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

[petros]

No wonder Enbridge could afford to scoop up dozen of other pipeline companies. They bought junk. I guess they'll just have to start building more bigger ones using today's tech instead of old lines they bought that were built before man went to the moon.

 

[beaker]

I think the questions being asked now are these, is there any proof that todays technology is adequate to manage the added problem of sending this very dirty diluted tar, through very beautiful and difficult terrain. Is there any way to ensure, when we look at the potential damge from spills that come from this new tech pipeline, that the company has charged enough for the transport of the tar to ensure that by the time this one wears out that a new one is built, and that a removal of the old one is accounted for in its operating budget.

 

[JLM]

I think the questions being asked now are these, is there any proof that todays technology is adequate to manage the added problem of sending this very dirty diluted tar, through very beautiful and difficult terrain. Is there any way to ensure, when we look at the potential damge from spills that come from this new tech pipeline, that the company has charged enough for the transport of the tar to ensure that by the time this one wears out that a new one is built, and that a removal of the old one is accounted for in its operating budget.

I don't think the problem is with the technology, the problem is 1. Greed and 2. People who don't/won't do their jobs.

 

[taxslave]

I think the questions being asked now are these, is there any proof that todays technology is adequate to manage the added problem of sending this very dirty diluted tar, through very beautiful and difficult terrain. Is there any way to ensure, when we look at the potential damge from spills that come from this new tech pipeline, that the company has charged enough for the transport of the tar to ensure that by the time this one wears out that a new one is built, and that a removal of the old one is accounted for in it's operating budget.

The technology is sound. The rather silly idea of letting bean counters and MBAs ruin a business instead of letting professionals be in charge is where the problem arises. It would be interesting to know how many pension plans have a major position in Enbridge since experience has shown that they are among the worst when it comes to putting profit before ethics.

 

[JLM]

The technology is sound. The rather silly idea of letting bean counters and MBAs ruin a business instead of letting professionals be in charge is where the problem arises. It would be interesting to know how many pension plans have a major position in Enbridge since experience has shown that they are among the worst when it comes to putting profit before ethics.

Yep, if a thing can be done properly 99% of the time, there is no reason why it can't be done properly 100% of the time. :smile:

 

[petros]

B.C.'s crude pipeline gambit​

The Leader-Post July 31, 2012​

Politicians sometimes do odd, desperate things when an election is just 10 months away and the opposition has opened up a 20-point lead in the polls.​

That's the bleak political situation in which B.C. Liberal Premier Christy Clark currently finds herself, so perhaps that's why she's demanding a share of Alberta's oilsands royalties in return for B.C. supporting a proposed pipeline to move Alberta bitumen across her province to the West Coast for shipping overseas.​

Put more baldly, Clark wants to be compensated simply for allowing another province's goods to be transported across her province.​

With the B.C. NDP tipped to win the next election - and vowing to kill the pipeline on environmental grounds - Clark's move might be a calculated gamble to boost her poll numbers. After all, voters might support Clark if she could wring billions in extra revenue out of Alberta.​

However, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall calls Clark's gambit "the thin edge of the wedge". Supporting Alberta's refusal to negotiate its resource wealth, Wall said: "We just felt this condition of demanding money from the people of Alberta - or were it to happen to us, the people of Saskatchewan - is not very helpful and sets a dangerous precedent."​

Dangerous indeed. B.C. Conservatives have already raised the stakes on this issue by saying their province "should be compensated for having western Canadian oil cross our province". If it wins next year's election, it wants "negotiations with Alberta and Saskatchewan, to develop a benefitsharing structure for western Canadian oil bound for West Coast export."​

Cut to the chase and there's not much difference between a pipeline, a railway line or a highway - all are used to transport commercial goods.​

What B.C. proposes would create a metaphorical border post on each one of them to collect special levies on goods that have traditionally moved freely from one province to another.​

Take that to its logical conclusion and what's to stop B.C. demanding a share of Saskatchewan's potash royalties in return for allowing our rail cars continued access to the Port of Vancouver?​

And how might B.C. feel about Alberta or Saskatchewan demanding a share of its revenue from lumber, coal, fisheries, fruit and other sectors whose goods "cross our province"?​

Clark argues the Northern Gateway project is a special one-off circumstance that will generate billions in revenue for Alberta and Ottawa, while exposing B.C. to great land and marine environmental risks.​

She says she's only looking for B.C. to get its "fair share out of this project". However, B.C. is already getting that "fair share". It is assured of almost $7 billion in taxes and other benefits from the project over the next three decades - and pipeline sponsor Enbridge will be financially responsible for any environmental issues.​

