Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 560

Thread: Are you boycotting BC?

  1. #401
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,257

    Default

    Just came across this link while searching for double hull accidents. Seems to have a lot of interesting information, although I haven't done a lot of looking in to who is behind it: https://clearseas.org/en/tankers/

    Tankers currently represent about 2% of total ship traffic visiting the Port of Vancouver (out of 250 total vessels per month, about 5 are tankers). The Government of Canada’s recent approval of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is expected to increase the number of tankers visiting the Port of Vancouver from around 5 to around 34 per month. In this scenario, tankers would represent about 14% of total ship traffic.
    This graph I also thought interesting:


  2. #402
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,257

    Default

    Also quite relevant:

    Overall, 67% of ship-source oil spills in Canadian waters from 2003 to 2012 were between 100 and 1,000 litres. Of the larger spills (those 10,000 litres or greater), 78% involved fuel oil rather than oil being carried as cargo. As such, oil tanker cargo was not the source of most of these spill.
    So why are people not protesting the bulk carriers, tug boats, and fuel barges that are responsible for most of the petroleum products spilled in Canadian waters? Why are they not demanding the reduction of other forms of shipping?

  3. #403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So what steps are being taken to reduce other shipping traffic in the area in order to lessen pressure on the southern residents and other species?
    That's an important question but separate to the impact of Trans Mountain.

  4. #404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    East McCauley's comment was about probability of a spill, not the impact of one. And the NEB quote you provided indicates much the same, saying the probability is low (although not "virtually non-existent").

    When was the last major spill from a double hull oil tanker? I'm genuinely curious. And how often are there much smaller spills of bunker fuel and intentional dumping of polluted bilge water from ships other than oil tankers?
    The NEB concluded that the net effect of combining risk and impact is that the "operation of Project-related marine vessels would likely result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale."

    No idea when the last major spill was. However, the absence of spills could indicate that the safeguards in place are working. That would argue against ignoring those safeguards now for the benefit of Trans Mountain (as the NEB (despite their own assessment indicating the contrary), the Liberals, and the Alberta NDP, would have us do).

  5. #405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).
    (bold italics by me)

    No, they don't need to be considered separately. The ocean risks that apply to all shipping are completely separate from Transmountain. The assessment should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping.

    if the risk of an additional few ships a month is so great then to be fair you have to apply the same rules to any other ship in shoes waters. either shut 'em all down, let 'em all go, set strict rules they all have to abide, or you set a cap that's agnostic of which ships they are and make all shippers bid for the limited number of slots. Surely they could free up some slots below the orca-damage threshold by ceasing shipments of American thermal coal?
    There can only be one.

  6. #406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    East McCauley's comment was about probability of a spill, not the impact of one. And the NEB quote you provided indicates much the same, saying the probability is low (although not "virtually non-existent").

    When was the last major spill from a double hull oil tanker? I'm genuinely curious. And how often are there much smaller spills of bunker fuel and intentional dumping of polluted bilge water from ships other than oil tankers?
    The NEB concluded that the net effect of combining risk and impact is that the "operation of Project-related marine vessels would likely result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale."

    No idea when the last major spill was. However, the absence of spills could indicate that the safeguards in place are working. That would argue against ignoring those safeguards now for the benefit of Trans Mountain (as the NEB (despite their own assessment indicating the contrary), the Liberals, and the Alberta NDP, would have us do).
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    There can only be one.

  7. #407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).
    (bold italics by me)

    No, they don't need to be considered separately. The ocean risks that apply to all shipping are completely separate from Transmountain. The assessment should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping.
    When I said the risks should be considered separately I meant exactly what you just said: that the "assessment (of Trans Mountain) should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping." Some other process can deal separately with the risks of general shipping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    if the risk of an additional few ships a month is so great then to be fair you have to apply the same rules to any other ship in shoes waters. either shut 'em all down, let 'em all go, set strict rules they all have to abide, or you set a cap that's agnostic of which ships they are and make all shippers bid for the limited number of slots. Surely they could free up some slots below the orca-damage threshold by ceasing shipments of American thermal coal?
    The risks for tankers are demonstrably larger than for other vessels so the same rules do not apply universally. Moreover, it's not "an additional few ships per month", it's an additional 30 or so tankers per month which would mean Trans Mountain tankers by themselves would represent fully 14% of all of the Port of Vancouver's marine traffic (source). That's why the NEB concluded the risks of Trans Mountain are so significant.

  8. #408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    The NEB in their own assessment refuted that argument saying that the risk is significant. Again, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the NEB based upon submissions by multiple parties including Trans Mountain themselves. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

    https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/docu...61/114562E.pdf

    For some reason the NEB chose to ignore their own assessment when issuing their approval; the Federal Court of Appeal was appropriately unimpressed by this omission.

  9. #409
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    *Bump*

    In light of all the controversy of the TMP, what is the satus with this project?


    https://business.financialpost.com/c...ever-get-built



    Going nowhere fast. Besides being vastly under-capitalized it's basically dead on arrival thanks to this:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...mons-1.4655077
    BC doesn't have a problem with dumping raw sewage into the ocean but applauds Bill C-46?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  10. #410
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  11. #411
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    The NEB in their own assessment refuted that argument saying that the risk is significant. Again, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the NEB based upon submissions by multiple parties including Trans Mountain themselves. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

    https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/docu...61/114562E.pdf

    For some reason the NEB chose to ignore their own assessment when issuing their approval; the Federal Court of Appeal was appropriately unimpressed by this omission.
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #412

    Default

    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.

  13. #413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    You’re forgetting the lack of treaties issues in B.C.

  14. #414
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    no, it is “we”, just as we, collectively, accepted and continue to accept the risks and the consequences of the oil sands and hibernia and north sea and saudi arabian and venezuelan and gulf of mexico et al production and our shipment of oil therefrom to all corners of the globe by pipeline, tanker, rail and truck. because we, collectively, consume it by choice in all corners of the globe. should we? arguably not. but we do. should we stop? arguably. but until we actually have options enabling that, we are left with assessing risks and consequences and options as best we can.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  15. #415
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    KK why don’t you go to work for green peace you’ll fit right in there. I hear they pay well.

  16. #416
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    Evo I think you and I are the only ones that read your article in its entirety. It sound like they could put that one through. They have all their ducks in a row. Just a few court cases, nothing serious for First Nations, the courts will side with them.

  17. #417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).

  18. #418
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).
    okay, i can accept that applying the language of the neb’s matrix to my crossing the street would mean that the probability of my being hit by a car are very low, the consequences potentially high and the risk medium. i’m less convinced however that that’s a sufficiently broad or inclusive analysis without applying it in a more layered fashion. by that i mean that while the probability for my being hit by a car crossing the street will have potentially high consequences for me, they will have lower consequences on my family, co-workers, neighbors, edmontonians, albertans, canadians, north americans, mankind... on that basis, presumably the risk would be lower the larger the group. by the same token, if all of one of those groups were to cross, presumably the probability would increase but the consequences would be divided over the entire group, also presumably resulting in a lower risk. or am i being too simplistic in concluding that individual risk and group risk are not equivalent and don’t belong in the same matrix square?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).

    Just to let you know that this matrix is a generic matrix. We use this identical matrix up in the oil sands when filling out our job hazard assesment
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  20. #420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    no, it is “we”, just as we, collectively, accepted and continue to accept the risks and the consequences of the oil sands and hibernia and north sea and saudi arabian and venezuelan and gulf of mexico et al production and our shipment of oil therefrom to all corners of the globe by pipeline, tanker, rail and truck. because we, collectively, consume it by choice in all corners of the globe. should we? arguably not. but we do. should we stop? arguably. but until we actually have options enabling that, we are left with assessing risks and consequences and options as best we can.
    Funny but I don't recall Alberta having a voice in Hibernia or the North Sea or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Unless you mean "we" as in everyone on the planet. Then sure, I would imagine that most people couldn't care less if there was a tanker going down near Vancouver every week. As long as it didn't affect them, most people wouldn't be too concerned about it.

    When we dump out used electronic into Asian countries for recycling, we don't care very much about the fact that it's quite often children doing the work and they're exposed to all sorts of noxious chemicals and terrible working conditions. But Canadians continue to send our crap overseas because it's then out of our sight.

    Sure, it's theoretically illegal but we often just ship it to someone in the States or some other country and it eventually ends up in a place like this ---

    Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste

    "This is really the dirty little secret of the electronic age," Jim Puckett said.


    Greenpeace has been filming around Guiyu and caught the recycling work. Women were heating circuit boards over a coal fire, pulling out chips and pouring off the lead solder. Men were using what is literally a medieval acid recipe to extract gold. Pollution has ruined the town. Drinking water is trucked in. Scientists have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and that seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood.


    "These people are not just working with these materials, they're living with them. They're all around their homes," Pelley told Allen Hershkowitz.


    "The situation in Guiyu is actually pre-capitalist. It's mercantile. It reverts back to a time when people lived where they worked, lived at their shop. Open, uncontrolled burning of plastics. Chlorinated and brominated plastics is known worldwide to cause the emission of polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins. These are among the most toxic compounds known on earth," Hershkowitz explained.


    "We have a situation where we have 21st century toxics being managed in a 17th century environment."



    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/followi...xic-e-waste/2/
    So yeah, "we" accept the risk, right?

  21. #421
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    ^

    that was a strange topic shift but okay...

    yes, we when it comes to transmountain and yes, we when it comes to how and where we recycle or don’t.

    and yes, we when it comes to oil from venezuela or saudi arabia etc.

    we albertan’s, including you, have the same voice about whether we as canadian’s import it by tanker and by pipeline to eastern canada endangering coastlines and seaways and rivers and fishing grounds and whale populations. we as albertans and canadians have a strange tendency to use probability and consequence and risk analysis when it suits our predetermined positions to say yes or no but strangely and happily choose to ignore using those same things to make choices which simply then allows those choices to be made by default.

    interestingly enough, the number of tankers proposed for transmountain is less than the number of tankers in the strait of juan de fuca than the number that deliver to cherry point every year to be refined into cheap gas that many in the lower mainland still duck down into washington to buy. maybe we should risk analyze that and extend transmountain through surrey and offer to upgrade their refineries to handle more heavy oil than we already ship them by tanker?

    maybe instead of lobbying to shut down or say no to more pipelines we - including you - should be lobbying for more pipelines and more capacity at their terminations regardless of which coast they terminate at?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #422

    Default

    Strange topic shift Ken? He is pulling fabrications from his equater's region to continue an argument that I'm not buying. To my understanding, most - if not all- of those old computer chips are shipped to China for salvage and disposal. I don't recall any child labor in China. Sure, they may have their children helping out private family businesses to a small degree, but it is hardly child labor. Infact, a little responsibility for children is good as it teaches them some values, morals, and appreciations rather than become drug or alcohol addicts because they are too spoiled.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  23. #423

    Default

    Here's the truth:

    https://www.pipelinenews.ca/opinion/...ine-1.23419145

    The most telling paragraphs are the ones below for the hypocrites on this thread:



    Watchingthe coverage of the exultant First Nations people who had won their court case,I realized

    thisfundamentally comes down to an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.It was clear from the statements of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president ofthe Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, that no matter how muchconsultation takes place under the “duty to consult,” there will never be anaffirmative response from them regarding this pipeline. I noted they made all thesejoyous comments wearing shoes with rubber soles, seeing through plasticglasses, speaking behind a clear acrylic podium into a plastic microphone. Thelawyer’s tie was synthetic, as were many others. One of the elderly ladies inthe front held a plastic water bottle. The Grand Chief wore a fleece-typejacket. And I’m sure they didn’t ride their horses to the event. I didn’t seeany in the background.
    So it’s okay to use petroleum andpetrochemicals, for everything, as long as it’s not Canadian oil from theoilsands.
    And while I didn’t see horses in thebackground, I did see a number of ships. Large ships. The judgment hinged inpart on consideration of the southern resident orca population (why thejudgement used the misnomer “killer whale” is beyond me). It’s curious how thecourt found this pipeline cannot be built until tanker traffic’s impact isstudied to death, yet it does not touch on the coal or grain bulkers, nor thewood haulers, private yachts and pleasure craft. All that is just fine, but afew extra tankers could potentially destroy the orcas. And the tankers cominginto Washington state aren’t a problem, either. Just the ones associated withthis pipeline.

  24. #424
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.

  25. #425
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    ^

    cn and cp may also turn out to be winners... and farmers may turn out to be additional losers as they lose track access for grain to oil.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...-crude-source/
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.
    It seems that for many decades now there’s been a reoccurring failure to consult, give and take, compensate, share and everything else that a mutually respectful process would entail. Moreover, sometimes a firm no to some projects is actually the right answer and both sides know it. That apparently is not really the case here. (I’d say that allowing nuclear powered ships and submarines in those coastal waters might be such a case.)

    In this case bitumen shipping does present some new and novel risks and cleanup challenges. Any approval should be contingent on ongoing funding being provided to ensure a spill or tanker crash would and could be cleaned up and everyone properly compensated if not over-compensated, in the interim. If Alberta and Canada are going to come out many, many billions of dollars ahead as a result of this pipeline then it seems to make sense to devote some percentage of the proceeds towards protecting the environment all along the shipping route.

    If increased shipping is a concern then maybe a reduction of other types of shipping is in order. A review of both new and old shipping and/or re-prioritizing of what is allowed in those waters could be done. Maybe it’s time for a “highest and best use” assessment of all shipping into and out of coastal ports.

    Also, some sort of regulatory and citizen pre-approval needs to be undertaken for future projects (LNG, electric tie lines, gas lines, rail lines, etc). Waiting until the need is present seems to fail far too often. Maybe some sort of utility and transportation corridor needs to be established. It may not be the most cost effective route for every type of need but it may turn out to be a route that could be used as a last resort. (Say tunnel through mountains, build large double walled conduits over waterways or whatever to establish it. Build an offshore loading facility to protect coastal fisheries...)
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 03:21 PM.

  27. #427
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.
    Who's screaming???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...jk. Explain how Shell's LNG project got green lit after only 6 months? You don't think the "consultations and assessments" wouldn't have had to been at least 10X of that of a pipeline? Well let me tell you....the "1st nations" payoff(s) didn't happen quickly enough. Just admit it....this has nothing to do with the "proper process" Jesus...am I the only who knows this?!!!!! I feel like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men!" "You can't handle the truth".....lol

  28. #428

    Default

    ...


    ‘Sickening’: First Nations left empty-handed as environmentalist pressure kills B.C. energy projects | Financial Post
    Nov, 2017

    “But Big Green measures its success by stopping things, which results in media exposure and increased opportunities for financial contributions, while Indigenous governments — who represent people with a 13,000-year-plus track record of protecting the environment — get re-elected based on whether they deliver “tangible holistic community wellness through balanced development” in their communities.

    “These environmentalists are happy to make a park in somebody else’s backyard,” Helin said. “Well, screw that. You are talking about people where there is 90 per cent unemployment.”


    For example, ...”




    “Led by Calvin Helin, a member of the Lax Kw’alaams and the brother of John Helin, the project is fighting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed tanker moratorium for the northern B.C. coast, which was announced last year at the same time the Northern Gateway project was killed.

    “The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline and the Douglas Channel is no place for oil tanker traffic,” Trudeau said at the time.

    Helin said the Great Bear Rainforest is “total fiction” invented by Tzeporah Berman, the former co-director of Greenpeace International’s Global Climate and Energy Program and co-founder of ForestEthics, who describes herself in her biography as one of the creators and lead negotiators of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and the Canadian Boreal Forest Initiative.

    Helin said chiefs with unextinguished title over the territory had never heard of such a forest and bitterly oppose the idea.

    “Who the heck are these people from big cities coming into their traditional territory telling them what they can and can’t do in their traditional territory?” Helin said.

    “What these trust fund babies are basically doing is parachuting into traditional territories whose people have looked after the environment for thousands of years.” ...



    “Laboucan-Avirom’s band, which is surrounded by oil and gas development, supports energy projects that benefit First Nations communities over the long term. [b]Otherwise, “I am just administering poverty,” despite sitting on some of the world’s richest oil and gas deposits, he said. “I want the ability to share the wealth that has been taken out of our territories for the last one hundred years.” ...”

    As Haisla chief, Ross took a stand against the Northern Gateway pipeline, the first of the big energy projects proposed in the province in recent years, because it didn’t have enough to offer First Nations and there were too many environmental risks.

    But he supported the LNG projects proposed for his region — Royal Dutch Shell PLC-led LNG Canada and Chevron Corp.-led Kitimat LNG — because they came with ownership opportunities and business development.



    ...


    “But Pierce acknowledged that projects actively trying to get permitted or financed could slip away “if we do not seize the moment today to try and assure these projects go forward.”

    If they do slip away, Ross said the Haisla will remain dependent on government handouts. “Basically, they lose the future,” he said. “





    https://business.financialpost.com/c...nergy-projects

    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 04:34 PM.

  29. #429
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  30. #430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    I’d say, not all about the money but money is extremely important. However, for the rest of us, how is it not “all about the money”? Moreover if for the FN it’s all about the money. Then why is this NOT already a done deal? Unless the benefits from the pipeline won’t return near the monetary gains that have been serving as the main rallying cry.

    We can continue to ship by rail. We could process it here and then send it somewhere by pipeline... but for the money
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 04:55 PM.

  31. #431
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  32. #432
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    Too funny! It's all good....don't fret over how most of us on here are too stupid to live...life goes on. Now I see how ill informed a lot on this forum are as well. I've been in the O&G sector for 14 years and the 10,000's of conversations I've had with all levels of workers, form the lowly Seismic guys - Cave dwellers from Quebec right on up to 2nd-in-commands with the Calgary Majors......and EVERY single conversation based around "what we're talking about here" is always the same. Now why is that? Are we all ill-informed? If so, you've got a lot of convincing to do - about 100,000 plus workers in the patch....so you might want to get on that.......

  33. #433
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    Too funny! It's all good....don't fret over how most of us on here are too stupid to live...life goes on. Now I see how ill informed a lot on this forum are as well. I've been in the O&G sector for 14 years and the 10,000's of conversations I've had with all levels of workers, form the lowly Seismic guys - Cave dwellers from Quebec right on up to 2nd-in-commands with the Calgary Majors......and EVERY single conversation based around "what we're talking about here" is always the same. Now why is that? Are we all ill-informed? If so, you've got a lot of convincing to do - about 100,000 plus workers in the patch....so you might want to get on that.......
    it’s all good - i’ve met lots of smart people who have been ill-informed and wrong on some things as well.

    just like i’ve met lots of first nation’s and special interest groups and others who support the o & g sector including pipelines who aren’t ill-informed and wrong on this topic and have nothing to gain by it either way other than what we all gain from a healthy economy and a sector that goes a long way to supporting that and is capable of going a lot further.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  34. #434

    Default

    First Nations group proposes oil pipeline that protects indigenous rights | World news | The Guardian
    Ashifa Kassam in Toronto, Sat 8 Sep 2018

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...igenous-rights



    First Nations look to buy equity in pipeline to have say in project's future | World news | The Guardian
    Leyland Cecco
    Last modified on Fri 15 Jun 2018

    “...

    A large source of tension around Trans Mountain project centres on the idea of unceded lands: few formal treaties were ever signed between British Columbia’s colonial settlers and the indigenous population – whose descendants argue that they retain the right to control any development.

    And in a string of previous high-profile legal battles, courts have tended to recognize the broad powers of indigenous land title, giving First Nations a potential veto on development projects.

    ...
    “We learn almost daily, as other First Nations speak out about it, that they’re quite comfortable with this pipeline and they’re looking forward to the benefits that will flow from its construction in terms of training, jobs and the opportunity to engage in the construction of it.”

    “...
    “We work very hard to ensure our territories are protected. We’re the stewards of the land,” said Quintal. “But at the same time, I need to make sure my members can put food on the table. I need to make sure they can get...”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fer-buy-shares
    Last edited by KC; 10-09-2018 at 12:03 AM.

  35. #435

    Default

    Stumbled onto this older article. The project created a lot of jobs and certainly did a lot of environmental damage. Not sure if any of the pipeline crossings have ever leaked.


    Construction of the Coquihalla: Still Amazing After 30 Years | TranBC, 2016

    “Accelerated design and construction began in the spring of 1984 in preparation for Expo 86 in Vancouver. To be sure the project was completed on time, more than 10,000 people were needed to fill all of the jobs. More than 1,000 pieces of heavy equipment worked non-stop every day during the summer of 1985 to get it done!“

    “...
    The Coquihalla Highway is also bridge engineer’s dream, with a bridge or overpass on average every 3,158 metres.

    In total:

    18 highway interchanges

    38 bridge and overpass structures

    19 vehicle underpasses and

    50 pipeline crossings were built along the route

    Green Ahead of its Time

    The construction of the Coquihalla also included award-winning work to protect fauna and flora along the route. All environmental work was planned and performed under the supervision of environment and fishery experts.
    ...”


    https://www.tranbc.ca/2016/05/16/con...fter-30-years/
    Last edited by KC; 10-09-2018 at 10:48 AM.

  36. #436

    Default

    Why Russian oil — and not Canadian — will keep fuelling the U.S. Pacific Northwest | Financial Post

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...ific-northwest

  37. #437

    Default

    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831

  38. #438
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.

  39. #439
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831

    That is good news. Three Cheers for Hypocrisy!

  40. #440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.
    There's no point in propping up a government that's pursuing policies antithetical to their platform. They would be better off bringing down the government and continuing to build their base so as to form a viable opposition. If they can prove that they're willing to bring down a government then the next time they hold the balance of power they will be able to wield their influence even more.

  41. #441
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.
    There's no point in propping up a government that's pursuing policies antithetical to their platform. They would be better off bringing down the government and continuing to build their base so as to form a viable opposition. If they can prove that they're willing to bring down a government then the next time they hold the balance of power they will be able to wield their influence even more.
    Well, the BC NDP is still at least opposing pipelines, which I am taken to understand is a pretty major issue for environmentalists in BC. If they bring down the government, and the next election returns a majority government, the Greens are stuck with a government that isn't doing what they want on liquid gas, AND is less beholden to their party on pipelines. And it's an even bigger nightmare if that majority is Liberal.

  42. #442
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    A nightmare for the greens is a boon for the rest of us normal people

  43. #443
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A nightmare for the greens is a boon for the rest of us normal people
    A big boon! Should be heading back there next year - and should hold me until I call it a day when I'm ready to retire......in 15 years....lol

  44. #444

    Default

    Engineer maclac?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  45. #445

    Default

    Braid: Notley slams hypocrisy of BC LNG project | Calgary Herald

    “There is a high level of jaw-dropping hypocrisy that is being demonstrated through that process,” Notley said Wednesday.“


    “She continued: “But I will say that when you look at the process there, and you look at the fact that the government of B.C. and the people who oppose the (Trans Mountain) pipeline are ‘okily dokily’ with 350 tankers coming out of a port with rougher waters that is more difficult to get to, that somehow we have a completely different standard when we’re looking at the TMX pipeline coming out of a much calmer port . . .”


    “In further evidence that “social licence” is collapsing, Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative government suddenly announced Wednesday that the province will no longer impose its own carbon tax.”

    https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...n-inches-along
    Last edited by KC; 04-10-2018 at 07:06 AM.

  46. #446

    Default

    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.

  47. #447
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    That's why BC FN's support LNG. Hint: Tankers can be pulled out to sea by tugs. Its been known to happen.

    In the wake of the LNG plant etc, looks like TMX is way off in the immediate future. Possibly after an election.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #448
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Engineer maclac?
    Nope, but I will go back and consult with a major player in the area next year - there will be at least 12-15 years worth of work between Dawson Creek and Ft.Nelson because of this.....the buckets of cash one can make because of this...think about the services needed to supply 40B worth of work not just in Kitimat but in also in the aforementioned geography. No, I'm not a trinket salesman selling "shiny things," but have made tons of connections in by working in this area for the last 10 years. So on top of my ridiculous Consulting wages - the 3rd party $$$$ will be insane.....

  49. #449
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.
    As I posted about previously, the vast majority of petrochemical contaminants that have been spilled in Canadian waters are bunker fuel and lubricants, not crude oil. If any large ship goes down, whether an oil tanker, LNG tanker, container ship, or bulk hauler, there will need to be a spill response to remove fuel etc. Meanwhile, the concerns about shipping noise, whale collisions etc are the exact same for an LNG tanker as they are for oil/bitumen. Horgan is a complete and utter hypocrite to be cheerleading LNG terminals while painting Transmountain as beyond the pale.

  50. #450

    Default

    Vast majority thus far. However, Prince William Sound would like to have a word with you. Or do we need a disaster, oops I mean a teensy little, inconsequential spill, before we do something about it? By which time the money will have been spend on the pipeline and the terminal it there would be immense pressure to continue with the then status quo.

    After all, it's not Albertans that will have to deal with the consequences now, is it?

  51. #451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.
    The plant/train/expansions will only flatten how much land?

    Then you just have that small inconsequential worry of an LNG tanker exploding and wiping out all life for a km of do around it.

    (I recall a story on Boston’s shallow harbour and how a tanker explosion there would flatten the city.)




    New video shows serious dangers posed by LNG tankers -The Common Sense Canadian

    “...
    As a result, no American port would attempt the type of activities now being contemplated in BC. Even the Harper government rejected similar LNG plans on the East Coast of Canada out of safety concerns.

    As the video explains, summarizing Sandia’s findings in the event of an explosion, when cold, compressed gas “is exposed to air, it evaporates extremely rapidly, producing explosive gas vapor. Field tests show that pools of LNG can burn for long periods of time. Flames from large LNG pool fires can reach up to 150 meters high.”

    Anything within a 500 meter radius of the tanker could be killed by freezing or suffocation from the cold gas cloud. If ignited, a large shockwave would be produced as well as a fireball that could burn anything within a 1.6 km radius, causing structural damage and starting forest fires and grass fires. The remaining LNG pool would continue to burn and spread until all of the fuel is gone. Anything within a 3.5 km radius of the blast could also be affected, but less severely.

    Uncharted waters

    Industry proponents are quick to suggest that LNG has a relatively safe history. This is problematic for two reasons. First, new plans for shipping LNG on the BC coast violate the most basic global safety standards, rendering the industry’s history irrelevant. By significantly raising the risk level and volume of shipping, we’re entering uncharted waters. Second, ...”

    http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-...d-lng-tankers/
    Last edited by KC; 05-10-2018 at 03:39 PM.

  52. #452

    Default

    ...


    Natural Gas has no Climate Benefit and May Make Things Worse - Resilience




    The evidence is overwhelming that natural gas has no net climate benefit in any timescale that matters to humanity.

    In fact, a shocking new study concludes
    that just the methane emissions escaping from New Mexico’s gas and oil industry are “equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal-fired power plants.” If the goal is to avoid catastrophic levels of warming, a recent report by U.K. climate researchers finds “categorically no role” to play for new natural gas production.

    Sadly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has just published a “Commentary” on “the environmental case for natural gas,” that ignores or downplays key reasons that greater use of natural gas is bad for the climate.

    In the real world, natural gas is not a “bridge” fuel to a carbon-free economy for two key reasons. First, natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period.

    That’s why many, many studies find that even a very small leakage rate of methane from the natural gas supply chain (production to delivery to combustion) can have a large climate impact  —  enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas for a long, long time.

    Indeed, researchers confirmed in 2014 that  —  even if methane leakage were zero percent  —..”


    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-things-worse/

  53. #453

    Default

    There is no defending this LNG mega-project on environmental grounds and Horgan is being utterly hypocritical by supporting it.

    GHG emissions cannot be reduced by building LNG projects.

    GHG emissions cannot be reduced by building pipelines.

    NDP leaders of all stripes know these axioms to be true yet they choose to ignore them. That is hypocrisy.

  54. #454
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    But.....it’s BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.

  55. #455

    Default

    Previously approved - what was the secret to this approval and acceptance?

    LNG pipeline for northwest B.C. still active
    The 900km Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project by TransCanada received approvals to expand

    SHANNON LOUGH Jan. 7, 2018

    https://www.northernsentinel.com/new...-still-active/

  56. #456
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    But.....it’s BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.
    it's also interesting to recall that trudeau's tanker ban was specifically addressed to oil tankers even though the potential consequences on wildlife and sea life from noise and cavitation etc. from large ocean going vessels is the same regardless of the product being transported. simple hypocrisy from the prime minister with a culturally expropriated tattoo...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  57. #457
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Previously approved - what was the secret to this approval and acceptance?

    LNG pipeline for northwest B.C. still active
    The 900km Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project by TransCanada received approvals to expand

    SHANNON LOUGH Jan. 7, 2018

    https://www.northernsentinel.com/new...-still-active/
    This is the Progress/Petronas pipeline that was needed to take their gas from the Pink Mountain region of BC to Lelu Island. What I'm thinking is that Progress wants to tie in their feeder line into the Coastal line

    The Shell LNG pipeline is the "TCPL Coastal GasLink pipeline" already under construction BEFORE the Shell LNG announcement....once it was under construction - it was obvious Shell was going to proceed. There was also a 3rd TCPL gas pipeline in or was in the works for Chevron's LNG - the old EnCana/EOG/Apache project that turned into the Apache/Woodland project they both sold it off to Chevron.....

  58. #458
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    But.....it’s BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.
    it's also interesting to recall that trudeau's tanker ban was specifically addressed to oil tankers even though the potential consequences on wildlife and sea life from noise and cavitation etc. from large ocean going vessels is the same regardless of the product being transported. simple hypocrisy from the prime minister with a culturally expropriated tattoo...
    Specifically Alberta crude.

    This Act would ban tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes (about 90,000 barrels) of crude oil or persistent oils (things such as fuel oils, partly upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude oils and No. 6 bunker fuel) from stopping, loading and unloading at any ports along B.C.'s north coast.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle36786948/

    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  59. #459

    Default

    Brian Jean: Alberta has been firewalled from Canada | Edmonton Journal

    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ed-from-canada

  60. #460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Brian Jean: Alberta has been firewalled from Canada | Edmonton Journal

    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ed-from-canada
    Things that were done or not done 5 or 10 years ago are the main reason the pipeline situation is the mess it is today. Madly lashing out at the current federal or provincial government will achieve nothing, but I suppose the cluelessness in this article helps explain how Alberta got itself into this bind.

  61. #461

    Default

    So... what’s Whistler’s reduction, reclamation and restoration plan?

  62. #462

    Default

    They paved over paradise and put in a hot tub:


    B.C. black bear destroyed after swatting man in Whistler hot tub | National Post
    2012

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...istler-hot-tub

    2010 Olympics good for business, not environment | CBC News
    Emissions skyrocketed


    But greenhouse gas emissions increased during the Games to eight times what they are normally. A large portion of that output came from carbon emitted by spectators, media, athletes and Olympic personnel flying to and from Vancouver.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ment-1.1051584

    Have your say on Whistler's parks | Whistler | Pique Newsmagazine | Whistler, CANADA
    CLOSE THE DOORS, PLEASE


    Two years after raising the issue in a letter to council (and subsequent story in Pique), Anne Townley has noticed a change in the number of open doors and patio heaters in Whistler—only not in the direction she'd like.

    "The only change is more patio heaters," Townley wrote in an update to council earlier this month.


    In her letter, Townley requested mayor and council create a bylaw mandating that businesses close their doors if heat or air conditioning units are on, and that patio heaters be banned (or that timers be installed) to avoid the heating of the environment.

    "It is unconscionable in this day and age of concerns about the environment and GHG emissions that any business so blatantly waste resources," Townley wrote. ...”


    https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/wh...t?oid=12259569


    The wanton destruction of the environment for frivolous entertainment and tourism. Shame on them. Maybe they should stop those tourism flights and their displacement of wildlife and destruction of forest by their population expansion into pristine wilderness!



    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 15-12-2018 at 06:23 AM.

  63. #463

    Default

    Whistler wants Albertan O&G company to pay for climate change costs | Calgary Herald
    https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...e-change-costs






    Letters to the Editor, Dec. 15: All riled up over Whistler | Calgary Sun
    Published: December 14, 2018

    :
    Calgary SUNLetters

    DELUSIONAL B.C.
    Re: Whistler. Really? StatCan shows there were nearly four million vehicles registered in B.C. in 2017. Maybe B.C. should stop the sale of all “fossil” fuels in their province first before they have the nerve to ask fossil fuel companies to pay them for the cost of climate change. We may produce it, but we don’t force them to buy it. I have cancelled any plans to visit B.C. and have decided to spend my tourist money at home in Alberta. I hope all Albertans follow suit.


    GLORIA BURDEN


    https://calgarysun.com/opinion/lette...ditor-dec-15-2



    Last edited by KC; 15-12-2018 at 08:24 AM.

  64. #464

    Default

    Save the planet - stay away from Whistler!

    Terry Etam's letter to Whistler Mayor Jack Crompton | BOE Report

    I won’t waste much of your time, this doesn’t take long. Please consider these two data points, one from your letter:

    ‘We are proud of the many people and businesses who are proud to call Whistler home, and who welcome over three million visitors each year.’

    As a second data point I bring to your attention this from an article in The Economist:

    “Readers of The Economist are a well-travelled lot. Many of them will be aware, perhaps slightly guiltily, that one of the biggest personal contributions to climate change is all that jet-setting. On average, each person on Earth going about their normal business produces the equivalent of five tonnes of CO2 a year. But a single transatlantic round trip produces the equivalent of about one tonne per passenger even in economy class.”

    Do you see a problem here, particularly with the millions you mention?

    Climate change is caused by CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels. All those visitors CHOOSE to go to Whistler, and you encourage it.

    What is even more interesting is that the Economist article is about a new CO2 sequestration technology being developed by Bill Gates (yes that Bill Gates) and…Murray Edwards, founder of Canadian Natural Resources. It is called Carbon Engineering Ltd. and is based in Squamish. This company, being covered by a British economic publication, is on the cutting edge of possibly solving the world’s excess CO2 problem in a way that all the attacks on fossil fuel producers never, ever will. Because, as you and I know but few want to talk about, emissions come from CONSUMPTION. Whistler spends heavily to attract tourists from around the world, perhaps you would like to step up and declare your responsibility for, and contribution to, increased CO2 emissions? ...

    https://boereport.com/2018/12/12/ter...jack-crompton/



    Politician Jack Crompton Is New Whistler Mayor Without Opposition | The Whistler News

    https://www.thewhistlernews.com/2018...ut-opposition/
    Last edited by KC; 15-12-2018 at 06:18 AM.

  65. #465

    Default

    “mayor apologizes”. Hmm. That is so very odd. Now why on earth would he apologize? Was it all just an accident?


    “Fifteen other B.C. municipalities have sent similar letters to oil and gas producers under an initiative by West Coast Environmental Law.” - source: see below

    Whistler oil and gas conference cancelled after climate change letter, mayor apologizes
    https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-change-letter
    Last edited by KC; 15-12-2018 at 08:19 AM.

  66. #466
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-oil-1.4946354

    People are cancelling trips..wtg mayor!!!lol

  67. #467
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    The residents of Whistler ought to think about their own carbon footprint as mentioned in the comments of the article.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  68. #468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Whistler wants Albertan O&G company to pay for climate change costs | Calgary Herald
    https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...e-change-costs






    Letters to the Editor, Dec. 15: All riled up over Whistler | Calgary Sun
    Published: December 14, 2018

    :
    Calgary SUNLetters

    DELUSIONAL B.C.
    Re: Whistler. Really? StatCan shows there were nearly four million vehicles registered in B.C. in 2017. Maybe B.C. should stop the sale of all “fossil” fuels in their province first before they have the nerve to ask fossil fuel companies to pay them for the cost of climate change. We may produce it, but we don’t force them to buy it. I have cancelled any plans to visit B.C. and have decided to spend my tourist money at home in Alberta. I hope all Albertans follow suit.


    GLORIA BURDEN


    https://calgarysun.com/opinion/lette...ditor-dec-15-2



    Why would they do that? The O&G industry doesn't even clean up here.


