Northern Gateway a must?

[msj]

I can think of 8 billion reasons why. Is 8 billion dollars better than zero dollars.

At $260 million per year for 30 years?

The cost of the clean ups, when they happen (not if), will likely exceed that.

And, as usual, it will be the BC taxpayer to foot the bill.

No thanks.

If Enbridge could come to some kind of deal where money could be put away into trust to be used for the inevitable clean ups, or some other kind of method to ensure that the risk is borne by the users, then I could probably live with $8 billion over 30 years.

But now we're negotiating and that's no fun on a forum.

[Argus]

We import crude oil, the refineries are already there. If we are selling oil at a steep discount to the Americans, why don't we use it ourselves at somewhere closer to the price we are already paying for foreign oil? It's a win win for Canada. Instead you want to build pipelines west to supply other markets and keep us dependent on foreign oil just so oil companies can maximize their profits. That is what all this is really about.

And don't you think there will be the same screams if we lay additional pipeline through Mannitoba and Ontario down to where the refineries are in southern Ontario? Not to mention through Quebec to their refineries around Montreal... It always made more sense, and still does, to bring in oil from the east coast because that is closer. The pipelines are already in place. They would have to lay a lot more pipeline to get oil to the Montreal area than to the BC coast.

Still, there is an effort underway to reverse an existing pipeline which was originally designed to carry oil west. That will be helpful, but it won't solve the problem.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

At $260 million per year for 30 years?

The cost of the clean ups, when they happen (not if), will likely exceed that.

Maybe, maybe not. Kinder Morgan has had its pipeline running to Vancouver for 60 years and hasn't spilled more than a few dozen liters. And the deal can be written to make Enbridge fully responsible for the cost of any cleanup.

[msj]

Maybe, maybe not. Kinder Morgan has had its pipeline running to Vancouver for 60 years and hasn't spilled more than a few dozen liters. And the deal can be written to make Enbridge fully responsible for the cost of any cleanup.

I would expect the deal to make Enbridge (and not some subsidary company) full responsible for the cost of the clean up.

But I would prefer to see some dollars to back that up.

Oh, and Enbridge has a Keystone Kops record when it comes to pipelines so I don't see the point of comparing them to anything else but their own awful record.

[blueblood]

At $260 million per year for 30 years?

The cost of the clean ups, when they happen (not if), will likely exceed that.

And, as usual, it will be the BC taxpayer to foot the bill.

No thanks.

If Enbridge could come to some kind of deal where money could be put away into trust to be used for the inevitable clean ups, or some other kind of method to ensure that the risk is borne by the users, then I could probably live with $8 billion over 30 years.

But now we're negotiating and that's no fun on a forum.

That's probably what's going to end up happening. Enbridge will have to pony something up. However with the bp spill, they managed to get that sorted out in pretty short order, I think there were a lot of innovations that took place with that oil spill. Not only that, shell is starting to drill off alaska.

[eyeball]

Oil is what is holding our economy up in this downturn, why not facilitate production of what we're good at.

Because we can't seem to produce it without screwing up several of our ecosystems and environment - prime fundamentals that actually underwrite our economy's existence and social well being. As far as the 1 - 2 billion people you're talking about serving...wtf are we doing fuelling the economic growth of the biggest most resource rapacious dictatorship on the planet?

Edited August 4, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

A relevant commentary in the Globe today on the southern route.

The precautions used at Vancouver seem to make it extremely unlikely there would be an oil spill from the tankers. Ie, three tugs have to be hooked up to each tanker by steel lines, and there have to be 2 pilots aboard. The ship has to be new, double hulled, and inspected and approved beforehand.

Trans Mountain Route

I think I could live with expanding oil exports via BC using this route given the apparent safety record of Kinder-Morgan, the marine safeguards being employed around Vancouver and that most if not all oil shipped this way will end up in California. I rather like the idea of selling oil to a fellow democratic people in our own region with as serious an attitude towards maintaining environmental integrity as...well...most of us.

As for maintaining democratic integrity...shipping oil to China thereby fuelling the growth of the biggest dictatorship on the planet seems bat-shit crazy not to mention as flippy-floppy as it gets considering how infused with conservative values our governance is supposed to be now.

Edited August 4, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

6.7 billion over 30 years or 8.2% of the tax revenue generated by this thing. Peanuts when you consider we get 100% of the environmental risk of both the pipeline and tankers operating in constricted areas on one of the most dangerous coasts in the world..

Well, we don't hear BC talking about the money! Nobody is talking about negotiating a higher rate for BC. All we hear is that they don't want the pipeline and that they don't believe it could ever be safe from leaks, no matter what safeguards are in place.

Period and end of story.

Doesn't matter. As I said, BC has always had excellent fiscal managers for governments. I'm sure not just you but most in that province are perfectly happy with their tax level and wouldn't mind paying more, if necessary.

Must be nice not to need the money. We here in Ontario are not so lucky.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Wild Bill

[The_Squid]

The environmental disaster waiting to happen does not make this pipeline worthwhile at all. Even if it could be "cleaned up", the area affected would be a disaster. We don't need that through some of the most pristine areas in the province.

Plus, the remoteness and topography of the area would make access extremely difficult in the case of a spill, which is even more reason that this project is a non-starter for many BC'ers, regardless of the money/jobs involved.

Tanker traffic and the remoteness, weather issues, etc of the coastline is another negative.

BC'ers certainly have different priorities than the rest of the country.

Wild Bill's red herrings about fiscal management are just silly attempted barbs. Don't worry about BC's fiscal capacity. We've done pretty well.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill's red herrings about fiscal management are just silly attempted barbs. Don't worry about BC's fiscal capacity. We've done pretty well.

Agreed! You've done better than Ontario. We are now a have-not province. It took some effort to get on the list but with our present premier, we managed!

I wonder if putting a pipeline north and over across the top of BC is an option. The Yukon would surely like the money. Maybe some native reserves along the way as well.

Or maybe hook into an Alaskan pipeline and give the money that was earmarked for BC to Uncle Sam. After all, if BC didn't want it then why not?

[Wilber]

Must be nice not to need the money. We here in Ontario are not so lucky.

It's not about needing money but what you are prepared to sell in order to get it.

[Wild Bill]

It's not about needing money but what you are prepared to sell in order to get it.

True. However, this case is not so clear. Just what would you have to sell? Is the danger real or exaggerated by some who despise the use of hydrocarbons anyway and think we can switch over to wind and solar by next weekend?

IOW, are we dealing with rational people or eco-fanatics? Or perhaps the pipeline company is lying?

My problem is that BOTH sides have a bad history with the truth to me!

[Wilber]

True. However, this case is not so clear. Just what would you have to sell? Is the danger real or exaggerated by some who despise the use of hydrocarbons anyway and think we can switch over to wind and solar by next weekend?

IOW, are we dealing with rational people or eco-fanatics? Or perhaps the pipeline company is lying?

My problem is that BOTH sides have a bad history with the truth to me!

In this case I think those who despise hydrocarbons are a minority of those opposed. Most are just really concerned about environmental damage. Among other things, it is worth remembering that the tanker traffic from both of these pipelines will pass within spitting distance of the mouths of the two biggest salmon producing rivers in the western Pacific, the Skeena and Fraser. Salmon are at the core of the coastal ecosystem, If they are effected, so is just about every other species on the coast.

[msj]

Well, we don't hear BC talking about the money! Nobody is talking about negotiating a higher rate for BC. All we hear is that they don't want the pipeline and that they don't believe it could ever be safe from leaks, no matter what safeguards are in place.

Period and end of story.

Premier Clark raised negotiating a higher rate among other points of negotiation but that is going nowhere.

She's a lame duck Premier anyway, so no wonder everyone is ignoring her.

Doesn't matter. As I said, BC has always had excellent fiscal managers for governments. I'm sure not just you but most in that province are perfectly happy with their tax level and wouldn't mind paying more, if necessary.

Must be nice not to need the money. We here in Ontario are not so lucky.

Since you didn't know about Clark trying to raise the ante in negotiations I think you can check your sarcasm at the door.

This issue is more complicated than simply needing money and relying on good fiscal managers (for which BC hasn't had any in decades).

There are many legal issues to deal with and many political land mines.

If eastern Canadians (and that includes Albertans) think that you are going to force a pipeline on us for a pittance while ignoring the environmental concerns then you have seriously misjudged how quickly BC'ers can turn.

We can switch from sending 21 CPC to Ottawa to sending 30+ NDP MP's as early as 2015.

This is why I think the Provincial NDP would be crazy to continue with their aggressive anti-pipeline stance should they win next May.

By keeping this issue alive they could help bring in a minority federal NDP government in 2015.

It's bad enough that BC will have to live with the NDP for four years.

