B.C Premier

[Wilber]

Why would anyone want to spend billions on pipeline when there are more cost effect ways to sell the oil.

The Enbrige pipeline is being built for free?

Risk can be minimized. If the worst happens Alberta and the companies involved should be 100% responsible for any clean up. Free flow of goods is a principal of confederation. Why should Alberta allow trucks carrying BC wood and farm products to cross Alberta. After all, BC gets all the benefit and Alberta takes all of the risk.

I haven't heard anything about Alberta and the companies volunteering to be 100% responsible. How could you make it binding even if they did? Enbridges insurance wasn't enough to cover their last big spill.

How could you possibly compare a major oil spill in one of the most rugged and ecologically diverse ecosystems in North America with a truck accident on a highway? It's like comparing a natural gas pipeline to an oil pipeline. A gas pipeline brakes and maybe you have a fire. Turn the tap off and the fire stops. At worst it starts a forest fire but we have those all the time.

[eyeball]

...

Edited August 4, 2012 by eyeball

[westguy]

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

yes - pipelines are Federal jurisdiction. But on a more pragmatic reasoning, does Clark's position not open the door to Alberta and the other provinces to demand a share of revenues from BC's lumber and off-shore imports before those are let thru the other provinces? Given the number of existing pipelines that are currently in BC, it is obvious that Clark is playing politics altho the latest poll numbers prove it is not working to her adavantage. Lastly, if anyone should ensure the irsk is covered, should it not be the energy companies?

[westguy]

If there was a competitive advantage to do that then it would have already happened. You seem to think that this would change if the government just 'did something'.

Responsible governments would never turn away a source of employment but I am not aware of any special impediments that have prevented the development of an Alberta manufacturing sector to date. It does not exist because it is not economically viable and governments cannot change that.

access to markets would be one

[Wilber]

yes - pipelines are Federal jurisdiction. But on a more pragmatic reasoning, does Clark's position not open the door to Alberta and the other provinces to demand a share of revenues from BC's lumber and off-shore imports before those are let thru the other provinces? Given the number of existing pipelines that are currently in BC, it is obvious that Clark is playing politics altho the latest poll numbers prove it is not working to her adavantage. Lastly, if anyone should ensure the irsk is covered, should it not be the energy companies?

Well how many oil pipelines are there in BC and where are they? There are only two. One comes from the Peace and the other from Edmonton and they meet at Kamloops to become one. It then runs to Vancouver with a branch that goes to the US from Abbotsford.

With regard to risk being covered by the energy companies. Even if they could be held legally responsible, if a spill costs 20 billion to clean up and the company is only worth 15 billion, the point is mute. Enbridge's track record regarding pipelines in much less demanding terrain is not encouraging and they were under insured for their last spill. As one wag asked the other day, if Enbridge built and maintained airplanes would you ride on one? The answer in BC would be a overwhelming no. In fact, because they have been bit so badly by Enbridge incompetence, the US government has gone much farther to force them to clean up their act than either the Alberta or Canadian governments. At this point I have no faith in either one.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Wilber

[TimG]

Enbridge's track record regarding pipelines in much less demanding terrain is not encouraging and they were under insured for their last spill.

Enbridge has certainly made it next to impossible to defend them as the operator of the northern pipeline. But as I have said: the oil can be routed through Vancouver where oil tankers are already plying the waters safely.

There comes a point when the need to allow free transport of goods in this country means that BC is going to have to find a way to allow at least one pipeline expansion. If BC refuses to try and find a way Alberta should ban all commercial truck traffic from BC.

Edited August 4, 2012 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

Enbridge has certainly made it next to impossible to defend them as the operator of the northern pipeline. But as I have said: the oil can be routed through Vancouver where oil tankers are already plying the waters safely.

Not in anywhere near the size and volume that would be required by the gateway pipeline. I doubt Vancouverites would sit still for it

There comes a point when the need to allow free transport of goods in this country means that BC is going to have to find a way to allow at least one pipeline expansion. If BC refuses to try and find a way Alberta should ban all commercial truck traffic from BC.

Good luck with that. I would bet most truck traffic leaving BC is bound for Alberat, since longer distances would be more economical by train.

BC can't refuse the pipeline. They can and should insist on very high safety measures both for the pile for the tanker traffic. That would quite likely make the project uneconomical. If Alberta wants to retaliate and insist on very high safety measures for truck traffic on its highways, well good on them. Save some lives that way.

[TimG]

Not in anywhere near the size and volume that would be required by the gateway pipeline. I doubt Vancouverites would sit still for it

There comes a time when legitimate concerns turn into stupid pigheadedness.

I would bet most truck traffic leaving BC is bound for Alberat, since longer distances would be more economical by train.

Then Alberta should ban train traffic too (Alberta has the power to shutdown BC ports which depend on those rail links). Whatever it takes to make the point that BC has a obligation to let goods flow.

They can and should insist on very high safety measures both for the pile for the tanker traffic. That would quite likely make the project uneconomical.

Unlikely. Hundreds of tankers already travel the waters without incident. There are no justifiable safety standards that could make the project uneconomical. Unjustifiable safety standards are the same as a ban and Alberta should respond by blocking traffic from BC. Edited August 4, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

There comes a time when legitimate concerns turn into stupid pigheadedness.

Pig headedness cuts both ways. A good proportion of it is not coming from BC. We're building this pipeline where we want it, how we want it and you will get what we offer you is hardly conciliatory.

Then Alberta should ban train traffic too (Alberta has the power to shutdown BC ports which depend on those rail links). Whatever it takes to make the point that BC has a obligation to let goods flow.

They would also be cutting themselves and the rest of Canada off from the port. The port transports goods both ways, a pipeline only one but that doesn't seem to be sinking in.

[TimG]

Pig headedness cuts both ways. A good proportion of it is not coming from BC. We're building this pipeline where we want it, how we want it and you will get what we offer you is hardly conciliatory.

I said above BC needs to find a route that makes sense for BC. If the northern route makes no sense then there are alternatives. It becomes pigheadedness if BC refuses to find any route.

Part of the problem are BC politicians who lack the imagination to resolve this issue. On one had we have the "bribe me and we will accept" on the other we have "no pipelines anywhere". A BC politician who stood and and said no to the northern route but made it clear that other routes could be acceptable would effectively kill the northern route.

They would also be cutting themselves and the rest of Canada off from the port.

Trade wars always hurt both sides. But the issue at hand are people in BC who think they are entitled to reject all pipelines. If putting BC ports out of business is what it takes to send the message that goods have to flow then that is what it will have to be. Edited August 5, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

Part of the problem are BC politicians who lack the imagination to resolve this issue. On one had we have the "bribe me and we will accept" on the other we have "no pipelines anywhere". A BC politician who stood and and said no to the northern route but made it clear that other routes could be acceptable would effectively kill the northern route.

Too bad that question wasn't asked before Alberta and the federal government decided to ram this pipeline through. They might have got a better reception. One has to ask what might have happened if they tried this bullshit on Quebec.

Trade wars always hurt both sides. But the issue at hand are people in BC who think they are entitled to reject all pipelines. If putting BC ports out of business is what it takes to send the message that goods have to flow then that is what it will have to be.

Whether we are rejecting all pipelines is something that hasn't been established yet but the attitude of Alberta and the feds is making it more likely. Vancouver is Canada's biggest port, hard to say who would be damaged the most by what you are proposing.

[TimG]

Too bad that question wasn't asked before Alberta and the federal government decided to ram this pipeline through.

Who 'ramming through' anything? There is an environmental review ongoing. The only requirement that the government has imposed is that it can't drag on indefinitely. A perfectly reasonable requirement. Even then we don't know what the feds will do if there is significant opposition in BC. The 'ramming through' meme is nothing but propaganda created by opponents of the pipeline.

Whether we are rejecting all pipelines is something that hasn't been established yet but the attitude of Alberta and the feds is making it more likely.

No. The Feds and Alberta are making it clear that the pipeline is very important which they are entitled to do. If you choose to take their opinion as a 'bad attitude' then the problem is entirely you - not the people you blame.

And yes - shutting down Canada's major west coast port would cause havok for the entire country even through many goods can still be shipped through the US (i.e. in the long term the loss of BC ports would hurt BC more than the rest of the country). But if that is the only way to make it clear that it is BC's interest to facitate the flow of goods then that is an option that will need to be explored.

It much more sense for people in BC to figure out where the pipe needs to go and then facilitate the development of that option.

[Wilber]

And yes - shutting down Canada's major west coast port would cause havok for the entire country even through many goods can still be shipped through the US (i.e. in the long term the loss of BC ports would hurt BC more than the rest of the country). But if that is the only way to make it clear that it is BC's interest to facitate the flow of goods then that is an option that will need to be explored.

You are of course assuming that the ROC would be willing to endure such an inconvenience and expense in support of something that Alberta is the prime beneficiary.

It much more sense for people in BC to figure out where the pipe needs to go and then facilitate the development of that option.

That may well be the final result of this exercise but make no mistake, whatever route is finally chosen it will be a bad deal for BC which will shoulder all of the environmental risk and that will cost the Conservatives in this province. First Nations, well that is another kettle of fish. Enjoy.

[TimG]

First Nations, well that is another kettle of fish. Enjoy.

The natives have no legal power to stop the pipeline because it falls under the category of infrastructure. But it is really naive to hope that they do. Right now the thought of natives being able to stop something that you don't want may sound good now but in the long term it would be really bad for the country to give a tiny minority the ability to block major projects. Edited August 5, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

The natives have no legal power to stop the pipeline because it falls under the category of infrastructure. But it is really naive to hope that they do. Right now the thought of natives being able to stop something that you don't want may sound good now but in the long term it would be really bad for the country to give a tiny minority the ability to block major projects.

The courts have already ruled that natives must be consulted in a meaningfull manner. Whether they could stop I don't know but they could delay it for a very long time

[TimG]

The courts have already ruled that natives must be consulted in a meaningfull manner.

Yes the courts have passed stupid rulings that only ensure that nothing is resolved unless the court rules on it again. But they will have little credible arguments against expanding an existing pipeline and that may help speed up the process.

[Wilber]

Yes the courts have passed stupid rulings that only ensure that nothing is resolved unless the court rules on it again. But they will have little credible arguments against expanding an existing pipeline and that may help speed up the process.

That remains to be seen.