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

petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,856
113
Low Earth Orbit
Hmmmmmm???

Apes take over zoo

Apes then demand more bananas

Bananas are given to apes after being returned to their cages.

Are the apes better off?
 
B

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
damngrumpy said:
First of all I am behind Alberta on this one. We should not get royalties for
accepting oil from that Province. Besides this is not a fight over profits it is
about royalties big difference. It would set a terrible precedent to allow it to
happen.
If Christie Clarke wants benefits from the oil shipped through BC she should
impose taxes upon them, which can be done. This is the last desperate stand
by a government of lies and deceit and it won't help people a bloody bit.
We in Canada not just BC would benefit from resource strategy. It could apply
to oil and gas, metals and a host of other products. We could build refineries and
storage facilities that would see things like oil going east/west and we could t hen
control our own energy supply and stop importing.
Christie is short sighted and desperate and above all self serving as hell. She
needs to go and after the election she will.
Remember this is not about profit, its about trying to play the business and the
environment cards at the same time and it will backfire on her in the end.
Click to expand...

My problem with a National Energy Strategy, is that with Redford and Harper designing it you know that it will give little or no consideration to anything other than the development of fossil fuels. That would be fine if it was our only or even our best option. It would be okay if it wasn't meant to be viewed and used as a stand alone and somehow isolated from the reality of the impacts of fossil fuels. But those impacts are all around us and for me it is hard to fathom how elected officials like these two can be so obtuse. Like the BC Liberal/ conservative/ Social Credit party it is time they are gone.

Clarke is playing the business and environment cards together. She doesn't seem to understand that playing isn't enough. An energy strategy that works will be part of an environmental strategy that works. Part of Harpers Responsible Development program is to see that Environmental Review processes are "predictable"... That has to be the stupidest thing that I have ever heard from any government anytime.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Christy is playing to the home town audience. It is all about money. When enough money is put on the table the pipeline will be built.
Tricky Dix has staked himself out an untenable position by simply saying no he is depending on the green vote at the expense of his traditional union support, most of which need the jobs. Working people, unlike the greenies have mortgages to pay and kids to put through school and can not do this on low paying tourism and senior care jobs. Dix would like to turn BC back into a have not province just like the last time the NDP were in power. Other than government employees that will be even better off than government workers in Spain and Greece.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
beaker said:
My problem with a National Energy Strategy, is that with Redford and Harper designing it you know that it will give little or no consideration to anything other than the development of fossil fuels. That would be fine if it was our only or even our best option. It would be okay if it wasn't meant to be viewed and used as a stand alone and somehow isolated from the reality of the impacts of fossil fuels. But those impacts are all around us and for me it is hard to fathom how elected officials like these two can be so obtuse. Like the BC Liberal/ conservative/ Social Credit party it is time they are gone.

Clarke is playing the business and environment cards together. She doesn't seem to understand that playing isn't enough. An energy strategy that works will be part of an environmental strategy that works. Part of Harpers Responsible Development program is to see that Environmental Review processes are "predictable"... That has to be the stupidest thing that I have ever heard from any government anytime.
Click to expand...

Harper is right. The process has to be predictable. The outcome does not. It also has to be done in a reasonable timeframe without interference from foreign greenies.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,856
113
Low Earth Orbit
Just Redford and Harper eh? No Wall, no Alward ,no Dunderdale,no Selinger ? New Brunswick wants upgraders, will McSquinty demand bananas instead of keys to the cage too?
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Has anyone got any idea of Quebec 's position on oil going through there? Or do we simply make a slight detour south around them?
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
It's quite a coincidence that after 42 years of refusing to participate in a national energy plan suddenly Alberta thinks its a great idea.
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Harper has as much on the line here as Clark. She might even have him by the short and curlies, given he's an MP in Calgary.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Simple solution. SInce all the greenies claim the Arctic ocean will soon be ice free build the Mackenzie pipeline only run it the other way and put a deep sea port there. Gives Alberta a port and Canada a good presence in the Arctic.

Kreskin said:
It's quite a coincidence that after 42 years of refusing to participate in a national energy plan suddenly Alberta thinks its a great idea.
Click to expand...

BUt this one ie Alberta's plan to Sell oil in the east, Not Ontario's plan to take cheap oil from the West.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,212
14,856
113
Low Earth Orbit
Kreskin said:
Harper has as much on the line here as Clark. She might even have him by the short and curlies, given he's an MP in Calgary.
Click to expand...
LMFAO! She is just trying to cut nat gas investment losses by stickling it to AB/SK

taxslave said:
Simple solution. SInce all the greenies claim the Arctic ocean will soon be ice free build the Mackenzie pipeline only run it the other way and put a deep sea port there. Gives Alberta a port and Canada a good presence in the Arctic
Click to expand...
Polar bears will be happy to have the money and jobs. They won't need to rely on Coca Cola anymore.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
taxslave said:
Has anyone got any idea of Quebec 's position on oil going through there? Or do we simply make a slight detour south around them?
Click to expand...

I think the St. Lawrence River would be a perfectly good corridor, easy grades and minimal excavation! :smile:
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
petros said:
The St. Larry....Canada's biggest eco-abomination. Maybe we should close it?
Click to expand...

And we could have a big lake reaching right to the Rocky Mountains!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ooooooooooh oooooooooooh, there goes Saskatchewan! :lol: And the Missisip could take the overflow!
 
B

beaker

Electoral Member
Jun 11, 2012
508
0
16
thepeacecountry
taxslave said:
Harper is right. The process has to be predictable. The outcome does not. It also has to be done in a reasonable timeframe without interference from foreign greenies.
Click to expand...

I don't think Harper is talking about the process. He and his cronies want the outcomes to be set before they spend money on them. And what is a reasonable timeframe? When the environment is being sacrificed how long would you say we should spend determining whether or not, sorry, determining that we are going ahead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom