Alberta shot back aggressively. Premier Redford expressed disappointment with Ms. Clark’s comments, after saying B.C. would “fundamentally change confederation” by demanding increased compensation.

“That means every single time that you have an economic project or a commercial project there has to be a new negotiation of the balance sheet,” she said. “It’s not how Canada has worked, it’s not how Canada has succeeded and I’m disappointed to hear the comments.”......

Funny that Ms.Clark is hunting for dollars from Alberta's pocket and not that of Enbridge.
Naturual resources belong to the individual provinces. I figured Enbridge would be her
logical target and not her neighbours tax & royalty revenue.

 

[Goober]

Funny that Ms.Clark is hunting for dollars from Alberta's pocket and not that of Enbridge.
Naturual resources belong to the individual provinces. I figured Enbridge would be her
logical target and not her neighbours tax & royalty revenue.

Odd how toxic chemicals are shipped all the time across prov borders- no taxes paid on what crosses thru- Why is oil any different.

 

[Machjo]

Divisions deepen as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn

As premiers gather in Halifax this week, the divide between Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan over the spoils of energy development is growing. B.C. is demanding its fair share of benefits from oil pipelines cutting through the province and Saskatchewan has got to be nervous that Alberta’s oil sands production is going full tilt, pushing down prices for its conventional crude because there’s not enough pipeline space to move both.

All this makes talk of a national energy strategy, championed by Alberta and expected to be one of the main topics of discussion at the Council of the Federation meeting, naïve at best, explosive at worst.

Given Canada’s bad experiences with central planning in energy, Alberta’s Premier, Alison Redford, and the strategy’s diverse cheerleaders, should have seen it coming.

The rift between Alberta and British Columbia over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline cracked wide open this week and a quick fix is unlikely. In fact, it could be all downhill from here if the anti-Northern Gateway NDP gains power in the coming provincial election, as polls suggest.

“There is no way this pipeline is going to happen without B.C.’s approval,” Premier Christy Clark told CBC Radio from Halifax Tuesday. “So, Alberta needs to sharpen their pencils … and have a discussion about this if this pipeline is something they want to see go ahead. I am not going to step back and stop fighting for B.C.’s interests in this.”

Reflecting the views of British Columbians, Ms. Clark has demanded a bigger share of the benefits from the $6-billion project to compensate for the risk it faces if there is environmental damage. It’s a fair ask. Gaining access to the ocean means more customers and higher world prices for Alberta oil.

With her political future on the line, Ms. Clark said she’s doing what Alberta’s premier is doing: fighting for “every penny” she can get.

“I am fighting for B.C. jobs, I am fighting for revenue for our province, but I also have the added responsibility of fighting for our environment, because we are taking 100% of the risk on the marine side and the bulk of the risk on the land side.”

Alberta shot back aggressively. Premier Redford expressed disappointment with Ms. Clark’s comments, after saying B.C. would “fundamentally change confederation” by demanding increased compensation.

“That means every single time that you have an economic project or a commercial project there has to be a new negotiation of the balance sheet,” she said. “It’s not how Canada has worked, it’s not how Canada has succeeded and I’m disappointed to hear the comments.”

Meanwhile, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said he doesn’t agree with revenue sharing with B.C.
He told CBC Radio that cutting B.C. a share of the royalties would set a “troubling precedent,” especially for landlocked provinces that have no ports to get their exports to foreign markets.

“This is the thin edge of a very big wedge,” Mr. Wall said.

“You can’t just say look we only want to do this in the case of bitumen. What about the rail transport of other minerals? Or perhaps … potentially dangerous chemicals that are manufactured in other parts of Canada and shipped across?”

Mr. Wall has his own issues with Alberta’s oil sands ambitions.

With pipeline space to the United States expected to be short for the next two to three years, aggressive oil sands growth is depressing prices for all Canadian crudes, cutting into his government’s revenue and industry’s ability to grow tight oil, of which Saskatchewan has lots.

As one oil industry executive put it: “Brad [Wall] is the guy getting screwed here.”

National energy strategy? It feels like the idea alone, because it is so Alberta-centric, is creating divisions rather than unity.

Growth of all types of energy has occurred in spades in Canada in response to market signals and that’s the way it needs to continue. But growth comes with more risk, more impacts on communities, more debate and more vested interests. All will have to be accommodated or growth won’t go ahead. That’s what happens in a democracy that, coincidentally, is attracting a pile of foreign energy cash because of the way it is.

Northern Gateway pipeline debate spurs deeper divisions as fight over energy spoils takes nasty turn | Energy | News | Financial Post

Alberta can't have it both ways. According to the constitution resources are provincial jurisdiction, which means that each province has full jurisdiction over all resources on its territory. If oil is going to be pumped through BC, then as per the constitution that oil is under BC's jurisdiction which means BC can pass whatever laws it wants regarding this and as per the Constitution , the Feds and Alberta can do nothing about it.

Though I suppose Alberta could retaliate over any lumber passing over Alberta's jurisdiction. And my guess is if provinces really start playing dirty games like this it won't take long before the economy tanks and Canadians start petitioning the governments to rewrite the constitution to make resources federal as they ought to be.

But to the best of my understanding most Albertans want resources to be provincial, so live with the consequences. You can't say the feds ought to have no say over Alberta's resources but that then it can tell BC what to do with resources on or going through its territory. What's good for the goose as they say.

 

[55Mercury]

don't they mean a fight over dirty oil?

and why can't they just work this out in the mud?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Alberta can't have it both ways. According to the constitution resources are provincial jurisdiction, which means that each province has full jurisdiction over all resources on its territory. If oil is going to be pumped through BC, then as per the constitution that oil is under BC's jurisdiction which means BC can pass whatever laws it wants regarding this and as per the Constitution , the Feds and Alberta can do nothing about it.

Though I suppose Alberta could retaliate over any lumber passing over Alberta's jurisdiction. And my guess is if provinces really start playing dirty games like this it won't take long before the economy tanks and Canadians start petitioning the governments to rewrite the constitution to make resources federal as they ought to be.

But to the best of my understanding most Albertans want resources to be provincial, so live with the consequences. You can't say the feds ought to have no say over Alberta's resources but that then it can tell BC what to do with resources on or going through its territory. What's good for the goose as they say.

...& cars and metal out'a Ontario, & potash and Grain out'a Saskatchewan, & so
on and so forth being shipped across the country...it's a slippery slope. Hell, Christy
flew over Alberta & Saskatchewan & Monitoba & so on to get to Halifax for the
conferance that she's at...and her plane could'a crashed...& I'm wondering what
"fair share" these provinces where paid for the risk involved? Crazy, isn't it? Is it?

Odd how toxic chemicals are shipped all the time across prov borders- no taxes paid on what crosses thru- Why is oil any different.

It's the dollar figure attached.

 

[Goober]

Alberta can't have it both ways. According to the constitution resources are provincial jurisdiction, which means that each province has full jurisdiction over all resources on its territory. If oil is going to be pumped through BC, then as per the constitution that oil is under BC's jurisdiction which means BC can pass whatever laws it wants regarding this and as per the Constitution , the Feds and Alberta can do nothing about it.

Though I suppose Alberta could retaliate over any lumber passing over Alberta's jurisdiction. And my guess is if provinces really start playing dirty games like this it won't take long before the economy tanks and Canadians start petitioning the governments to rewrite the constitution to make resources federal as they ought to be.

But to the best of my understanding most Albertans want resources to be provincial, so live with the consequences. You can't say the feds ought to have no say over Alberta's resources but that then it can tell BC what to do with resources on or going through its territory. What's good for the goose as they say.

Wrong - Just because it goes to BC ownership does not change- BC would have to approve permits for pipelines crossings etc- They could delay - change regs- Now those regs coud not violate a number of Federal Acts -

 

[DaSleeper]

I get it....

What Clark does....all good

Alison Redford does the same thing....all bad

And it has nothing to do with political ideology.....:roll:

 

[mentalfloss]

I get it....

What Clark does....all good

Alison Redford does the same thing....all bad

And it has nothing to do with political ideology.....:roll: