The_Squid Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Why? The coastline doesn't belong to the people of BC, it belongs to the people of Canada. Every people in Canada should have equal benefit and say in what happens to it. That's funny. People in Ontario don't have to deal with the environmental risks of a pipeline going through BC, nor with the oil tankers shipping it away to China. And the Albertans would be the first to scream bloody murder if there was some sort of National Energy Program. After all, like the coasts of BC, that oil belongs to Canada. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Don't forget more C02 and fuelling the growth of a rapacious super-power who will one day invade our Arctic, or so we're told, usually by the same suspects who can't wait to do business with them. Exactly whose side are these people on anyway? How is having China grow economically bad? The entire world will benefit from the additional technological spillover effects that come from china once they develop. Quote
eyeball Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 And the Albertans would be the first to scream bloody murder if there was some sort of National Energy Program. After all, like the coasts of BC, that oil belongs to Canada. Can you imagine how Albertan's would feel if Ottawa treated their oil the way Ottawa treats BC's salmon? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 How is having China grow economically bad? The threat they pose to the Arctic. The reason we need to spend hand over fist for warships, fighter-jets and militarizing. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Pipelines can survive earthquakes. They can also be repaired. Why build 'em where you know they will likely be broken. ? Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) And the Albertans would be the first to scream bloody murder if there was some sort of National Energy Program. After all, like the coasts of BC, that oil belongs to Canada. There is a national energy program, it's called federal transfer payments. That's funny. People in Ontario don't have to deal with the environmental risks of a pipeline going through BC, nor with the oil tankers shipping it away to China. The in Ontario have to deal with the risks of a crappier economy and less tax revenue from oil. That affects them in realtime just like BC is affected by enviro risks. If BC said nobody else can use their pipeline, but also refused to accept the benefits of any other provinces, that would be a fair position. But of course they don't, they want everything that your province brings, without having to sacrifice anything themselves. They want it both ways. They want your tax money to support their services AND they want you to share the costs of less revenue. Edited June 18, 2014 by hitops Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 To all the eco-extremists, I ask you this: When looking at the CO2 footprint of difference sources of oil, do you take into consideration the CO2 footprint of terrorism that is funded directly or indirectly from buying middle-eastern oil? What was the CO2 footprint of the Iraq war? perfect! This fits well with the previous Harper Conservative message that labeled those against pipelines as "terrorists... enemies of the state"! And the fact that Trudeau said this: "Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau also said the pipeline “will not be built” if he becomes the next prime minister. Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-gov-t-approves-northern-gateway-pipeline-1.1873279#ixzz34xmjG8uI" Makes me very concerned; the idea that he liberal leader would without question reject a project that is so clearly to the net benefit of the nation is concerning. It almost makes me tempted to vote for Harper, as much I despise him, especially his foreign policy. no worries... he's also pro-east pipeline and pro-kxl pipeline... has he still got your vote then? Quote
The_Squid Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 There is a national energy program, it's called federal transfer payments. Nope. So that oil belongs to Canada, correct? Not Alberta. The hypocrisy is astonishing.... Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) And here I go harking back again, but what ever hapenned to the idea of, if we need another pipeline, why not point it east? That way we can stop recieving shipments of crude into NB from Saudi, and not have to send a pipe through an earthquake zone. Let's see when was the last one, oh yeah, yesterday. Canadian oil for Canadian people. Makes sense to me. Made sense for Venezuelans and Iranians too, that's why they already do that right now. How are things going for them? Edited June 18, 2014 by hitops Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Made sense for Venezuelans and Iranians too, that's why they already do that right now. How are things going for them? in relation to the post you quoted this reply to... this, your post, makes no sense. Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Nope. So that oil belongs to Canada, correct? Not Alberta. The hypocrisy is astonishing.... Ummmm....yes. Who do you think always has to donate to everyone else, for decades? The situation in BC is exactly like Russia cutting off oil to Ukraine. BC wants to cut off port access to Canada, which is needs to export goods beneficial to all Canadians. Difference is that we are not talking about two countries, just provinces within one country, which makes it particularly absurd. Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 in relation to the post you quoted this reply to... this, your post, makes no sense. Both those countries embarked on plans to keep the benefits of their oil for their own people. As a result, they charge nearly nothing for gas compared to what every other country pays. The result? Losses of potential trade revenue beyond comprehension, and dirt cheap gas. The net effect? - shite economies. Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 If BC said nobody else can use their pipeline, but also refused to accept the benefits of any other provinces, that would be a fair position. But of course they don't, they want everything that your province brings, without having to sacrifice anything themselves. They want it both ways. They want your tax money to support their services AND they want you to share the costs of less revenue. huh! I thought one of the five conditions Premier Clark put out was that should the province of BC sanction the pipeline (and accompanying tanker use/route from and to Kitimat, BC would need to share in Alberta royalties since BC was shouldering all the risk. Is that your "wanting it both ways"? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Ummmm....yes. Who do you think always has to donate to everyone else, for decades? The situation in BC is exactly like Russia cutting off oil to Ukraine. BC wants to cut off port access to Canada, which is needs to export goods beneficial to all Canadians. Difference is that we are not talking about two countries, just provinces within one country, which makes it particularly absurd. Yeah I don't think anybody is cutting off any port access. Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Both those countries embarked on plans to keep the benefits of their oil for their own people. As a result, they charge nearly nothing for gas compared to what every other country pays. The result? Losses of potential trade revenue beyond comprehension, and dirt cheap gas. The net effect? - shite economies. like I said, what's this got to do with an eastern pipeline intended for existing eastern refineries, with a secondary focus of eliminating eastern provinces reliance on oil imports... with a principal focus on oil exports? Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 huh! I thought one of the five conditions Premier Clark put out was that should the province of BC sanction the pipeline (and accompanying tanker use/route from and to Kitimat, BC would need to share in Alberta royalties since BC was shouldering all the risk. Is that your "wanting it both ways"? By sanction I'm assuming you mean allow? Of you mean tax in some way? Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Yeah I don't think anybody is cutting off any port access. Ummm ya they are, they are saying they will stop the pipelines and tankers coming into port. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Ummm ya they are, they are saying they will stop the pipelines and tankers coming into port. No they are not. They are limiting the types of things that can be transported through those ports. There's a difference. In any case, ports are federal. Kinda like "air" ports. Edited June 18, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) No they are not. They are limiting the types of things that can be transported through those ports. There's a difference. In any case, ports are federal. Kinda like "air" ports. Limiting is a synonym for stopping. Whatever they are limiting - that's the thing they are stopping. You can split hairs all you like, they are holding the rest of Canada hostage to satisfy their own needs. NIMBYism at it's worst. Edited June 18, 2014 by hitops Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 By sanction I'm assuming you mean allow? Of you mean tax in some way? the current BC government (Christie Clark) condition (one of five) that has to be met before BC would consider supporting the Northern Gateway project: British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers when former Alberta Premier Redford met with Clark this condition was indirectly addressed with Redford categorically excluding any consideration of sharing Alberta's royalties with the province of BC..... but, of course, governments (and personnel) change. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Limiting is a synonym for stopping. Whatever they are limiting - that's the thing they are stopping. You can split hairs all you like, they are holding the rest of Canada hostage to satisfy their own needs. NIMBYism at it's worst. Well if all the tenets you have are only the opposite of NIMBYism then,,,,you're allowing yourself to be led by the nose. Quote
waldo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Limiting is a synonym for stopping. Whatever they are limiting - that's the thing they are stopping. You can split hairs all you like, they are holding the rest of Canada hostage to satisfy their own needs. NIMBYism at it's worst. those that forever so liberally throw out that NIMBY label, never have/take on the perspective of their target. Again, the province of BC carries the disproportionate amount of risk and, accordingly, has a most vested interest in, as you say, "their own needs". Edited June 18, 2014 by waldo Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Can you imagine how Albertan's would feel if Ottawa treated their oil the way Ottawa treats BC's salmon? You mean treat the oil industry as a common good and regulate harvesting of it in order to prevent underpopulation? Yeah that wouldn't make sense since oil isn't a common good.... The threat they pose to the Arctic. The reason we need to spend hand over fist for warships, fighter-jets and militarizing. I face-palmed so many times reading this. What threat to they pose to the Arctic? They have zero territorial claim to the Arctic. Are you referring to Russia? Also how are we spending hand over fist on military? We barely spend over 1% on military which is low compared to most other countries (not that we should spend that much). Nor do we really have a need to spend much on military. We are probably one of the few countries in the world that could get away with having 0 military. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 perfect! This fits well with the previous Harper Conservative message that labeled those against pipelines as "terrorists... enemies of the state"! You mean the terrorists that Harper funded such as the ISIS? How are they not terrorists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_Syria no worries... he's also pro-east pipeline and pro-kxl pipeline... has he still got your vote then? He never had my vote, nor does he have it now. Still more tempting to spoil my ballot. I am also surprised that you managed to write 1 post in coherent English rather than Waldo-speak. Congrats. Quote
hitops Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 those that forever so liberally throw out that NIMBY label, never have/take on the perspective of their target. Again, the province of BC carries the disproportionate amount of risk and, accordingly, has a most vested interest in, as you say, "their own needs". Which is exactly balanced by the fact that they disproportionately benefit when the ROC foots the bill for reduced revenues. BC is a gorgeous place, that's a natural benefit they have. The natural drawback is that they are the only way to leave the country westward. If the ROC should pay for their disadvantage being on the coast, the obvious conclusion is that they should also pay the ROC for their advantages. After all....we would all love coastline wouldn't we? If we have to pay for them to enjoy it the way they see fit, then they would pay us for the loss of oil revenue as a result. Only fair right? Quote
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.