Turn off the taps

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36


How rich is it that the province of British Columbia, which has done so much to prevent Alberta from shipping more oil


How rich is it that Alberta ships 300K bbls a day through BC and are threatening BC in order to ship more?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Oilfields are economy of the past, expanding them would be like building a Blockbuster video, says lawyer

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's fixation on oil fields is a misplaced focus on the economy of yesterday, an environmental lawyer says.
"The idea of building this [Trans Mountain pipeline] expansion, which essentially locks in production and expansion of the oil sands for the next several decades, is the exact wrong direction we need to go," Eugene Kung, lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, told Anna Maria Tremonti on The Current.
"It'd be like building a Blockbuster Video franchise in 2012."
He argued that Alberta should instead invest its attention and efforts toward renewable energy and transitioning oil sands workers to new work.
In a campaign promise, Kenney assured Albertans he would "turn off the taps" — block oil and gas exports — to the West Coast in order to push B.C. away from blocking pipeline expansion projects. Kenney was sworn in Tuesday, but the taps remain "on."
"We will obviously keep our electoral commitment to proclaim Bill 12, just stay tuned," Kenney told reporters following the ceremony. "We simply want to demonstrate that our government is serious about defending the vital economic interests of Alberta."


More: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent...ing-a-blockbuster-video-says-lawyer-1.5118731
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,207
11,038
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
How rich is it that Alberta ships 300K bbls a day through BC and are threatening BC in order to ship more?
Yes, in a pipeline built in the 50's with 1950's capacity in mind. The world has changed a lot in the last six decades. That pipeline is filled to capacity and more capacity is needed 'cuz no more can be shipped in it than already is in there. It's not enough anymore and hasn't been for a long long time. AB isn't threatening BC, but is threatening BC back over inter provincial transportation which is a Federal Jurisdiction....& yes, two wrongs don't make a right...& Justin could have made the whole situation a mute point years ago but with his divisive politics to make the West fight among themselves (again, I'm sure it was Butt's idea because it worked and is still working) and He's hamstrung SK & AB to no real benefit to BC.

A real threat would be for AB to Throtle down the flow of oil out of Northern BC enroute to Edmonton's refineries over enviromental concerns, but it hasn't done that because that would just be a real Dick move...and nonsensical like BC Throtling down SK & AB's ability to reach the closest coastline following an existing pipeline route that's been in place for six decades.

How rich it is that the Federal Gov't (=the current Liberal Party) has imposed legislation to limit the size of oil tankers to take Canadian Oil from BC & AB & BC from WESTERN Canada to markets overseas on the WEST coast, but doesn't have the same rules for Foreign Oil from overseas to reach EASTERN Refineries to supply EASTERN Canada, or for EASTERN Refineries to ship out refined petrolium products. Doesn't this make you wonder about the real motivation 'cuz if it was truly the environment it would be enforced on all coastlines and not just part of the WEST coast.

Yes, six FN Bands are against the Trans Mountain Pipeline (& they aren't along its route) and over a hundred FN Bands are for it (but...shhhhhh!!) including all those along its route, but you didn't mention these other 100+ FN Bands for some reason earlier in this thread. Anyway, carry on please. We're making a good tag team to get the truth across about what's really happening politically. You set up the T-Ball Stand & I'll swing the Bat.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Yes, in a pipeline built in the 50's with 1950's capacity in mind. The world has changed a lot in the last six decades. That pipeline is filled to capacity and more capacity is needed 'cuz no more can be shipped in it than already is in there. It's not enough anymore and hasn't been for a long long time. AB isn't threatening BC, but is threatening BC back over inter provincial transportation which is a Federal Jurisdiction....& yes, two wrongs don't make a right...& Justin could have made the whole situation a mute point years ago but with his divisive politics to make the West fight among themselves (again, I'm sure it was Butt's idea because it worked and is still working) and He's hamstrung SK & AB to no real benefit to BC.

A real threat would be for AB to Throtle down the flow of oil out of Northern BC enroute to Edmonton's refineries over enviromental concerns, but it hasn't done that because that would just be a real Dick move...and nonsensical like BC Throtling down SK & AB's ability to reach the closest coastline following an existing pipeline route that's been in place for six decades.

How rich it is that the Federal Gov't (=the current Liberal Party) has imposed legislation to limit the size of oil tankers to take Canadian Oil from BC & AB & BC from WESTERN Canada to markets overseas on the WEST coast, but doesn't have the same rules for Foreign Oil from overseas to reach EASTERN Refineries to supply EASTERN Canada, or for EASTERN Refineries to ship out refined petrolium products. Doesn't this make you wonder about the real motivation 'cuz if it was truly the environment it would be enforced on all coastlines and not just part of the WEST coast.

Yes, six FN Bands are against the Trans Mountain Pipeline (& they aren't along its route) and over a hundred FN Bands are for it (but...shhhhhh!!) including all those along its route, but you didn't mention these other 100+ FN Bands for some reason earlier in this thread. Anyway, carry on please. We're making a good tag team to get the truth across about what's really happening politically. You set up the T-Ball Stand & I'll swing the Bat.

what an incredible bunch of bullshit.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Maybe you could take the time to refute this b.s. , where is it wrong , please explain ?
There is so much billshit there where would anyone start?

only 6 First Nations oppose the pipeline expansion.

Even a total idiot like you must understand hat is a complete fabrication.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,207
11,038
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
There is so much billshit there where would anyone start?

only 6 First Nations oppose the pipeline expansion.

