B.C. and Alberta in dirty fight over oil profit
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
BC lost money on their NG exports and two LNG terminals and now need to recoup some losses. How many greenies in BC know they need to export their gas too? How much did BC borrow against the future sales of of BC NG? How do you think it will be exported? By dirigible? Why not just sneak an LNG line along side the N. Gateway? Is that why BC didn't patricipate in the EIS? How big of a granola turd willl be shat when BC announces offshore drilling?
Politics...
Politics...
Christy Clark's Gateway revenue grab is good for B.C., bad for Canada | Full Comment | National Post
Let’s be clear: Ms. Clark isn’t proposing the pipeline help finance some kumbaya environmental monitoring fund, nor is she negotiating for more insurance against environmental impacts. As it’s worded, this proposal would be a straight-up trade of risk and access for cash.
And that’s reasonable. Ms. Clark is correct to point out that B.C. would carry the burden of environmental risk. Risk is worth money. Her position makes sense in B.C., which needs the money. That’s understandable. So, too, is her desire to take such a popular stance amid waning support for the B.C. Liberal party.
The problem is that it’s impossible to imagine how such a precedent wouldn’t eventually make a hash of interprovincial trade. The whole point of living in a confederation is that the country is supposed to act as a team: We have oil, you have grain, they have lumber, it has a port. Economic times are tough over there, we’re doing well. We’ll send some money over.
But start to consider where this precedent leads. Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall said it best: “This is the thin edge of a very big wedge…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?”
Or, as Ms. Redford put it: “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. It’s not how Canada has worked, it’s not how Canada has succeeded …”
B.C. wants a cut of Alberta’s bitumen. Fine. What happens when B.C. wants a right-of-way for a new natural gas pipeline? Natural gas explodes, after all. Alberta’s drivers also don’t like logging trucks on their roads, they’re dangerous. People die. Rail cars can be a problem, too. Heck, don’t we even have concern about grain dust from Saskatchewan? Virtually every commodity is risky. The very act of transportation invites risk. And it becomes all too easy to focus on the risks of allowing access if one stands to profit by doing so.
So while Ms. Redford has the weaker hand politically, she’s not wrong to reject Ms. Clark’s proposal. Allowing B.C. a cut of Alberta’s oil wealth would, she noted correctly, re-write the rules of Confederation. Our laws give provinces control over their own natural resource revenues. Giving B.C. this concession opens every project to interprovincial negotiation, argument … and delay.
The Northern Gateway project team has come out with their more environmentally sensitive and safer option of spending an extra $500 million on slightly thicker pipe in areas along streams, or other problem areas. They did this just the day or two before Clarke came out with her request for more money from Alberta. That should help some with insurance costs I expect. I suppose that if Clarke were to get money from Alberta Royalties for Tar sands bitumen and the money went into general revenues rather than to pay for what she says her concerns are the money would still be in BC, but it would be hard to pry that out of the economy if/when problems do arise.
I think a better model would be to have a danger pay toll on the right of way. Let Alberta keep its royalties but simply charge the bitumen suppliers a cost for every kilometer across BC. Alberta shoulds also do this.
The argument that other materials are shipped around and that this is a dangerous precedent doesn't hold water. The recent pipeline spills, the record of ocean spillage, and the obvious focus on stock prices and profits at the expense of the environment and people nearby is a sure indicator of the need for a more diverse response ability.
As an aside, I just heard Clarke at the conference talking about how the Tarsands are good for Canada, and fantastic for Alberta. Which means that despite her recent stance of demanding more returns for the risk of having the pipeline she still hasn't grasped the point that this is some of the dirtiest energy around, that Anthropogenic Global Warming will worsen significantly if this stuff isn't cleaned really well. Or perhaps she has put her faith in China and the States to do this really good job of refining and using this fossil fuel.
I think a better model would be to have a danger pay toll on the right of way. Let Alberta keep its royalties but simply charge the bitumen suppliers a cost for every kilometer across BC. Alberta shoulds also do this.
The argument that other materials are shipped around and that this is a dangerous precedent doesn't hold water. The recent pipeline spills, the record of ocean spillage, and the obvious focus on stock prices and profits at the expense of the environment and people nearby is a sure indicator of the need for a more diverse response ability.
As an aside, I just heard Clarke at the conference talking about how the Tarsands are good for Canada, and fantastic for Alberta. Which means that despite her recent stance of demanding more returns for the risk of having the pipeline she still hasn't grasped the point that this is some of the dirtiest energy around, that Anthropogenic Global Warming will worsen significantly if this stuff isn't cleaned really well. Or perhaps she has put her faith in China and the States to do this really good job of refining and using this fossil fuel.
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.
Pollution bad, global warming bad, social endangerment bad, one sided hearing processes bad. And yes there is an economic benefit of sitting on oil. Enjoy, watch it appreciate, phenomenally, over the next thirty years.
Yet none has been bad for you, right? What would be really bad for you is an economic depression. Watching trees grow in a pollution-free environment won't do a damn thing for your health if you can't make a living.
I live in BC and Redford is right, this is really about politics in BC with an election
coming. Dix the leader of the NDP came out against the project long ago and now
Clarke has a problem she didn't take the no position, but the people of BC have.
Most citizens are against it for environmental reasons. Harper's does want it and
Clarke is beholden to Harper. See the tangled mess? If she is for it the present
government headed for a defeat will face oblivion. If they are against it the offend
the Federal Tories who have been trying to help them. Most of the Federal Tories
are supporting BC Liberals, go figure.
If Clarke can raise enough profile and hell over this she is hoping people will say
OK we got more money. The problem is people don't want the pipeline.
personally I don't want us shipping raw resources out of Canada period and I don't
want an environmental disaster either so i say no way. period
coming. Dix the leader of the NDP came out against the project long ago and now
Clarke has a problem she didn't take the no position, but the people of BC have.
Most citizens are against it for environmental reasons. Harper's does want it and
Clarke is beholden to Harper. See the tangled mess? If she is for it the present
government headed for a defeat will face oblivion. If they are against it the offend
the Federal Tories who have been trying to help them. Most of the Federal Tories
are supporting BC Liberals, go figure.
If Clarke can raise enough profile and hell over this she is hoping people will say
OK we got more money. The problem is people don't want the pipeline.
personally I don't want us shipping raw resources out of Canada period and I don't
want an environmental disaster either so i say no way. period
Christy Clark's demand that B.C. be paid an unspecified sum as its “fair share” of the benefits is so outrageous that it is difficult to believe it was not done for show
As the Nexen sale is to Stephen Harper, so the Northern Gateway pipeline is to Christy Clark. Both proposals come with substantial economic benefits, but also political dangers. Each leader will thus be tempted to attach a pricey list of conditions to their approval, in order to limit their exposure. So far, at least one of them has succumbed to that temptation.
Legally speaking, Gateway does not need the premier of British Columbia’s approval to proceed. Pipelines are federal jurisdiction: the National Energy Board, after it has completed its hearings, will be the one to say yay or nay, albeit subject to Cabinet override. It may be that the government of B.C. can prevent it from going ahead in other ways, though whether these could withstand a really determined federal government is another question.
Clark’s real weapon is political: the opposition of much of the B.C. public to the project, and the price the federal Tories would likely pay at the polls were they seen to be overriding the government of B.C. on the matter — her own, or her likely NDP successor’s. The list of demands she has suddenly produced, far behind in the polls with less than a year to go before the provincial election, are an obvious attempt to inoculate herself on the Gateway issue, without actually coming out against it.
more
Christy Clark's Northern Gateway demands just another extortion attempt: Andrew Coyne | Full Comment | National Post
As the Nexen sale is to Stephen Harper, so the Northern Gateway pipeline is to Christy Clark. Both proposals come with substantial economic benefits, but also political dangers. Each leader will thus be tempted to attach a pricey list of conditions to their approval, in order to limit their exposure. So far, at least one of them has succumbed to that temptation.
Legally speaking, Gateway does not need the premier of British Columbia’s approval to proceed. Pipelines are federal jurisdiction: the National Energy Board, after it has completed its hearings, will be the one to say yay or nay, albeit subject to Cabinet override. It may be that the government of B.C. can prevent it from going ahead in other ways, though whether these could withstand a really determined federal government is another question.
Clark’s real weapon is political: the opposition of much of the B.C. public to the project, and the price the federal Tories would likely pay at the polls were they seen to be overriding the government of B.C. on the matter — her own, or her likely NDP successor’s. The list of demands she has suddenly produced, far behind in the polls with less than a year to go before the provincial election, are an obvious attempt to inoculate herself on the Gateway issue, without actually coming out against it.
more
Christy Clark's Northern Gateway demands just another extortion attempt: Andrew Coyne | Full Comment | National Post
I'm glad only AB oil is being dinged and opposed. SK oil is nice and green and will flow unimpeded.
Here's one for you, petey. Get your tinfoil hat ready..
How three governments are conspiring to kill Northern Gateway
The approach of the B.C .government to the Northern Gateway Pipeline is as crude as the pipeline’s contents: semi-refined, at best. Premier Christy Clark does have a point: Most of the on-land risk -- and all of the shipping risk -- accrues to B.C., and most of the public revenues go to Alberta.The risks of moving oil by sea are low-probability but of high consequence. Pipeline leaks, on the other hand, are frequent but usually minor. Still, the plans announced by Enbridge last week to strengthen the pipeline where it crosses a stream, and to install more-frequent shut-off valves, are all to the good. If that were matched by sufficient financial back-up, through the corporation directly and through its insurers, the proponent’s position would be greatly strengthened. Thus, the reported $600-million global coverage Enbridge carries is short by an order of magnitude. Similar coverage must be required of tanker owners.
In that context, the attempted revenue grab by B.C., and the scandalized response by Alberta, are beside the point. Merely changing the address on the tax cheque will not make Enbridge and the marine shippers any more attentive to environmental risk. If Ms. Clark needs more revenue, she can always claw back some of the property tax the pipeline will pay to municipalities along the route. For this she needs no permission from Premier Alison Redford.
Moreover, it’s the marine side that most needs attention, and here the action lies principally with the federal government. Enbridge has no control over the oil once it leaves the dock in the holds of a merchant tanker. It is up to Transport Canada, the Coast Guard, and the Pilotage Authority to make sure these behemoths get safely out to sea. A pilot who has done more than 400 transits of the Douglas Channel told me it’s a seriously scary piece of water for a ship whose manoeuvrability is as limited as that of a large, loaded tanker.
What does the federal government need to do to make this project acceptable? For starters, we need a serious oil spill response capacity on the West Coast. The Coast Guard currently has no capable ships, and no trained crews, for dealing with even a modest spill. The closest response capacity is many hours from the Douglas Channel. The Coast Guard needs a base in the region, a dozen small ships and a few bigger ones, new regulations, new response doctrine, new training manuals, and a lot of at-sea practice before the first tanker sails the channel.
One will also need quite a number of new licensed pilots. These take almost as long to train as neurosurgeons, so it’s time to get started. For a federal government whose only relevant action so far is moving the sole West Coast oil spill response facility to Quebec, there is a lot to do.
The feds need to ensure that all bridge personnel speak English -- not the case currently, as any casual listener on the VHF vessel traffic management channels can attest. There must be a second pilot aboard whenever the voyage from terminal to open sea exceeds, say, eight hours. A minimum bridge crew of 3 or 4 would ensure that the sort of activity that sank the Queen of the North becomes much less likely.
A lesson learned from the county’s various water supply fiascos is that the probability of disaster is seriously lowered by adherence to safety standards established by boards of professionally qualified persons. Health Canada, the provinces, the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association have all played important roles in establishing standard operating procedures of exceptional sturdiness. A critical element is third-party inspection, backed up by enforcement under the law. All three governments, working together, need to establish similar mechanisms for pipeline and seaborne transport of oil. The primary onus should be on the private developer, of course, but its efforts will always need to be backed by professional standards, regulations, inspection and enforcement. Let’s hope the NEB makes this a condition of licence.
Our government has declared the Northern Gateway Pipeline to be a work in the interest of the nation as a whole, and I do not disagree. But it has to put its money where its mouth is. As things stand now, B.C. and its First Nations will ensure the Pipeline is never built.
How three governments are conspiring to kill Northern Gateway - The Globe and Mail
How three governments are conspiring to kill Northern Gateway
The approach of the B.C .government to the Northern Gateway Pipeline is as crude as the pipeline’s contents: semi-refined, at best. Premier Christy Clark does have a point: Most of the on-land risk -- and all of the shipping risk -- accrues to B.C., and most of the public revenues go to Alberta.The risks of moving oil by sea are low-probability but of high consequence. Pipeline leaks, on the other hand, are frequent but usually minor. Still, the plans announced by Enbridge last week to strengthen the pipeline where it crosses a stream, and to install more-frequent shut-off valves, are all to the good. If that were matched by sufficient financial back-up, through the corporation directly and through its insurers, the proponent’s position would be greatly strengthened. Thus, the reported $600-million global coverage Enbridge carries is short by an order of magnitude. Similar coverage must be required of tanker owners.
In that context, the attempted revenue grab by B.C., and the scandalized response by Alberta, are beside the point. Merely changing the address on the tax cheque will not make Enbridge and the marine shippers any more attentive to environmental risk. If Ms. Clark needs more revenue, she can always claw back some of the property tax the pipeline will pay to municipalities along the route. For this she needs no permission from Premier Alison Redford.
Moreover, it’s the marine side that most needs attention, and here the action lies principally with the federal government. Enbridge has no control over the oil once it leaves the dock in the holds of a merchant tanker. It is up to Transport Canada, the Coast Guard, and the Pilotage Authority to make sure these behemoths get safely out to sea. A pilot who has done more than 400 transits of the Douglas Channel told me it’s a seriously scary piece of water for a ship whose manoeuvrability is as limited as that of a large, loaded tanker.
What does the federal government need to do to make this project acceptable? For starters, we need a serious oil spill response capacity on the West Coast. The Coast Guard currently has no capable ships, and no trained crews, for dealing with even a modest spill. The closest response capacity is many hours from the Douglas Channel. The Coast Guard needs a base in the region, a dozen small ships and a few bigger ones, new regulations, new response doctrine, new training manuals, and a lot of at-sea practice before the first tanker sails the channel.
One will also need quite a number of new licensed pilots. These take almost as long to train as neurosurgeons, so it’s time to get started. For a federal government whose only relevant action so far is moving the sole West Coast oil spill response facility to Quebec, there is a lot to do.
The feds need to ensure that all bridge personnel speak English -- not the case currently, as any casual listener on the VHF vessel traffic management channels can attest. There must be a second pilot aboard whenever the voyage from terminal to open sea exceeds, say, eight hours. A minimum bridge crew of 3 or 4 would ensure that the sort of activity that sank the Queen of the North becomes much less likely.
A lesson learned from the county’s various water supply fiascos is that the probability of disaster is seriously lowered by adherence to safety standards established by boards of professionally qualified persons. Health Canada, the provinces, the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association have all played important roles in establishing standard operating procedures of exceptional sturdiness. A critical element is third-party inspection, backed up by enforcement under the law. All three governments, working together, need to establish similar mechanisms for pipeline and seaborne transport of oil. The primary onus should be on the private developer, of course, but its efforts will always need to be backed by professional standards, regulations, inspection and enforcement. Let’s hope the NEB makes this a condition of licence.
Our government has declared the Northern Gateway Pipeline to be a work in the interest of the nation as a whole, and I do not disagree. But it has to put its money where its mouth is. As things stand now, B.C. and its First Nations will ensure the Pipeline is never built.
How three governments are conspiring to kill Northern Gateway - The Globe and Mail
Make no mistake Ron, Clarke will be seeking to gouge Enbridge in phase 2 of the extortion program.
Funny comment... One might be lead to believe that refined crude is eco-friendly in the event that it leaks
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.
There's lots of dimensions to this thing that have nothing to do with oil, money or the environment. I think Christy has thrown all her "political chips" into this and I don't think her odds are good!
People really need to stop quoting me as if I'm the one expressing an article's opinion. I'm posting it as a discussion point, not necessarily as my perspective.
No? Then WTF is this all about?
You haven't learned much about politics this week have you?
Where are your Dippers now? Counting cash after the Nexen sale?
How do you feel about those old school Dippers raking it in and knowing full well Dipper oil will flow through N Gatway adn XL?
They sure ****ed you over didn't they? Better get some lube and a tin foil condom.
Last edited:
It means I posted something before the article.
I doesn't mean I endorse the article.
Especially in this case where it can be assumed I actually don't agree with the premise that there is some deliberate scheming.
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?
The mess that is the area around the tar sands is bad for me, and anyone else with a sense of responsibility for what goes on in this country. There is a huge economic stimulus, but it is just too easy for the bean counters to not count the negatives. If the negatives outweigh the positives, and from here it looks like it, then the project should be shelved. At least until the existing damage has been dealt with and a complete analysis has been done.
In that analysis we would find out who benefits, who hurts, mitigation, compensation, total benefit/cost ratio. And since we need energy, and since developing energy creates jobs, there will be jobs and economic stimulus. All of our options should be compared to determine whether we are spending our energy development money in the most sane manner. The opposite of that is crazy.