What Clark is talking about is claiming a share of another province's resource wealth just because that resource is being shipped across her province.​

Saskatchewan and Alberta are correct in speaking out against such a blatant - and nonsensical - cash grab.​

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post​

Read more: B.C.'s crude pipeline gambit​

 

[beaker]

B.C.'s crude pipeline gambit​

The Leader-Post July 31, 2012​

Politicians sometimes do odd, desperate things when an election is just 10 months away and the opposition has opened up a 20-point lead in the polls.​

That's the bleak political situation in which B.C. Liberal Premier Christy Clark currently finds herself, so perhaps that's why she's demanding a share of Alberta's oilsands royalties in return for B.C. supporting a proposed pipeline to move Alberta bitumen across her province to the West Coast for shipping overseas.​

Put more baldly, Clark wants to be compensated simply for allowing another province's goods to be transported across her province.​

With the B.C. NDP tipped to win the next election - and vowing to kill the pipeline on environmental grounds - Clark's move might be a calculated gamble to boost her poll numbers. After all, voters might support Clark if she could wring billions in extra revenue out of Alberta.​

However, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall calls Clark's gambit "the thin edge of the wedge". Supporting Alberta's refusal to negotiate its resource wealth, Wall said: "We just felt this condition of demanding money from the people of Alberta - or were it to happen to us, the people of Saskatchewan - is not very helpful and sets a dangerous precedent."​

Dangerous indeed. B.C. Conservatives have already raised the stakes on this issue by saying their province "should be compensated for having western Canadian oil cross our province". If it wins next year's election, it wants "negotiations with Alberta and Saskatchewan, to develop a benefitsharing structure for western Canadian oil bound for West Coast export."​

Cut to the chase and there's not much difference between a pipeline, a railway line or a highway - all are used to transport commercial goods.​

What B.C. proposes would create a metaphorical border post on each one of them to collect special levies on goods that have traditionally moved freely from one province to another.​

Take that to its logical conclusion and what's to stop B.C. demanding a share of Saskatchewan's potash royalties in return for allowing our rail cars continued access to the Port of Vancouver?​

And how might B.C. feel about Alberta or Saskatchewan demanding a share of its revenue from lumber, coal, fisheries, fruit and other sectors whose goods "cross our province"?​

Clark argues the Northern Gateway project is a special one-off circumstance that will generate billions in revenue for Alberta and Ottawa, while exposing B.C. to great land and marine environmental risks.​

She says she's only looking for B.C. to get its "fair share out of this project". However, B.C. is already getting that "fair share". It is assured of almost $7 billion in taxes and other benefits from the project over the next three decades - and pipeline sponsor Enbridge will be financially responsible for any environmental issues.​

What Clark is talking about is claiming a share of another province's resource wealth just because that resource is being shipped across her province.​

Saskatchewan and Alberta are correct in speaking out against such a blatant - and nonsensical - cash grab.​

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post​

Read more: B.C.'s crude pipeline gambit​

Clark who looks like nothing but a lame duck at this point may be grasping at straws, but that does not mean that in some sense she has hit the nail on the head, even if she is wielding a saw. I think it is evident from recent experience that if this proposal goes forward, and I don't think it will, there would be a spill. Corporate bean counters don't have the integrity, ecological sense, or financial courage to initiate a cost effective and safe pipeline. Let alone one that would go through beautiful and very tricky terrain.

The Editor for the Regina post seems to be of the erroneous opinion that there is no difference between a pipeline and a highway, when it is obvious that there is a major difference just between pipelines depending on what they are carrying. The definite likelihood of an eventual spill of tar in BCs alpine meadows is considerably different a threat then a load of grain, no matter where it falls of the tracks.

The editor also seems to think that "pipeline sponsor Enbridge will be financially responsible for any environmental issues." I have to say that this is one of the most naive things I have heard from a paper editor in a long long time. You know that if there is a spill costing billions to clean up the company running this proposed pipeline, whoever it might be at that point, is going to run as fast as they can behind their lawyers petticoats and if necessary sell out or declare bankruptcy. Anyone even thinking differently needs to study a few case histories.

 

[Kreskin]

If you think Christy is bad wait until the beloved NDP are elected.

 

[JLM]

If you think Christy is bad wait until the beloved NDP are elected.