Are you willing to have them run Canada over a pipeline?

[msj]

I wonder if putting a pipeline north and over across the top of BC is an option. The Yukon would surely like the money. Maybe some native reserves along the way as well.

Or maybe hook into an Alaskan pipeline and give the money that was earmarked for BC to Uncle Sam. After all, if BC didn't want it then why not?

The product going through this pipeline makes it so that it can't just hook into any other pipeline.

This is bitumen product which has some pretty hefty demands for pipeline construction.

But, go ahead. By pass BC. I can live with that if the people of the Yukon are crazy enough to trust a company with an abysmal record like Enbridges' then just do it.

Who needs proper compensation for taking on such risks anyway.

[Argus]

If eastern Canadians (and that includes Albertans) think that you are going to force a pipeline on us for a pittance while ignoring the environmental concerns then you have seriously misjudged how quickly BC'ers can turn.

You don't represent British Columbians. You represent a virulently anti conservative extreme left. And while there are a goodly number of them, all of them currently vote against the tories anyway. Tory supporters are generally more middle class, middle of the road people who aren't as likely to run around shrieking and flapping their arms at the thought of natural resource extraction. They realize that their economy, just like everyone else's runs on oil and gas.

The risks of the pipeline are real, but still wildly exaggerated. And the best way to ameliorate the risks is to make the pipeline company entirely responsible for any and all damages costs, as well as paying large fines. Self-interest will do most of the rest.

[Wilber]

You don't represent British Columbians. You represent a virulently anti conservative extreme left. And while there are a goodly number of them, all of them currently vote against the tories anyway. Tory supporters are generally more middle class, middle of the road people who aren't as likely to run around shrieking and flapping their arms at the thought of natural resource extraction. They realize that their economy, just like everyone else's runs on oil and gas.

The risks of the pipeline are real, but still wildly exaggerated. And the best way to ameliorate the risks is to make the pipeline company entirely responsible for any and all damages costs, as well as paying large fines. Self-interest will do most of the rest.

Never been and NDP supporter but I think there is a lot to what msj says. I think many in the ROC are quite mistaken about the atmosphere in BC when it comes to this pipeline. They should start listening instead of trying to blow them off as a bunch of left wing extremists. That will just piss them off even more.

[Argus]

Never been and NDP supporter but I think there is a lot to what msj says. I think many in the ROC are quite mistaken about the atmosphere in BC when it comes to this pipeline. They should start listening instead of trying to blow them off as a bunch of left wing extremists. That will just piss them off even more.

Most of them ARE left wing extremists. The rest are mostly mistaken by exaggerated headlines and don't really know anything about safety problems or dangers of pipelines (minimal generally). A pipeline is going through. That's really all there is to it. There is too much money involved to stop it. Instead of laying down in the road and getting run over you guys should instead be making sure that all necessary safeguards are taken to ensure that the odds of a serious spill are as small as possible and that you aren't the ones responsible for cleaning up anything. The example of how Vancouver requires strict regulation of tankers, for example, is certainly one to use. It's hard to imagine how a tanker could have any kind of serious spill given those kinds of regulations (2 pilots, 3 tugboats, new tankers, inspections, only allowed to move in calm water in daylight).

[msj]

You don't represent British Columbians. You represent a virulently anti conservative extreme left.

As a former card carrying BC Liberal this makes me laugh.

Oh, and when I say BC Liberals that means they are like the conservatives on fiscal matters (well, they are a little bit smarter than Harper/Flaherty who are fiscal midgets but that's details and off topic).

So, no, I'm by no means an extremist. Either right nor left.

In fact, I am really just parroting Norman Spectors' argument for the CPC to tread carefully.

He, of course, worked for the PC's back in Mulroney's days so I'm sure this makes him a pinko commie to you.

And while there are a goodly number of them, all of them currently vote against the tories anyway. Tory supporters are generally more middle class, middle of the road people who aren't as likely to run around shrieking and flapping their arms at the thought of natural resource extraction. They realize that their economy, just like everyone else's runs on oil and gas.

I vote against the CPC (but you don't know how much of an idiot our local CPC MP is).

But at least I don't vote for the local NDP candidate.

And if the CPC were to push me to hold my nose and vote NDP I'm sure that their are thousands more like me.

You know dick all about BC'ers and if the CPC want to try and push this pipeline down our throats without better terms then they are playing with fire.

I'm willing to accept it on better terms but those need to be negotiated before I can say if I like the deal or not.