    Orphan wells threaten economic, environmental disaster just below the surface

    The story reveals few angels among those involved in the deals. Well-known companies such as Husky Energy Inc., Enerplus Corp., and others have been able to work around regulators to load the cleanup costs on to smaller companies that are expanding by buying the distressed wells of the bigger players, sometimes even without secure bank financing.


    The business plan is based on a hope that natural-gas prices will rebound and generate profits big enough to fund the cleanup of the old wells as they end their life.


    But it doesn’t always work out that way.


    “In Alberta, a string of corporate bankruptcies has already pushed the number of defunct well sites to 4,349, up from 545 in 2014, necessitating a $235-million loan from the provincial government last year to shore up the fund set aside by industry to pay for cleanup.”


    Meanwhile, the number of inactive, abandoned and orphaned wells in Western Canada that require cleanup and reclamation has ballooned to more than 210,000. ​

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...environmental/
    And

    Oilsands reclamation a failure, says ecologist

    The energy industry touts its ability to reclaim lands as a selling point in the PR battle over strip mining in the oilsands, but ecologist Kevin Timoney argues the wetlands companies leave behind are defective and destructive.


    Timoney looked at an area approximately 100 kilometres long and 50 kilometres wide in northeast Alberta near Fort McMurray and discovered significant issues with reclaimed land.


    Reclamation is required by law in Alberta for mining operations.


    His primary concerns for these sites are the reduced numbers of native plants and the increased levels of non-native weeds when compared to natural wetlands; the reduced biomass when compared to natural wetlands; the homogeneity of the reclaimed wetlands spread over the landscape; and the elevated concentrations of contaminants and salts in the soil.


    "They're starting with essentially contaminated materials which might be completely devoid of organic matter," said Timoney while talking about his book Impaired Wetlands in a Damaged Landscape.


    "So it is probably unrealistic to expect that a healthy wetland could be created from essentially contaminated material surrounded by, say open pit mines and tailings ponds and waste water ponds and things like that."

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...gist-1.3156500
    And

    Fifty years of oilsands equals only 0.1% of land reclaimed

    Over the past 50 years, oilsands mining has ballooned in production from 60,000 barrels of oil per day to 1.2 million barrels per day. Just as remarkable is the fact that little of the land impacted by that industry has been restored to what would be widely agreed upon as an acceptable level of health, despite approval conditions that require operators to progressively “reclaim” the land.


    Since 1967, of the 940 sq km disturbed by the oilsands industry, industry reports that only 60 sq km (7 per cent) have been permanently reclaimed (See Figure 1). Of this small portion, only one sq km (or 0.1 per cent of overall oilsands mining development) has been reclaimed and returned to the province (See Figure 2).

    https://www.pembina.org/blog/fifty-y...land-reclaimed
    But don't worry. The government will let them off the hook, stick taxpayers with the bill and continue to to give billons to O&G.

  69. #469
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    The residents of Whistler ought to think about their own carbon footprint as mentioned in the comments of the article.
    The mayor is apologizing once again! Open his mouth,insert foot! LOL!

  70. #470
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    Darn that media spotlight!
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  71. #471
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But don't worry. The government will let them off the hook, stick taxpayers with the bill and continue to to give billons to O&G.
    If you can prove that the government gives billions of dollars to the oil and gas industry, rather than the other way around, I might be open to your line of argument.

    Otherwise, I will dismiss it as a demonstrably false statement.

  72. #472

    Default

    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 15-12-2018 at 05:32 PM.

  73. #473
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #474
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,730

    Default

    And that would double if the pipeline gets built. Plus according to figures being touted around the media, the Canadian economy loses over $80 million/day TMP doesn't get built.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  75. #475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    Can’t speak to the specifics of any subsidies and grants but yes, they reduce expenses and so very likely increase profits and subsequent taxes paid. (The old two for me one for you.)

    As for government ownership. The government owns/owned roads, rail, seaways, canals, etc and no one ever asked for the amount of opportunity cost invested in those assets nor criticized the massive and always uneven subsidy to people and businesses that public roads, seaways, etc. provide. Nor did people ask for their rates of return.

    For decades the government also owned not only the rail but the whole rail business and even that wasn’t broadly criticized. (Airlines too?). Same with postal services. Transporting mail and packages for people and businesses with some benefitting hugely and others little if at all.

    So why are pipelines seen so differently - especially when they will operate as a toll charging user pay system?

    Now as for the great employment benefits, any grants and subsidies going to one place mean money not staying in taxpayers pockets or money not going somewhere else. Hard to say what makes for efficient capital allocation or efficient job creation or efficient private business creation. Ideally they are all temporary and offer a large payback to all of society and future generations. (Like a new railroad of highway across the country.*)

    Like free trade, there are winners and losers and somethimes the cost to what is given to the winners can’t ever sufficiently compensate the losers. (Allow free trade to destroy a business and/or region where the losers never ever see or share in thd benefits from free trade. Tax a business to death to subsidize or grant benefits to some pet project where the ruined business owner never ever gets to see any benefit from the giving of a grant or subsidy.) Government can’t abrogate its responsibility to those shortchanged by, or charged the cost of, government decisions to adopt some system of trade agreements, grants, subsidies, regs or taxes.



    * killing/murdering people to do so was totally unacceptable.
    Last edited by KC; 15-12-2018 at 07:36 PM.

  76. #476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    Are you suggesting that the various levels of government should subsidize all businesses to the same extent? After all, if it's such a great deal for O&G....

    The hospitality industry in Canada employs 600,000 people across the country and brings in 78 billion. Seems to me we could get a bigger bang for our buck investing in that if you're looking for impact on the economy.

    Retail employs more people that O&G. I guess we need to start offering subsidies to everything from Amazon down to Mom & Pop.

    You want to increase employment in Canada? Start refining more here. China doesn't want our bitumen. They want oil. They're willing to take the bitumen because they can then refine it there and create jobs for their people. But sure, let's subsidize them while they do. Same with the Americans.

  77. #477
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    ^You have an abysmal understanding of taxation and - hard as this is to fathom - an even worse understanding of economics.

    Despite low prices and other challenges, the oil and gas sector is still forecast to contribute $5.3 billion in non-renewable resource revenue to Alberta government coffers this fiscal year. This is net (after) all of the various credits and expenses referenced in your post above have been deducted. In addition, the majority of the $4.2 billion in corporate tax revenue also comes from the oil and gas sector. Moreover, a sizeable share of the $12.1 billion in personal income revenue is generated by people who directly or indirectly work in the oil and gas sector.

    See page 7 for details here: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/9c81...cal-update.pdf

    Because people working in oil and gas have relatively high after-tax incomes, they also help create and sustain jobs in the hospitality and retail sectors. Your argument that subsidies be used to create employment in these sectors (in the absence of demand) makes about as much sense as banning modern farm equipment to keep more people working on farms.

  78. #478

    Default

    Funny, but falling oil prices are because of decreased demand or over supply. Doesn't that mean that the O&G sector is doing the very thing that you're suggesting?

    And people in the hospitality industry also spend money and pay taxes. And buy gas and heat their homes and use plastics and propane.

    Or is the O&G sector the only ones that do that? And O&G are responsible for the roller coaster economy of Alberta. Sure, they're good when things are good but what happens when prices tank? I'd rather see sustainable and reliable employment. But sure, let's keep shipping out our non-renewable resources at the lowest possible prices. Cut royalties to the lowest possible level and give it back to encourage even more boom and bust employment. Get while the getting is good.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 15-12-2018 at 09:39 PM.