Actually I'd be willing to bet the next election will be closer than most people think, much as some politicians are hated, people are pretty protective when it comes to their own well being. People's hatred of crooks and thieves is generally limited to when it affects them. :lol:

 

[skookumchuck]

Clark who looks like nothing but a lame duck at this point may be grasping at straws, but that does not mean that in some sense she has hit the nail on the head, even if she is wielding a saw. I think it is evident from recent experience that if this proposal goes forward, and I don't think it will, there would be a spill. Corporate bean counters don't have the integrity, ecological sense, or financial courage to initiate a cost effective and safe pipeline. Let alone one that would go through beautiful and very tricky terrain.

The Editor for the Regina post seems to be of the erroneous opinion that there is no difference between a pipeline and a highway, when it is obvious that there is a major difference just between pipelines depending on what they are carrying. The definite likelihood of an eventual spill of tar in BCs alpine meadows is considerably different a threat then a load of grain, no matter where it falls of the tracks.

The editor also seems to think that "pipeline sponsor Enbridge will be financially responsible for any environmental issues." I have to say that this is one of the most naive things I have heard from a paper editor in a long long time. You know that if there is a spill costing billions to clean up the company running this proposed pipeline, whoever it might be at that point, is going to run as fast as they can behind their lawyers petticoats and if necessary sell out or declare bankruptcy. Anyone even thinking differently needs to study a few case histories.

Nah, it will be ok;-)

 

[wulfie68]

Enbridge has met their Waterloo as far as Canada is concerned.

But are they Napolean or Wellington & Blucher? The good guys won at Waterloo...

I don't think the problem is with the technology, the problem is 1. Greed and 2. People who don't/won't do their jobs.

Bingo. The technology in terms of materials, and surveillance equipment exists. Personnel trained to monitor the equipment is one area of concern. Greed of corporate officials is another: too many are more concerned about their annual bonuses than the long term impact of their decisions on the areas/residents affected by cost-cutting measures.

The other side of the coin is that BC should continue to have some kind jurisdiction over the segments of the pipeline passing through the province and can enforce regulations to ensure that those segments ARE properly maintained and monitored.

 

[taxslave]

But are they Napolean or Wellington & Blucher? The good guys won at Waterloo...



Bingo. The technology in terms of materials, and surveillance equipment exists. Personnel trained to monitor the equipment is one area of concern. Greed of corporate officials is another: too many are more concerned about their annual bonuses than the long term impact of their decisions on the areas/residents affected by cost-cutting measures.

The other side of the coin is that BC should continue to have some kind jurisdiction over the segments of the pipeline passing through the province and can enforce regulations to ensure that those segments ARE properly maintained and monitored.

Don't forget the greed of the government union pension funds that demand that the companies they "invest" in make better than average returns no matter how many livelihoods are shredded.

 

[Kakato]

I'll just say that China wants our oil and they will get it,they have more than enough money to make it happen and remember,they are also British Columbia's major customer for BC coal,allmost all of it go,s to China and they are also aggressively buying foreign investments at a record pace.

The oil exploration company i'm with right now is probably going to be sold to china in a few weeks.There's other juniours in the works to that will be bought up.

I dont have a crystal ball but i,m in boomtown SK right now and after 19 days straight i'm hearing and seeing lots of action and new exploration because of Chinese investment dollars.
The USA can stick with their blood oil from the middle east if they dont want ours,and if B.C. bitches loud enough for a cut of the pie they just may find out that you dont step on Chinas toes,the could decimate the b.C. coal industry in a week by not sending ships and they have done it before,Australia has lots of coal,all subsidized by the govt. who would love to win back the contracts
Canada took from them years ago.

 

[Goober]

I'll just say that China wants our oil and they will get it,they have more than enough money to make it happen and remember,they are also British Columbia's major customer for BC coal,allmost all of it go,s to China and they are also aggressively buying foreign investments at a record pace.

The oil exploration company i'm with right now is probably going to be sold to china in a few weeks.There's other juniours in the works to that will be bought up.

I dont have a crystal ball but i,m in boomtown SK right now and after 19 days straight i'm hearing and seeing lots of action and new exploration because of Chinese investment dollars.
The USA can stick with their blood oil from the middle east if they dont want ours,and if B.C. bitches lous enough for a cut of the pie they just may find out that you dont step on Chinas toes,the could decimate the b.C. coal industry in a week by not sending ships and they have done it before,Australia has lots of coal,all subsidized by the govt. who would love to win back the contracts
Canada took from them years ago.

And they should be restricted on ownership of our resources.

 

[Kakato]

And they should be restricted on ownership of our resources.

Lots of deals are hanging because the govt. is reluctant to give them that,remember that Harper spent a lot of time wooing the Chinese for trade deals,he's not going to piss them off now.