Even a total idiot like you must understand hat is a complete fabrication.
OK, at least six FN Bands oppose the pipeline (are any of them along its route?) and well over a hundred are for it. Please feel free to refute the rest of the post to qualify the comment that there is so much bullshit there. Why are these at least six FN Bands (not along the pipeline route) opposing the twinning of the Trans Mountain Pipeline when over a hundred others are for it? Is it a 'Stuarts of the Earth' thing or something else?
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
There is so much billshit there where would anyone start?
only 6 First Nations oppose the pipeline expansion.
Even a total idiot like you must understand hat is a complete fabrication.
Nothing that plain bags full of large denomination, un-marked bills won't fix.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
B.C like the rest of us is getting exactly what it deserves. By electing Green Luddites and NDP fools and vandals, they have no reason to complain.

In basic terms Horgan might be considered a near-traitor to the Province.
In basic terms he sold out to the weaverite greenies in order to form the government and thereby betrayed his own values which in the past supported the twinning as he saw the financial benefits of doing so.

Those of us who support twinning and did not vote for either of the pathetic parties currently doing their best to bring our province to ruination have every right to complain - loudly and clearly.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
There actually are no taps to turn off. What the legislation does is essentially gives Alberta the authority to control what's flowing through the pipeline and in what volume. The pipelines are multi-use, they can ship crude, dilbit, or refined product depending on current need.

If someone wants to ship product through the pipe, the new legislation would require them to apply for a licence which Alberta Government would then decide if they will allow it. This would give them the ability to control the ratio and amounts of each product to be shipped. They could then decide it is in Alberta's best interest to ship more crude through the pipe, which would proportionally affect how much refined fuel could be shipped. This is exaggerated by the fact that when refined product is sent through the pipe, it must be "cleaned" on the other end before it can be used, due to the presence of other products being sent previously. The more crude is sent down the line, the more any refined product that follows must be cleaned, and therefore the more expensive it becomes at the pump.


Agreed, Dec. However, it will be challenged in the courts as it raises constitutional questions regarding provincial rights which is why I doubt that Kenney will actually enforce the bill.



"Does that mean Kenney could run into legal trouble?

Yes. There has already been one court case, from when the NDP was in power. In May 2018, the B.C. government filed a suit against the bill. But since it hadn’t yet been proclaimed into law, a Calgary judge tossed it out in February 2019.

The minute the bill’s proclaimed, this could kick off again.

There are a few main legal issues the Alberta government will have to sort out if it wants to win in court.

First, Bill 12 relies on Section 92A(2) of the constitution. This is the part where provinces get the ability to regulate natural resources.

But it’s not clear that this section gives Alberta the constitutional power to restrict shipments of refined fuels, according to an analysis by University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes that was published on the faculty’s law blog. Crude oil, for example, is fine, but gasoline may not be.

Those fuels could fall under regulation of trade and commerce — a federal power.

The second is another legal twist wherein a province isn’t supposed to discriminate against specific provinces. The New Democrats say they were careful on this point, not to single out B.C. The United Conservatives have had no such qualms, which could weaken their legal position."


"At the end of the day, though, asking whether it would work or what the effect would be is missing the point of whether or not the whole thing is legal.

“We’re having a conversation about whether or not our horse trailers can get enough unicorns to Montana without addressing the fact that there aren’t unicorns,” Leach said."

nationalpost.com/news/politics/so-this-turn-off-the-taps-thing-would-it-work
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,207
11,038
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Agreed, Dec. However, it will be challenged in the courts as it raises constitutional questions regarding provincial rights which is why I doubt that Kenney will actually enforce the bill.



"Does that mean Kenney could run into legal trouble?

Yes. There has already been one court case, from when the NDP was in power. In May 2018, the B.C. government filed a suit against the bill. But since it hadn’t yet been proclaimed into law, a Calgary judge tossed it out in February 2019.

The minute the bill’s proclaimed, this could kick off again.

There are a few main legal issues the Alberta government will have to sort out if it wants to win in court.

First, Bill 12 relies on Section 92A(2) of the constitution. This is the part where provinces get the ability to regulate natural resources.

But it’s not clear that this section gives Alberta the constitutional power to restrict shipments of refined fuels, according to an analysis by University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes that was published on the faculty’s law blog. Crude oil, for example, is fine, but gasoline may not be.

Those fuels could fall under regulation of trade and commerce — a federal power.

The second is another legal twist wherein a province isn’t supposed to discriminate against specific provinces. The New Democrats say they were careful on this point, not to single out B.C. The United Conservatives have had no such qualms, which could weaken their legal position."


"At the end of the day, though, asking whether it would work or what the effect would be is missing the point of whether or not the whole thing is legal.

“We’re having a conversation about whether or not our horse trailers can get enough unicorns to Montana without addressing the fact that there aren’t unicorns,” Leach said."

nationalpost.com/news/politics/so-this-turn-off-the-taps-thing-would-it-work

Same Act, but 92(10)C, could make both AB's Bill 12 & BC's also obstructing Inter Provincial Transport losing propositions, but that would mean that the Fed's would have to to their job "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" but these being Western Provinces it wouldn't be to the advantage of the Liberal Party of Canada. Trudeau would have had to find his balls and do his freak'n job but he might offend some minority or something, and a strong united Western Canada isn't to their advantage.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
I’m not sure that any province can be forced to supply another province with goods or services against its will ??