The risks of the pipeline are real, but still wildly exaggerated. And the best way to ameliorate the risks is to make the pipeline company entirely responsible for any and all damages costs, as well as paying large fines. Self-interest will do most of the rest.

Sure, that's fine.

Which is pretty much what I have been arguing for: lots of regulation, make Enbridge, rather than some subsidiary, fully responsible, and pay a fair rent.

As to how to deal with the First Nations on this - well, good luck.

That's the legal landmine(s) and just that could delay this pipeline for decades.

If Enbridge wants this pipeline they better stock the chequebook with plenty of cheques because First Nations, just like the rest of us BC'ers, are going to be asking for what we think is a fair rent.

Edited August 5, 2012 by msj

[eyeball]

BC has always had excellent fiscal managers for governments. I'm sure not just you but most in that province are perfectly happy with their tax level and wouldn't mind paying more, if necessary.

Must be nice not to need the money. We here in Ontario are not so lucky.

I think what you're overlooking is BC's underground pot industry without which BC would also be a have-not province.

You've got hydro in Ontario too so I fail to see why you shouldn't also be so lucky. Maybe it's something about people's attitudes on the coast; you need to be a little more self-sufficient or resistance seems a little less futile so far away from Ottawa, I just don't know.

[Wilber]

Most of them ARE left wing extremists. The rest are mostly mistaken by exaggerated headlines and don't really know anything about safety problems or dangers of pipelines (minimal generally). A pipeline is going through. That's really all there is to it. There is too much money involved to stop it. Instead of laying down in the road and getting run over you guys should instead be making sure that all necessary safeguards are taken to ensure that the odds of a serious spill are as small as possible and that you aren't the ones responsible for cleaning up anything. The example of how Vancouver requires strict regulation of tankers, for example, is certainly one to use. It's hard to imagine how a tanker could have any kind of serious spill given those kinds of regulations (2 pilots, 3 tugboats, new tankers, inspections, only allowed to move in calm water in daylight).

Those regulations are for the Port of Vancouver, not the Straights of Georgia and Juan de Fuca or the

Salish Sea as the PC now call it.

Who will pay is only part of it. If the infrastructure isn't in place to rapidly deal with a spill, no amount of money will be enough. Making it up as we go along just won't cut it. Who is going to pay to build that capability and maintain it in place? Not us, and certainly not for cut we have been offered in this scheme

And why should we have to look after all that stuff, it is not we who want this thing. But have it your way. Hang on to your prejudices and don't listen.

[eyeball]

Never been and NDP supporter but I think there is a lot to what msj says. I think many in the ROC are quite mistaken about the atmosphere in BC when it comes to this pipeline. They should start listening instead of trying to blow them off as a bunch of left wing extremists. That will just piss them off even more.

This is nowhere near a lefties vs the righties issue than it is the governed vs the governments.

But of course there is also the gobsmacking irony that a people who so bitterly opposed being dictated to by Ottawa via the National Energy Program is now so utterly dependant on Ottawa to force the National Energy Strategy on the rest of us.

I guess eastern bastards are like energy programs/strategies once you've seen/felt the effect of one you've probably experienced them all.

Edited August 5, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

Who will pay is only part of it. If the infrastructure isn't in place to rapidly deal with a spill, no amount of money will be enough. Making it up as we go along just won't cut it. Who is going to pay to build that capability and maintain it in place? Not us, and certainly not for cut we have been offered in this scheme

The company and Alberta and/or the feds are already expecting to cover all of these costs. All BC needs to do is provide oversight to ensure it meets their needs. Everyone involved in this debate wants to address legitimate environmental concerns. The problem are the arrogant activists who think they are entitled to reject all pipelines.

[eyeball]

The company and Alberta and/or the feds are already expecting to cover all of these costs. All BC needs to do is provide oversight to ensure it meets their needs. Everyone involved in this debate wants to address legitimate environmental concerns. The problem are the arrogant activists who think they are entitled to reject all pipelines.

What if we can't agree on a definition for the term legitimate environmental concern and thereby reject the NG until such time as we do? Am I to believe you or Alberta are not going to demand Ottawa do something to force us to accept a definition that doesn't meet our needs?

[TimG]

What if we can't agree on a definition for the term legitimate environmental concern and thereby reject the NG until such time as we do?

At this point I think NG should be rejected and in favor of the Vancouver route. The oil just has to get to the coast. It does not really matter which pipe is used.