I did 22 years in the bc coal mines and saw how our major customer China got special privilege's and subsidized coal at the north east coal projects,maybe you remember them as bullmoose,Quintette,Telkwa,these 3 subsidized mines literally wiped out the south east coal mines in the Elk Valley allmost overnight.
5 huge strip mines employing tens of thousands of peeps were left without work.
I dont think B,.C. wants to **** with China but when oils involved,everyone has their hand out.

 

[Goober]

Lots of deals are hanging because the govt. is reluctant to give them that,remember that Harper spent a lot of time wooing the Chinese for trade deals,he's not going to piss them off now.

I did 22 years in the bc coal mines and saw how our major customer China got special privilege's and subsidized coal at the north east coal projects,maybe you remember them as bullmoose,Quintette,Telkwa,these 3 subsidized mines literally wiped out the south east coal mines in the Elk Valley allmost overnight.
5 huge strip mines employing tens of thousands of peeps were left without work.
I dont think B,.C. wants to **** with China but when oils involved,everyone has their hand out.

The Nexen deal should be turned down- Canada and others have to jump thru hoops to operate in China- Yet they come here and want to control our resources- They need them- we have them. Piss them off.

 

[Kakato]

The Nexen deal should be turned down- Canada and others have to jump thru hoops to operate in China- Yet they come here and want to control our resources- They need them- we have them. Piss them off.

Nexen,so far it is stalled but theres more on the plate,nexus,tiein and lots of other juniors including mine but i dont want to mention the name,too many freaks on here would love to know who im working for.

Over 900 wells drilled so far this year in kindersley in a 100 square kilometer patch.Chinese money is making it happen. So they have long term plans for our energy including Uranium.The B.C. premier may want to go back to the north east coal disaster to find out what she is dealing with.
I havent been able to get a hotel room for 3 weeks here or within 150 miles now,sleeping in the siverado lodge.

As least I dont get paid in Yen yet.

The Nexen deal should be turned down- Canada and others have to jump thru hoops to operate in China- Yet they come here and want to control our resources- They need them- we have them. Piss them off.

They could shut down B.C.'s coal industry in a day,is that what you want? B.C. wouldnt stand a chance taking on China in an economic war.

They will get their fuel supply from Canada,thats a given.

The tar sands is a huge economic stimulus for Canada. Where would we be in the global economic meltdown without it? We can't all just look at trees and expect paychecks to magically appear. But just as Alberta has the benefit of sitting on oil BC has the benefit of being the coastal resource. You play the hand your dealt. Oil - good. Gateway to the Pacific - good.

Alberta should start taxing the coal trains coming from the elk valley then to go to Detroit.
We developed the resources,if anything B.C.should be paying us for keeping a steady supply to them.

Tit for tat,each province has something to sell,when peeps from the rest of Canada stop whining about the oilsands maybe we can do something to benefit the whole country with our wealth of resources.Seems these days everyone has their hand out and expects money without having to work for it,like the B.C. preimer.

 

[Goober]

Nexen,so far it is stalled but theres more on the plate,nexus,tiein and lots of other juniors including mine but i dont want to mention the name,too many freaks on here would love to know who im working for.

Over 900 wells drilled so far this year in kindersley in a 100 square kilometer patch.Chinese money is making it happen. So they have long term plans for our energy including Uranium.The B.C. premier may want to go back to the north east coal disaster to find out what she is dealing with.
I havent been able to get a hotel room for 3 weeks here or within 150 miles now,sleeping in the siverado lodge.

As least I dont get paid in Yen yet.


They could shut down B.C.'s coal industry in a day,is that what you want? B.C. wouldnt stand a chance taking on China in an economic war.

They will get their fuel supply from Canada,thats a given.

Look to Australia- Partnerships- They may get huffy but in the end business is business. WE are one of the few countries in the world where the Govt. does not expropriate resource companies-So a safe place to invest.

 

[beaker]

Nah, it will be ok;-)

HAHAHA, you really know how to ease the pain. Used that stuff myself on occasion.

 

[Kakato]

Look to Australia- Partnerships- They may get huffy but in the end business is business. WE are one of the few countries in the world where the Govt. does not expropriate resource companies-So a safe place to invest.

Australia also decimated the B.C. coal industry in 1987-?
They subsidize their huge coal mines from the govt. not a level playing field and i was in the mines for that one too.Right after ne coal fiasco which was also subsidized by the b.c. govt.

To China.Your tax dollars hard at work,putting people to work up in the northeast and laying them off in the southwest.