Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[Smallc]

And I expect given the 100% probability of tax revenue, and the less the .01% chance of a spill...

[Derek 2.0]

And I expect given the 100% probability of tax revenue, and the less the .01% chance of a spill...

Exactly……I don’t understand why some want to take away the prospect of tax revenue that will help the children of British Columbia and Alberta……..To say nothing of blue collar workers and their families that will build and maintain Northern Gateway…….With the expected lifespan of ~30 years, Northern Gateway will benefit directly and indirectly British Columbians for several generations.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[jacee]

And I expect given the 100% probability of tax revenue, and the less the .01% chance of a spill...

Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 161,475 barrels (25,672.5 m3) of crude oil into the environment.[12]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge

[Smallc]

Now let's calculate using other transportation methods...and realize that the combined value of those spills is about 10% of the daily flow of NG.

[waldo]

Exactly……I don’t understand why some want to take away the prospect of tax revenue that will help the children of British Columbia and Alberta……..To say nothing of blue collar workers and their families that will build and maintain Northern Gateway…….With the expected lifespan of ~30 years, Northern Gateway will benefit directly and indirectly British Columbians for several generations.

think of the kids, think of the kids! Long term jobs associated with pipelines are minimal, with a short term blip in construction jobs. Oh ya... and, if you're all about jobs, don't forget to think green jobs, hey!

.

[waldo]

I wonder if they are.......with a projected $86 million in direct annual tax revenue for BC and Alberta, I truly wonder if they are actually paying attention to the other sideFor instance, the new acute care center at BC Childrens Hospital will be ~$530 million dollar bill, or could be paid for by tax revenues to the Province from Northern Gateway over 6-7 yearsAnother example, the BCTF has estimated the need for ~$250 million in additional funding to address class size and composition in BC schools, with the Province only able to offer $75 million..Tax revenues from Northern Gateway might not solve all of BCs education or healthcare woes, but would sure go a long way in helping

of course, they're only NG/Enbridge claims but do you think the following meets the BC government condition to receive a "fair share" of the fiscal/economic benefits... in relation to the risk borne by the province/environment/taxpayers:

B.C. can look forward to $1.2 billion in tax revenue, and $9 billion in government revenue over 30 years. Plus 3,000 construction jobs and 560 long-term jobs. Northern B.C. businesses will benefit from over $800 million in goods & services purchased.

in terms of "fair share", care to provide a similar 30 year estimate on corporate revenues? Do you believe BC asking NG/Enbridge directly for a 'royalty share' fits within "fair share"? The Alberta government shut down that royalty sharing "inquiry" from the BC government, big time.

.

[jacee]

Now let's calculate using other transportation methods...and realize that the combined value of those spills is about 10% of the daily flow of NG.

You think people are concerned about lost oil/lost profits!

I don't think people are concerned about that, but about cleanup costs and permanent damage to their local environments.

I watched a W5 program on Enbridge pipelines.

Farmers along the 'Kalamazoo' pipeline found they couldn't grow anything near them and when tested, found contamination of soil by petroleum. Ebridge said they all must have changed the oil in their tractors there.

Enbridge also said they didn't initially notice the surge in leakage because their technicians "thought it was something else". They weren't specific, but it became clear that seepage is considered normal, leaks and spills aren't the only issue: 'Normal seepage' is something they just don't talk about.

.

Edited June 28, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm referring to the reality that rail is far less safe than pipeline, and will be used in the absence of said pipelines.

[jacee]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm referring to the reality that rail is far less safe than pipeline, and will be used in the absence of said pipelines.

I'm saying safety and environmental protections are insufficient regardless.

.

[Smallc]

The amount spilled vs the amount shipped by pipeline is extremely small, and as time goes on, safety and environmental engineering only gets better.

[Wilber]

Not at all. Wherever it's burned it will do environmental damage. However, I think we do have cleaner technology here than say in China so maybe a bit less impact. Also why should we buy it from Saudi when we have our own? That makes absolutr no sense. Unless of course all your concern is the value of your shares in Syncrude.

Bitumen. Good enough to flog to others but not good enough to use ourselves.

[Derek 2.0]

think of the kids, think of the kids! Long term jobs associated with pipelines are minimal, with a short term blip in construction jobs. Oh ya... and, if you're all about jobs, don't forget to think green jobs, hey!

.

Short term and construction jobs are one in the same……With that said, I doubt your skilled trades people would scoff at several years of gainful employment.

As to “Green jobs”, I fail to see how that’s a zero sum proposition. If the private sector can make Green technology profitable, even with the aide of government in terms of tax incentives and loan guarantees etc, and this results in new fields of employment for British Columbians, clearly that to is a net benefit.

[Derek 2.0]

of course, they're only NG/Enbridge claims but do you think the following meets the BC government condition to receive a "fair share" of the fiscal/economic benefits... in relation to the risk borne by the province/environment/taxpayers:

in terms of "fair share", care to provide a similar 30 year estimate on corporate revenues? Do you believe BC asking NG/Enbridge directly for a 'royalty share' fits within "fair share"? The Alberta government shut down that royalty sharing "inquiry" from the BC government, big time.

.

I don’t know of the projected corporate earnings, but its estimated that the project will see a gross gain of 270 billion over 30 years to Canada’s GDP.

[overthere]

Bitumen. Good enough to flog to others but not good enough to use ourselves.

False.

There are presently five bitumen upgraders operating in Alberta: four in Fort Mac and one in Edmonton. There are two more under construction. At the end of 2012, over half the bitumen produced in Alberta went to local upgraders.

There are also four refineries operating at present.

[Wilber]

False.

There are presently five bitumen upgraders operating in Alberta: four in Fort Mac and one in Edmonton. There are two more under construction. At the end of 2012, over half the bitumen produced in Alberta went to local upgraders.

There are also four refineries operating at present.

Then why do I keep hearing these arguments that we can't ahip it east because the refineries can't handle it?