Topaz Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Christy Clark, premier of B.C. wants certain conditions with the oil companies and Alberta but the one condition of profit-sharing with Alberta is a no go for premier of Alberta. Clark wants money because they are taking the risk of having the pipeline rupture down the road and it will. I think Clark is right because the natural environment will be damage once the break happens. Your thoughts? Also, does the federal government have the the right to overruled Clark? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/b-c-premier-christy-clark-stance-northern-gateway-195614131.html Edited July 27, 2012 by Topaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Don't worry about it, the pipeline is dead. Between the Natives and the NDP govt in 2013 this thing ain't going nowhere. BC takes the risk but gets a pittance of the profits - not gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Clark is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Clark is just the worst type of political figure. She is why we should have an election whenever a leader has to step down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Clark is dumb. clark is trying to save her political skin but taking a stand on issue that the NDP has already taken the lead on won't do her any good...at best she'll only avoid complete annihilation in the next election... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Yup, pretty much. Most BC residents seem to despise the very idea of pipelines, supertankers and hydraulic fracturing. Especially at the behest of our Chinese masters. But, since the Pine beetle ate most of the trees.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Christy Clark's strategy is foolish. It makes no sense. First, BC should not be begging from Alberta for a cut. If BC wants a cut, simply charge a toll/tax to the company for every barrel of tar sands oil that is pumped through that pipeline. Secondly, don't count on natives to scrap the pipeline. They can be bought with a promise of a cut of profits of their own. We have seen that happen before. One example is the proposed open-pit copper mine on Catface Mountain located right in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere. Natives have horrendous poverty on their reserves and they are occasionally willing to sell off their priciples for cash. It will take public pressure on the Provincial government for them to take a stand on the pipeline and still the Feds could ram it through regardless of what the Provincial government or the people of BC think. Edited July 27, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAlbertan Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Christy Clark, premier of B.C. wants certain conditions with the oil companies and Alberta but the one condition of profit-sharing with Alberta is a no go for premier of Alberta. Clark wants money because they are taking the risk of having the pipeline rupture down the road and it will. I think Clark is right because the natural environment will be damage once the break happens. Your thoughts? Also, does the federal government have the the right to overruled Clark? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/b-c-premier-christy-clark-stance-northern-gateway-195614131.html I won't comment on Clark or the politics behind it all as even if none of this were going on, she is a lame duck on the road flapping her wings in panic. However, it is my belief that as this is an interprovincial pipeline it falls under federal juristiction via the National Energy Board and they will need to find other ways to shoot it down rather than just saying "we aren't signing on". http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/whwrndrgvrnnc/rrspnsblt-eng.html http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/whwrndrgvrnnc/pplnpwrlnndtknw-eng.html Edited July 27, 2012 by BornAlbertan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Christy Clark is also a reason why having a big push to sign up new members to a political party is not always a great thing. Clark won because if her "celebrity status", despite MLAs knowing she wouldn't be any good and probably most long time leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 However, it is my belief that as this is an interprovincial pipeline it falls under federal juristiction via the National Energy Board and they will need to find other ways to shoot it down rather than just saying "we aren't signing on".there are many ways to delay it, enough delays can slow it down enough to kill it or long just long enough to reach the next federal election where a new NDP government could kill it completely...and Harper isn't going to ram it through against BC wishes it could likely end his regimes rule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) If BC wants a cut, simply charge a toll/tax to the company for every barrel of tar sands oil that is pumped through that pipeline.No it can't pipelines are infrastructure that falls under federal jurisdiction. If it went to court BC would likely be told it has no right to usurp federal powers. That said, hell will freeze over before the feds push through a pipeline that is opposed by all parties in BC.Natives have horrendous poverty on their reserves and they are occasionally willing to sell off their priciples for cash.What a condescending statement. Natives want to make a living like the rest of us. They also want to live on the land that is being used so I think it unlikely that any compromise agreed to by natives is bad for the environment. The problem in this debate are the spoiled BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types who don't give a damn about other people as long as their source of income is not affected. Edited July 27, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAlbertan Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 there are many ways to delay it, enough delays can slow it down enough to kill it or long just long enough to reach the next federal election where a new NDP government could kill it completely...and Harper isn't going to ram it through against BC wishes it could likely end his regimes rule... Oh, I agree 100% ...just saying that just because she says "no"....doesn't make it so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAlbertan Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 ...the problem in this debate are the spoiled BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types who don't give a damn about other people as long as their source of income is not affected. That is an overly simplified way of looking at it as there are certain logistics involved too that you are ignoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkyb Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 So the Premier of BC wants to extort cash from Alberta by blocking access to the Pacific Ocean. I wonder if a tax should be put on all transports and rail cars (hauling any dangerous goods)comming from BC. Alberta is after all assuming all the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 So the Premier of BC wants to extort cash from Alberta by blocking access to the Pacific Ocean.So the BC is entitled to set arbitrary "environmental" standards where there is no correlation between the cost and the risk being mitigated but it is not allowed to say 'just give us money? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 So the BC is entitled to set arbitrary "environmental" standards where there is no correlation between the cost and the risk being mitigated but it is not allowed to say 'just give us money? Why? there has to be money involved, the difference between a land spill in alberta and a marine spill BC are no where near the same level...money paid directly to BC as disaster tax or held in trust in case of a catastrophic spill seems fair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) My thoughts today have been that the funds gained should be insured to be set aside from offsetting the potential of damage such as security assets like helicopters, that can have a dual role of forest fire releif, pipeline inspection and surveillance, and peace officers to regularly patrol the pipleine as well as surviellance technologies for the pipeline. Boats for tanker escort in BC waters, and installation inspection. The oil companies can't be trusted to do this stuff right on their own. Oil tankers should also be required to be a bright colourful colour to be scenic. The money should come directly from shares in the company operating the pipleine in bc and some seed funding. But the province should consider "taking control" of the pipeline and charging their fee based on operational costs, as well as port fees which the provinces should also operate the loading facility. This would be a private public joint undertaking by BC and the rest of the pipeline to have the pipeline and port facility owned by the province and for them to control the movement of the hazourdous materials at a rate that insured 0 cost overlay as well as offset environmental loss and loss to reputation tourism, as BC is known for its great environmental rep even if that doesn't represent reality. If they want a pipeline I say give them a pipeline but let BC operate it because they have higher standards for the public well being. This cannot be a payoff that is used for some other purpose. Its not about money to offset spill cleanup costs, its about preventing a spill in the first place. Money doens't remove the environmental damage, BP's gulf spill caused effects and massive ecological damage that will last for decades. The money needs to go to not only response resources that can act immediately, but it needs to be in place before the stuff goes online not after. Personnel need to be trained and equipment put in place. If you want money for the damages you can get that via a lawsuit anyway, its about prevention of damage, health damages, and loss of marine resources, we don't need the BC gulf to be the next lake athabasca. Edited July 28, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I see enbridge has had another pipline leak today/yesterday in the USA...a safe pipeline through sensitive marine environment, sure no problem you can trust enbridge oh ya this pipeline is going to progress quickly ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 No it can't pipelines are infrastructure that falls under federal jurisdiction. If it went to court BC would likely be told it has no right to usurp federal powers. That said, hell will freeze over before the feds push through a pipeline that is opposed by all parties in BC. What a condescending statement. Natives want to make a living like the rest of us. They also want to live on the land that is being used so I think it unlikely that any compromise agreed to by natives is bad for the environment. The problem in this debate are the spoiled BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types who don't give a damn about other people as long as their source of income is not affected. The natives are always willing to sell their opposition to the pipeline for an oil comapny cheque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 The natives are always willing to sell their opposition to the pipeline for an oil comapny cheque. Don't hold your breath. There are literally dozens of bands who must be consulted by law. Each one of them could result in a separate court case. The NDP will most likely form the next government and they are already looking into their legal options. I don't agree with Clark pulling out of the talks on a national energy plan. It makes me think she doesn't have one of her own. She should be pushing for a pipeline to eastern Canada to make the country energy self sufficient instead of importing more than half of what it consumes. That would be a real national energy program. Even she under estimates the opposition to this pipeline in BC. Enbridge adds are regularly booed in movie theaters. There is nothing in this for BC except risk and people know that. Some of this pipeline will probably only be accessible by helicopter. This it is not crude oil that can be skimmed from the surface if it spills into water. Bitumen sinks in fresh water and floats below the surface in salt water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I don't see why we would export bitumen at all. We ought to be doing the value-added part of the process in Canada. As for Christy Clark... she's a lightweight. I had high hopes for her when she became leader, but she's been a complete dud. I think it's painfully obvious that what's going on here is a floundering politician grandstanding for the folks back home. Was walking out of the conference on an interprovincial energy strategy was a move designed to get news headlines, not to advance BC's position among the other provinces. BC has considerable energy interests of its own. Cheesy grandstanding isn't the best way to represent those interests. As British Columbians, do we really want to set a precedent when somebody wants to do a project like this is to try and shake them down? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Kimmy I don't think holding out for a deal that properly reflects your risks and potential costs is shaking someone down. Other than that I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I don't see why we would export bitumen at all. We ought to be doing the value-added part of the process in Canada.We still need pipes to get the refined product to market. No one will build in refineries if they think the pipes are going to hard to build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkyb Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Pipeline or no pipeline.. the real issue is holding not just alberta but the rest of Canada hostage. What's next. Sask. uranium, maybe Ontario's manufatured goods or lumber. Lets not forget retaliation from other provinces. This could get very ugly very quickly. The risk the premier is sighting has some merrit but it can be mitigated. The Oil is going west regardless. There is more of a risk and tougher clean up taking it by rail. Just imagine if a train derailed in some of the areas they travel. All in the name of Politics.... I'd be ashamed to live in BC with their Government acting that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Pipeline or no pipeline.. the real issue is holding not just alberta but the rest of Canada hostage. What's next. Sask. uranium, maybe Ontario's manufatured goods or lumber. Lets not forget retaliation from other provinces. This could get very ugly very quickly. The risk the premier is sighting has some merrit but it can be mitigated. The Oil is going west regardless. There is more of a risk and tougher clean up taking it by rail. Just imagine if a train derailed in some of the areas they travel. All in the name of Politics.... I'd be ashamed to live in BC with their Government acting that way. It's BC's duty to look after its own environment. Alberta and the Federal government sure as hell aren't going to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.