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

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
Come on Sherman....lets go for a little ride in the Wayback machine.....

In the last 30 years or so, various “Pacific Gateway” strategies have been initiated at different levels of Canadian government. Starting with the “Third Option” in the Foreign Policy White Paper of 1970, the federal government began to see a need for the country to diversify its US-centred trade toward the Pacific Rim. This was followed by the 1984 creation of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, a national think-tank aimed at promoting Canada-Asia relations and greater awareness of Asia among Canadians. The $6 million joint federal-provincial Asia Pacific Initiative, from 1987 to 1990, led to some 60 different projects in sectors such as transportation, tourism, finance and education. Other federal initiatives included Canada’s Year of the Asia Pacific in 1997 (which culminated in the APEC Summit in Vancouver of November that year), as well as SUCCESS and Western Economic Diversification’s Gateway to Asia Project, which was inaugurated in 2001 and continues to link Canadian goods and services with Asian markets to this day.

In 2003, the BC government initiated a $1.1-billion transportation plan called “Opening Up BC” to expand local infrastructure over three years, so as to position the province as an economic gateway to global markets. Established in 1994, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council has a similar mission to provide seamless logistical services, but solely within the local vicinity of Vancouver.

In 2005, the BC provincial government launched its Asia Pacific Gateway Initiative, which calls for $12.1 billion to be invested in new infrastructure over the next three years. BC’s plan is notable in that beyond the Asia Pacific Trade Council and advisory committees it will create, the province has also set aside funds for cultural and educational initiatives, such as a possible Asia-Pacific Museum, as well as a proposed university devoted to Asia Pacific studies. Both federal and provincial initiatives received an extra boost from Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit in mid- September 2005, to both the East and West Coasts of Canada.

In October 21, 2005, the Martin government unveiled the Pacific Gateway Act (Bill C-68), committing the federal government to $590 million to be invested in transportation infrastructure, as well as the establishment of a Pacific Gateway Council to advise the government on the future allocation of funds. While the defeat of the Martin Government brought a temporary halt to this initiative, the Harper government announced one year later a modified version called the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, which commits $591 primarily to transportation infrastructure projects in British Columbia and Alberta. In early 2007, the federal government increased its investment in APGCI to $1B and committed $2.1B to a national fund for infrastructure for gateways and border crossings. The government also unveiled a National Policy Framework for Strategic Gateways and Corridors to guide future investment and partnership activities. In September, the first container terminal at the Port of Prince Rupert officially opened with the first container ship from China expected in October.

In order for the Pacific Gateway to succeed, it must go beyond simply a Western Canadian strategy and truly become a national initiative. And while government policy may provide the general structure for such a Gateway, the public must be engaged to offer input and imagination so as to “bring the Gateway to life.” Only then will the Gateway extend beyond just physical infrastructure, but also add value in terms of human resources, educational, environmental and cultural dimensions.
http://www.asiapacific.ca/gateway/briefhistory

30 years to oppose pipelines they knew damn well were going to be built but opposing would hve menan't losing BILLIONS in investment into BC. They took the money, they knew full well,of the future. Taking the money and now opposing and asking for more amounts to blackmail and fraud.
 

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
Make no mistake Ron, Clarke will be seeking to gouge Enbridge in phase 2 of the extortion program.

Public understanding of the situation is that the Alberta Government and Enbridge haven't to date done enough to ensure the BC environment is protected. self defense wouldn't normally be considered extortion in a court of law.

Funny comment... One might be lead to believe that refined crude is eco-friendly in the event that it leaks

Refined crude is quite a bit less damaging than raw bitumen. They have different properties in water for example that make the tar more difficult to clean up after a spill, and therefore worse for the environment.

That's a 2-way street now, isn't it?

BC ships a large amount of products from their ports to customer locations all throughout Canada via rail and road and that too has to cross through a variety of provinces. Auto accidents, derailments and other potential risks are borne by those provinces for products that benefited BC greatly - why no revenue sharing there?

In the end, There is always the option to ship the product South through Oregon or Washington State(s)... BC will still be fully exposed to any tanker spills, but they will be entirely cut out of the revenue stream.

We've heard from at least one poster here who said that it is traitorous to send such a valuable resource to an enemy. What are the chances that an attempt to build a pipeline in that direction for export to China would run into similar problems. Not least because of the pollution potential along the American coast?

Come on Sherman....lets go for a little ride in the Wayback machine.....

http://www.asiapacific.ca/gateway/briefhistory

30 years to oppose pipelines they knew damn well were going to be built but opposing would hve menan't losing BILLIONS in investment into BC. They took the money, they knew full well,of the future. Taking the money and now opposing and asking for more amounts to blackmail and fraud.

I hate someone that gets bought, but I really hate someone that doesn't stay bought. :):):) There's a line from an old movie for you. Nothing in your quoted comment mentioned gateway pipelines, perhaps you were confused by the many references to generic gateway to the Pacific talk.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
We've heard from at least one American here who said that it is traitorous to send such a valuable resource to an enemy. What are the chances that an attempt to build a pipeline in that direction for export to China would run into similar problems. Not least because of the pollution potential along the American coast?



I hate someone that gets bought, but I really hate someone that doesn't stay bought. :):):) There's a line from an old movie for you. Nothing in your quoted comment mentioned gateway pipelines, perhaps you were confused by the many references to generic gateway to the Pacific talk.
China is our enemy? Friendliest enemies I've ever seen.

They need to mention pipelines? It's a smack up side the head given.

Odd BC didn't "pipe up" and scream bloody murder over their own resources being piped from the FSJ prairies to Kitimat did they?

Do you want me to post the entire APG history with a break down of resource by resource and who is involved?
 

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
China is our enemy? Friendliest enemies I've ever seen.

They need to mention pipelines? It's a smack up side the head given.

Odd BC didn't "pipe up" and scream bloody murder over their own resources being piped from the FSJ prairies to Kitimat did they?

Do you want me to post the entire APG history with a break down of resource by resource and who is involved?

Please feel free to post it if you think it is relevant. I didn't call the Chinese enemy, The BC resident who posted, that I quoted, did. In many ways the chinese are enemies, they aren't in this for our benefit.

And yes, if you are talking about, and expecting people to understand pipelines of raw bitumen passing over our territory, then you need to at least mention them. Does that seem onerous or something?
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
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:

Well being that they are on the same side politically it doesn't really matter. This whole thing is about the BC election next year. Also need to have the affected native bands on side. It is just a negotiation about money. When the right $$$ figure is presented there will be no opposition except from the usual suspects that don't want any economic activity in BC
Having logged on several of the islands near Kitimat and spent quite a bit of time in the Mid Coast I don't think Kitimat is the best location for a port except that it is already developed. My choice would be either around Pr. Rupert or closer to the open water on either Douglas or Ursla channels.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
Please feel free to post it if you think it is relevant. I didn't call the Chinese enemy, The American who posted, that I quoted, did. In many ways they are enemies, they aren't in this for our benefit.

And yes, if you are talking about, and expecting people to understand pipelines of raw bitumen passing over our territory, then you need to at least mention them. Does that seem onerous or something?
So you're saying you have no ****ing clue about the history and intentions of building the APG? Why don't you have a ****ing clue? It would be a great idea to know the history and intent of the project before going off wouldn't it?
 

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
So you're saying you have no ****ing clue about the history and intentions of building the APG? Why don't you have a ****ing clue? It would be a great idea to know the history and intent of the project before going off wouldn't it?


I didn't say that, no, what I said was feel free to post it if you feel it is relevant to the topic. And you haven't so far. More to the point, is whether or not we accept that the Northern Gateway Pipeline is in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Christy is definitely right in one regard (albeit maybe tied in with ulterior motives). Looks to me like B.C. is vulnerable to more risks than any other jurisdiction in Canada. If Harper is so gung ho behind the venture, it's for obvious reasons that include financial gain. He can fork over a few bucks or ship it out through Churchill. :smile:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
I didn't say that, no, what I said was feel free to post it if you feel it is relevant to the topic. And you haven't so far. More to the point, is whether or not we accept that the Northern Gateway Pipeline is in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC.
Other than BC who benefits from the nat gas pipelines from BC's gas fields around Fort St John that BC intends to sell through the northern gateway.

Christy is definitely right in one regard (albeit maybe tied in with ulterior motives). Looks to me like B.C. is vulnerable to more risks than any other jurisdiction in Canada. If Harper is so gung ho behind the venture, it's for obvious reasons that include financial gain. He can fork over a few bucks or ship it out through Churchill. :smile:
Harper? What about Mulroney, Chretien and Martin? They weren't gung ho?
 

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
Other than BC who benefits from the nat gas pipelines from BC's gas fields around Fort St John that BC intends to sell through the northern gateway.

Since this is a discussion about the tar sands bitumen pipeline perhaps you haven't heard that there is also a fair bit of controvery about the ng pipelines. Understandable since they are wholly within BC and no outside jurisdictions are necessary for financial or other input.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
Since this is a discussion about the tar sands bitumen pipeline perhaps you haven't heard that there is also a fair bit of controvery about the ng pipelines. Understandable since they are wholly within BC and no outside jurisdictions are necessary for financial or other input.
Nothing but bitumen eh? Are you sure about that? Where is the controversy behind the other line currently under construction? You knew about the other lines didn't you or you're just another useless tit squawking about things they have no clue about?
 

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
Nothing but bitumen eh? Are you sure about that? Where is the controversy behind the other line currently under construction? You knew about the other lines didn't you or you're just another useless tit squawking about things they have no clue about?

Please let me know if you are mentally handicapped, immature, or have some other valid reason to believe you can win an argument by throwing insults. If on the other hand it is all you have left and you can't come up with anything better than that to make your case you should consider the quality of your argumentation.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
With all the various factions and bureaucracies involved, I think there is little doubt there is deliberate scheming. Where has there EVER been political involvement free of deliberate scheming?

But we're partly talking about the Feds going against their own platform.

Conservatives are not trying to axe this project.

Please let me know if you are mentally handicapped, immature, or have some other valid reason to believe you can win an argument by throwing insults.

You do know he is going to take this one line and blow up the thread with it right?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
Please let me know if you are mentally handicapped, immature, or have some other valid reason to believe you can win an argument by throwing insults. If on the other hand it is all you have left and you can't come up with anything better than that to make your case you should consider the quality of your argumentation.
Have you learned anything yet or are you going to keep squawking like a useless tit?

But we're partly talking about the Feds going against their own platform.

Conservatives are not trying to axe this project.
All the Fed parties are for the Gateway projects since day one. ALL of them knew right from day one oil was going to be flowing out that project.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
Did you educate yourself yet with the whos, the hows, the whens and future plans laid out 30 years ago or are you going to remain an unaware dip**** spewing rhetoric?

Words seem to be worthless...maybe a nice picture of what BC has at stake will help?

Too bad BC put all their eggs in one apple basket and lost HUGE money when NG prices dropped.

How can they recoup their losses? By lieing to everyone about "enviro" and asking for a cut on AB/SK oil?



What are the losses on 1.2 trillion cubic ft of NG per year? In the past week (same time frame for Chrispie asking for blackmail) NG prices dropped by 3%...Hmmmmmmmmm