  79. #479
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    ^The biggest problem facing the energy industry right now is not a lack of demand but rather an inability to get their product to customers due to pipeline bottlenecks.

  80. #480

    Default

    Then why are prices down worldwide?

    And they're not shipping a product, they're shipping raw material. Why do you think the companies with the refining capacity in Alberta are opposed to the production cuts? We're punishing the companies that are doing more here, hiring more skilled people and rewarding those that are shipping the lowest grade possible.

  81. #481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    “mayor apologizes”. Hmm. That is so very odd. Now why on earth would he apologize? Was it all just an accident?


    “Fifteen other B.C. municipalities have sent similar letters to oil and gas producers under an initiative by West Coast Environmental Law.” - source: see below

    Whistler oil and gas conference cancelled after climate change letter, mayor apologizes
    https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-change-letter
    I suppose this well illustrates the myopic view of some in other parts of Canada and elsewhere about the energy industry. Alberta and the oil industry are not the cause of the problem. Yes, pipelines transport oil from Alberta to various places, but the carbon emissions occur mostly by the end user consumer. You know if they don't get oil from Alberta, more tankers will easily supply them from places like Saudi Arabia.

    Why don't BC municpalities send the same letter to their local car dealerships and local gas stations and see the response that gets! Either they wouldn't dare or it is an example of the conveniently muddled thinking on this issue. It is always easier to make some one, somewhere else the bogey man, until it comes back to bite you, which it did in Whistler's case.

  82. #482
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_4104201.html. Our best bet. Who will say no to these guys.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 16-12-2018 at 12:42 AM.

  83. #483

  84. #484
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    Are you suggesting that the various levels of government should subsidize all businesses to the same extent? After all, if it's such a great deal for O&G....

    The hospitality industry in Canada employs 600,000 people across the country and brings in 78 billion. Seems to me we could get a bigger bang for our buck investing in that if you're looking for impact on the economy.

    Retail employs more people that O&G. I guess we need to start offering subsidies to everything from Amazon down to Mom & Pop.

    You want to increase employment in Canada? Start refining more here. China doesn't want our bitumen. They want oil. They're willing to take the bitumen because they can then refine it there and create jobs for their people. But sure, let's subsidize them while they do. Same with the Americans.
    you do realize that the vast majority of the 600,000 people working in the hospitality industry are working in one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in the economy from a tax perspective don’t you?

    most of them work for businesses qualifying for small business tax exemptions and preferred tax rates and government loans from bdc etc. many of them work in government owned facilities like convention centres or at tourist destinations whose customers use publicly funded infrastructure to get there.

    the oil and gas sector would probably salivate at being offered the kinds of subsidies the hospitality sector gets. maybe you should be calling for the hospitality sector to be taxed at the same levels as the oil and gas sector?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  85. #485
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default


    Good for them! JT won't like it, Horgan won't like it..in a few years when the ndp ruin BC, as they did before,a lot of things will come to light, and people are going to be in even more debt...

  86. #486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    Are you suggesting that the various levels of government should subsidize all businesses to the same extent? After all, if it's such a great deal for O&G....

    The hospitality industry in Canada employs 600,000 people across the country and brings in 78 billion. Seems to me we could get a bigger bang for our buck investing in that if you're looking for impact on the economy.

    Retail employs more people that O&G. I guess we need to start offering subsidies to everything from Amazon down to Mom & Pop.

    You want to increase employment in Canada? Start refining more here. China doesn't want our bitumen. They want oil. They're willing to take the bitumen because they can then refine it there and create jobs for their people. But sure, let's subsidize them while they do. Same with the Americans.
    you do realize that the vast majority of the 600,000 people working in the hospitality industry are working in one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in the economy from a tax perspective don’t you?

    most of them work for businesses qualifying for small business tax exemptions and preferred tax rates and government loans from bdc etc. many of them work in government owned facilities like convention centres or at tourist destinations whose customers use publicly funded infrastructure to get there.

    the oil and gas sector would probably salivate at being offered the kinds of subsidies the hospitality sector gets. maybe you should be calling for the hospitality sector to be taxed at the same levels as the oil and gas sector?
    Moreover the supply of customers being enhanced by the deductibility of meal expenses!!! Total traditional taxation nonsense!

    Additionally, little in the way of food services employment brings new money into Alberta. Outside of any marginal benefits from business lunches only the tourism and convention facility services serve to enhance wealth coming into Alberta. All the rest are shuffling the chairs on the Titanic. Just circulating any remaining wealth in Alberta until drains out in any number of ways through imports, dividends, corp transactions, and Albertans themseves taking money out of Alberta.

    Oh well just need to sell off ever more of our resource assets and grains and timber at the lowest possible price.

  87. #487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's this.

    A 2016 study estimated that Canada spends $3.3 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.2 billion in favourable federal tax treatment of oil and gas extraction and development projects.


    Last year, Canada's auditor-general criticized the federal government for failing to provide information on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...g7_a_23473843/
    And this

    The federal Liberal government plans to spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and all of Kinder Morgan Canada's core assets.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=cana...hrome&ie=UTF-8
    It's true in the first case that it's not just the government handing over a bag marked with $ but it's still a financial windfall. Just like the city is subsidizing the Oilers through the CRL for the new arena. It's not rolling wheelbarrows of cash up to Katz's office but it sure has an effect on the teams's bottom line when they don't have to shell out $600 million on their own.

    These some of the largest current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Canada.


    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Canadian Development Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $1,018 million
    Canadian Exploration Expense Canada Oil and gas companies $148 million
    Crown Royalty Reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1,161 million
    Deep Drilling Credit British Columbia Gas companies $271 million
    Atlantic Investment Tax Credit** Canada Oil and gas companies $127 million
    Other subsidies Federal and provincial Oil and gas companies $589 million
    Total $3,314 million

    https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-c...uel-subsidies/
    you do realize that net - i.e. after - all of those subsidies and grants and depreciation and losses etc. the oil and gas industry paid more than $17 billion dollars in taxes and royalties in canada in 2014 (the last year i can readily find a consolidated number for). and that in doing so, the industry directly employed more than 440,000 canadians who all paid income taxes etc. the industry also directly and indirectly supported thousands of large and small businesses and their employees, all of whom also paid their share of income and other taxes. maybe you would rather shut down the canadian oil and gas business entirely and we could send yet more billions to saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela etc. for their oil than we do already? and you do realize that the transmountain pipeline provides an estimated 8% per annum return on that purchase don’t you? or did you forget that the revenues as well as the costs accrue to the purchaser?
    Are you suggesting that the various levels of government should subsidize all businesses to the same extent? After all, if it's such a great deal for O&G....

    The hospitality industry in Canada employs 600,000 people across the country and brings in 78 billion. Seems to me we could get a bigger bang for our buck investing in that if you're looking for impact on the economy.

    Retail employs more people that O&G. I guess we need to start offering subsidies to everything from Amazon down to Mom & Pop.

    You want to increase employment in Canada? Start refining more here. China doesn't want our bitumen. They want oil. They're willing to take the bitumen because they can then refine it there and create jobs for their people. But sure, let's subsidize them while they do. Same with the Americans.
    you do realize that the vast majority of the 600,000 people working in the hospitality industry are working in one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in the economy from a tax perspective don’t you?

    most of them work for businesses qualifying for small business tax exemptions and preferred tax rates and government loans from bdc etc. many of them work in government owned facilities like convention centres or at tourist destinations whose customers use publicly funded infrastructure to get there.

    the oil and gas sector would probably salivate at being offered the kinds of subsidies the hospitality sector gets. maybe you should be calling for the hospitality sector to be taxed at the same levels as the oil and gas sector?
    Heavens to betsy, I didn't realize that the O&G sector wasn't allowed to use publicly funded infrastructure. I 'm guessing then that the highways 63 twinning was actually done by the companies in Ft. McMurray. Or that the government didn't lift a finger to save them from the wildfires. Or that all the executives aren't allowed to fly out of YYC & YEG & YMM.

    Time to stop the subsidies to the hospitality industry. Let's start by selling off the national parks. Bet we could sell them for drilling and mining. Bet people would be lining up to view the pristine tailings ponds and flocks of dead, oil soaked birds.

    Let's bring back "Clean, beautiful coal."

    You learn something new every day.

  88. #488
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    ^

    who said any of those things?

    or are you just arguing on line with voices in your head?

    again.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-12-2018 at 02:09 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  89. #489

    Default

    Yup, the big oil companies are suffering so bad. Let's up their subsidies.

    Don’t worry about Canada’s big oil companies, they’re doing just fine: report

    Lead author Ian Hussey said Suncor, CNRL, Cenovus, Imperial and Husky have remained “incredibly profitable corporations,” banking and paying out to shareholders $13.5 billion last year.

    “As highly integrated multinationals — all with significant assets in the U.S. — they’ve been able to shift their operations in response to market conditions to ensure they remain profitable despite the issues that have been dominating the headlines in recent months.”

    The report analyzed the five oil sands corporations, which produce 80 per cent of Canada’s bitumen. A number of statistics have been released in report, based on the 2009-2017 boom, bust and consolidation commodity cycle:


    The five companies paid $31.76 billion in dividends to shareholders over the period, including $12.56 billion since the oil price crash in 2014
    In 2017, the Big Five transferred a total of $6.2 billion to shareholders ($4.16 billion in dividends and $2.04 billion in share buybacks) and had residual savings of $7.3 billion, while paying out $4.72 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government


    The aggregate gross profit of the companies in 2017 was $46.6 billion, which was close to the Alberta government’s revenue of $47.3 billion

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4643295/c...rofits-report/
    But let's help them pay for infrastructure needed for the businesses. Much like we should have paid to help construct WEM or the Ice district. Oh wait, we did do that last one, didn't we?

  90. #490

    Default

    On WEM don’t forget the ATB issues.

  91. #491

    Default

    Yeah, that sure worked out well, didn't it?

  92. #492
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    There are an estimated 200,000 workers out right now. This is what we are worried about, us, not the multinationals profits. The Alberta economy is hurting badly. You are obviously not involved in O&G whatsoever.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 17-12-2018 at 12:51 AM.

  93. #493

    Default

    OK, imagine we've got companies that only cut down trees and we've also got companies that cut trees but also have sawmills as well as furniture manufacturers.

    Now, there's a global glut of logs. However, the companies with the sawmills are doing well. The furniture division is doing well also.

    Maybe, just maybe, we've got too many lumberjacks and not enough mill workers and carpenters.

    But, instead, let's look at ways to cut down more trees. That'll solve the problem.

    Now, replace trees with bitumen, sawmills with upgraders and furniture manufacturing with refineries.

    The American refineries that can process it are doing well with the bitumen, making more off each barrel than Alberta does. How about we do more of that here and let them decide what to do.

    As long as we're exporting bitumen, we'll always be on the bottom of the price scale. Why? Because it requires additional processing as opposed to WTI. So when the prices drop, the bitumen drops along with it and we get even less.

    But let's keep doing the same thing we've been doing since the Klein era and just blame everyone but ourselves for a problem of our own making.

    Many of the jobs lost are gone for good or have become unrecognizable post-recession, as the industry cuts costs and relies more on automation.


    "Trades have changed so much over the years as far as the technological requirements," Haines said.


    "It's not the trades of 10, 15 or 20 years ago where it was all just on the tools and everything was done by feel. There is so much technology involved."

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ties-1.4637015
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 17-12-2018 at 01:15 AM.

  94. #494

    Default

    kkozoriz, your analogy is bang on. This was the same rational thinking behind Peter Lougheed's plans to diversify the economy because rather than selling a $20 barrel of oil, it was better to upgrade it to a product that sells for $200 a barrel; keeping an extra $180 in the province.

    A few years back I heard that PC back benchers in the Alison Redford/PC government, state that "we better sell the oil as quickly as possible because in 5 or 10 years, hydrogen will replace oil and oil will be worthless".

    That Alberta has been subverted from Peter Lougheed's goals and subsequent leaders have allowed multinationals to export raw product and keep Alberta as 'Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water' is a discrace and has directly resulted in our current state.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #495
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    It’s happening but very slowly. In the mean time we still need to sell dilbit. There are upgraders that have been built and some planned. It should be moving faster put it’s very expensive.

  96. #496

    Default

    Canadian clan faces oil pipelines injunction
    Excerpt:

    “Violations of law

    Pushing pipelines through on sovereign territory without free, prior and informed consent violates both Canadian law and international law. The Wet´sewet´en, along with the Gitxsan, were plaintiffs in the ground-breaking Deglamuukw-Gisday'wa court case, which recognized that Wet’suwet’en rights and title have never been extinguished across 22,000 km2 of northern British Columbia.

    This aboriginal title includes the right to use, manage, and possess land, and to decide how the land will be used. With the 1997 Delgamuukw-Gisday'wa case, the Gitxsan and Wetsuwet’en demanded recognition of their unextinguished jurisdiction over the land based on the fact that they had never signed any land treaties with the governments of Canada and therefore that they had never ceded title to their traditional territories.”



    https://theecologist.org/2018/dec/06...nes-injunction






    .

  97. #497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    kkozoriz, your analogy is bang on. This was the same rational thinking behind Peter Lougheed's plans to diversify the economy because rather than selling a $20 barrel of oil, it was better to upgrade it to a product that sells for $200 a barrel; keeping an extra $180 in the province.

    A few years back I heard that PC back benchers in the Alison Redford/PC government, state that "we better sell the oil as quickly as possible because in 5 or 10 years, hydrogen will replace oil and oil will be worthless".

    That Alberta has been subverted from Peter Lougheed's goals and subsequent leaders have allowed multinationals to export raw product and keep Alberta as 'Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water' is a discrace and has directly resulted in our current state.
    There also the vertically integrated oil companies - that regularly do well despite oil price volatility. The industry itself has several successful models, so we need to seriously consider the possibility that such diversification may not be as profitable at times as a concentration of our economy on our “comparative advantage” but that the sometimes lower returns that diversification creates, provides greater long term profitability and wealth creation and sustainability in the province. (It’s anti-free trade, anti-world oil price, ant-free market ideologies but it protects our downside risk.)

  98. #498
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954

    Default

    ^^So when the indigenous pipeline group apply for a line to prince rupert it will be hard for Trudeau to stop it

  99. #499

    Default

    You mean the pipeline that supported by the First Nations groups as opposed to the one that the companies just paid lip service to consulting?

  100. #500
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,954
    Last edited by Drumbones; 22-12-2018 at 04:52 AM.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •