B.C Premier

[eyeball]

We still need pipes to get the refined product to market.

We could also bring fuel intensive industries to the fuel.

[TimG]

We could also bring fuel intensive industries to the fuel.

Not unless you can magically create a competitive advantage that does not exist today. History is littered with the husks of failed businesses created by government fiat.

[eyeball]

Not unless you can magically create a competitive advantage that does not exist today. History is littered with the husks of failed businesses created by government fiat.

What fiat? You mean to say the ability to build your manufacturing plant on top of some sort of bitumen burner that was on top of a pile of bitumen would require an act of government magic to confer a competitive advantage?

Surely Alberta would not say no to having a manufacturing sector develop around it's tar sands or create a bunch of weird impediments to this sort of investment.

[Newfoundlander]

It's BC's duty to look after its own environment. Alberta and the Federal government sure as hell aren't going to.

But is that what Christy Clark actually cares about? The BC government should obviously make sure that the environment is respected, that the best materials are used to prevent oil spills, and that if an oil spill does occur that they are not responsible for any of the clean up and that if they must get involved that they are fully compensated for it. However, saying to Alberta that we want a share of the royalties isn't making the pipeline anymore environmentally friendly.

[Wilber]

But is that what Christy Clark actually cares about? The BC government should obviously make sure that the environment is respected, that the best materials are used to prevent oil spills, and that if an oil spill does occur that they are not responsible for any of the clean up and that if they must get involved that they are fully compensated for it. However, saying to Alberta that we want a share of the royalties isn't making the pipeline anymore environmentally friendly.

Does she indeed. I agree, but if it is not possible to properly deal with a major bitumen spill, this project needs to be DOA. Period. Forget anything else.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Wilber

[TimG]

What fiat? You mean to say the ability to build your manufacturing plant on top of some sort of bitumen burner that was on top of a pile of bitumen would require an act of government magic to confer a competitive advantage?

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'.

Surely Alberta would not say no to having a manufacturing sector develop around it's tar sands or create a bunch of weird impediments to this sort of investment.

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. Edited July 30, 2012 by TimG

[Newfoundlander]

Does she indeed. I agree, but if it is not possible to properly deal with a major bitumen spill, this project needs to be DOA. Period. Forget anything else.

That's not what she's saying though, I don't believe.

[Wilber]

That's not what she's saying though, I don't believe.

No it's not. I don't think she reflects the feelings of most British Columbians.

[sparkyb]

No it's not. I don't think she reflects the feelings of most British Columbians.

lol I don't think God knows what feelings she's reflecting. That woman and what ever game she's playing is doing more harm then good for everybody.

[eyeball]

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'.

Actually I was thinking this might change if people 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.

Again, who cares what governments think? I'd expect the market to adapt to what's viable if and when oil producers decided that addressing the risks and environmental costs (that are identified as the result of people doing something) of shipping bitumen was so great as to make piping/shipping it unprofitable.

At the end of the day manufacturers will still need energy.

[TimG]

Actually I was thinking this might change if people did something.

They are trying to maximize the value of Albertas resources by building infrastructure that allows for competing customers. This is "doing something". But it is clearly not what you want so you want the government to step in and "do something".

I'd expect the market to adapt to what's viable if and when oil producers decided that addressing the risks and environmental costs (that are identified as the result of people doing something) of shipping bitumen was so great as to make piping/shipping it unprofitable.

The fact is the "costs" of environment damages are largely fictions plucked out of the air to satisfy an ideological agenda. For that reason there never will be a free market that takes into account such costs. The only costs which the market can take into account are real costs.

[eyeball]

They are trying to maximize the value of Albertas resources by building infrastructure that allows for competing customers. This is "doing something". But it is clearly not what you want so you want the government to step in and "do something".

So you're telling me you don't want the government to step in and "do something" that permits what you want?

The fact is the "costs" of environment damages are largely fictions plucked out of the air to satisfy an ideological agenda. For that reason there never will be a free market that takes into account such costs. The only costs which the market can take into account are real costs.

No it can't. The market can barely perceive the environment exists never mind account for the natural capital it provides our economy. A natural diverse ecosystem can function just fine for eons without a human economy but you cannot expect a human economy to function very well for very long without the natural diverse ecosystems that underwrite it. To believe otherwise is pretty much like trying to ignore the law of gravity. Good luck with that.

[TimG]

So you're telling me you don't want the government to step in and "do something" that permits what you want?

I expect the government to get out of the way. i.e. do nothing. You are the one demanding that government "do something".

A natural diverse ecosystem can function just fine for eons without a human economy but you cannot expect a human economy to function very well for very long without the natural diverse ecosystems that underwrite it.

What I said is attempts to put a price on this ecosystem are largely an ideological fiction so don't waste your time demanding that "companies pay the full price for their activities". It is simply not possible to do.

The only thing that can be done is to put in rules that balance the need for economic activity and the desire to minimize harms to the ecosystem. Putting rules in place that effectively outlaw an activity is not balanced.

[westguy]

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.

someone should point thaty out to Clark

[westguy]

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...

but shouldn't that come from the energy industry?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The fact is the "costs" of environment damages are largely fictions plucked out of the air to satisfy an ideological agenda. For that reason there never will be a free market that takes into account such costs. The only costs which the market can take into account are real costs.

Like the health effects of oil spills and poisoned water supplies...

[TimG]

Like the health effects of oil spills and poisoned water supplies...

Well you can't know the cost of the "health effects" until there is an actual spill and even then the connection between the oil spill and the "health effects" are driven more by lawyers with a desire to cash in than by any credible science. Edited August 3, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

I expect the government to get out of the way. i.e. do nothing. You are the one demanding that government "do something".

What I said is attempts to put a price on this ecosystem are largely an ideological fiction so don't waste your time demanding that "companies pay the full price for their activities". It is simply not possible to do.

The only thing that can be done is to put in rules that balance the need for economic activity and the desire to minimize harms to the ecosystem. Putting rules in place that effectively outlaw an activity is not balanced.

Have you ever been to where this proposd pipeline is supposed to run? Of course you haven't because much of it you can't get to. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[madmax]

They are trying to maximize the value of Albertas resources by building infrastructure that allows for competing customers. This is "doing something". But it is clearly not what you want so you want the government to step in and "do something".

Sounds like the Oil corps are looking more for a free ride in BC.

The fact is the "costs" of environment damages are largely fictions plucked out of the air to satisfy an ideological agenda. For that reason there never will be a free market that takes into account such costs. The only costs which the market can take into account are real costs.

Its called INSURANCE.

But I would need Guyser to set me straight.

[TimG]

Have you ever been to where this proposd pipeline is supposed to run? Of course you haven't because much of it you can't get to. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I have always felt expanding the line to Vancouver makes the most sense, however, the same BANANA attitude that is behind the opposition to the Northern Gateway will likely reappear when that expansion is reviewed.

What I do know is people are really bad a risk assessment and frequently obsess about tiny risks when someone else has to pay the cost of their anxiety while completely ignoring much larger risks when they are the ones that have to pay the cost of mitigating them.

[TimG]

Its called INSURANCE.

You misunderstand the context of my statement. I was responding to someone that seemed to thing that it is possible to make companies pay the true cost for the environmental degradation that comes with industrial activity. This is different from buying insurance to cover the costs of a clean up after an accident. The cost of insurance is a function of the likelyhood of a accident and the costs of similar prior cleanups. The costs of "environmental degradation" that is not connected to specific incidents are largely ideological fictions.

[Wilber]

I have always felt expanding the line to Vancouver makes the most sense, however, the same BANANA attitude that is behind the opposition to the Northern Gateway will likely reappear when that expansion is reviewed.

What I do know is people are really bad a risk assessment and frequently obsess about tiny risks when someone else has to pay the cost of their anxiety while completely ignoring much larger risks when they are the ones that have to pay the cost of mitigating them.

This whole thing makes no sense. We wind up with tankers operating on both coasts while we import more than 20 billion worth of oil per year. This is not about benefiting Canada.

[TimG]

This whole thing makes no sense. We wind up with tankers operating on both coasts while we import more than 20 billion worth of oil per year. This is not about benefiting Canada.

We import oil because it is cheaper to import the oil than to trying ship the oil to Ontario. Paying more for oil than we have to makes zero economic sense - same with selling oil for less than the world price simply because the customers are Canadian.

[Wilber]

We import oil because it is cheaper to import the oil than to trying ship the oil to Ontario. Paying more for oil than we have to makes zero economic sense - same with selling oil for less than the world price simply because the customers are Canadian.

Except the oil we import is not cheaper than domestic oil. The only reason we import it is because we have no way of delivering domestic oil to eastern Canada.

If this is just about squeezing the last penny out of a barrel of Canadian oil for Alberta's benefit, why should BC have to make all the accommodations and take all the risks in order to do so?

[TimG]

Except the oil we import is not cheaper than domestic oil. The only reason we import it is because we have no way of delivering domestic oil to eastern Canada.

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

If this is just about squeezing the last penny out of a barrel of Canadian oil for Alberta's benefit, why should BC have to make all the accommodations and take all the risks in order to do so?

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. Edited August 4, 2012 by TimG