Premiers want to make Canada economic powerhouse except B.C. & Quebec withholding approval of pipeline

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'm not shitting on BC, but responding to herbie the love bug...and the BC government in response to Alberta's inquiries...they are not interested in pipelines at this time, and yet they are building one themselves across the province...it makes no sense. I mean the entire idea here is to create a projects that will make "Canada"more prosperous...to create a energy corridor across the nation...how do you do that with out more pipelines...BC needs more pipelines or they would not be building one themselfs, so why not another bringing Alberta's oil and gas to market as well, is it just because it is Alberta....what about Sask could they build it? 

Just the asian market alone is a huge market for natural gas let alone other oil products why would we cut our noses off despite our faces...

As for the East i take it you mean Quebec...well i think that is coming,Alberta wants pipelines going into churchill first, i personally think this is a waste of time , but it will open a northern port which we need....Quebec has already a taste for natural gas pipelines, and it seems that a majority of Quebecer's want it to...But they are in the same boat as BC, it may come down to driving oil pipelines through Quebec as a condition to get their natural Gas pipeline...right now the quickest project would be drive a line through BC. what BC gets is good paying jobs, and investments made to BC...  

Big  difference between a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline when it comes to possible environmental damage. Same goes for an oil tanker spill vs a LNG carrier venting NG into the atmosphere. I approved of TMX because it follows an existing right of way that is easily accessible and been in use since the 50's. Any tanker spills are also easily accessed and in waterways that already have a large amount of tanker traffic. Northern Gateway is a completely different animal. Not only is the terrain a lot more challenging, the weather is a lot worse. Right now they are looking at increasing Transmountain capacity by dredging Vancouver harbour and Burrard Inlet to allow larger tankers. BC is taking a shit load of Alberta oil to tidewater and the east coast is taking SFA. The environmental risks of taking a pipeline east are far lower than ramming them through the northern Rockies to be tankered through fjords that rival Norway's. Churchill might be one option if climate change can make it ice free enough. 

BC gets very little once the lines are completed. 

Edited Saturday at 03:28 AM by Aristides

[Aristides]

The TMX goes through my town, not far from me. There were no demonstrations or vandalism during its construction. I also noticed that a lot of the construction workers had trucks with Alberta plates, which made sense.

Edited Saturday at 03:31 AM by Aristides

[herbie]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

BC is already building pipelines across their own province...and don't sit there and tell me all those native lands that were crossed those people were not compensated for their troubles...

Do you understand the difference between oil and gas? One is a goopy liquid and one is a gas. No difficult and expensive cleanup. And you can't get what you want from some people by waving money in their face.
Native people know the difference and have bought into many of these as they own and control some, they're thinking long term benefit nor cash right now then p1ss off.

Thousands of BOATS use the inside Passage, not ships. Cruise ships, ferries, the odd lumber carrier and the rest are private boats, yachts and tugs with barges, Not even hundreds of ships. The route seaward is anything but easy. A ferry right there off Kitimat a few years ago and others over the years, it is nothing like a busy shipping route. Those are north at Prince Rupert and South at Vancouver, the main ports.

Oil is already going through Juan De Fuca, risking the Fraser River salmon run, and BC's not about to put the Skeena run under threat as well.
SO use some logic, corporate $$ pulled out of TMX and it took $34 billion of out tax dollars to complete and the same challenges exist for any new one no matter how much you wish it was different now just cuz some belligerent cow in Alberta demands it.

 

[PIK]

But B.C has no problem doubling cruise ships which are the scourge of the seas.

[herbie]

7 hours ago, PIK said:

But B.C has no problem doubling cruise ships which are the scourge of the seas.

Because you can't afford to go on one makes that a valid criticism of oil tankers?

[PIK]

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

Because you can't afford to go on one makes that a valid criticism of oil tankers?

 I live on the water and own a camp in the madawaska highlands. Why would I want to go on one. But back to cruiseships, their disgusting and dirty.

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, PIK said:

 I live on the water and own a camp in the madawaska highlands. Why would I want to go on one. But back to cruiseships, their disgusting and dirty.

Nature emits far more CO2 gas into the atmosphere than mankind.  Look at all the forest fires burning.  Each one is emitting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.  There  are at least 100 fires burning in CAnada.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over CO2 emissions.  CO2 is a normal part of the environment contrary to what radical environmentalists say.   There is no "climate emergency".  That is all nonsense.

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

Big  difference between a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline when it comes to possible environmental damage. Same goes for an oil tanker spill vs a LNG carrier venting NG into the atmosphere. I approved of TMX because it follows an existing right of way that is easily accessible and been in use since the 50's. Any tanker spills are also easily accessed and in waterways that already have a large amount of tanker traffic. Northern Gateway is a completely different animal. Not only is the terrain a lot more challenging, the weather is a lot worse. Right now they are looking at increasing Transmountain capacity by dredging Vancouver harbour and Burrard Inlet to allow larger tankers. BC is taking a shit load of Alberta oil to tidewater and the east coast is taking SFA. The environmental risks of taking a pipeline east are far lower than ramming them through the northern Rockies to be tankered through fjords that rival Norway's. Churchill might be one option if climate change can make it ice free enough. 

BC gets very little once the lines are completed. 

I think both of you guys are missing the point here, the whole premise of creating a energy corridor, coast to coast is to increase the amount of resources we get to market...which means more money generated by Canada making us as a nation more prosperous, giving us more funding to fund other projects in Canada. pipelines and refineries, and all the construction creates good paying jobs...

As for the east pipelines will be going to churchill first, and i'm sure a Natural gas pipeline will be driven through to Quebec in due time... 

BC has those good paying jobs at the refineries, docks, etc...plus lets remember a good portion of your processed fuels are coming in via pipelines...

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Do you understand the difference between oil and gas? One is a goopy liquid and one is a gas. No difficult and expensive cleanup. And you can't get what you want from some people by waving money in their face.
Native people know the difference and have bought into many of these as they own and control some, they're thinking long term benefit nor cash right now then p1ss off.

Thousands of BOATS use the inside Passage, not ships. Cruise ships, ferries, the odd lumber carrier and the rest are private boats, yachts and tugs with barges, Not even hundreds of ships. The route seaward is anything but easy. A ferry right there off Kitimat a few years ago and others over the years, it is nothing like a busy shipping route. Those are north at Prince Rupert and South at Vancouver, the main ports.

Oil is already going through Juan De Fuca, risking the Fraser River salmon run, and BC's not about to put the Skeena run under threat as well.
SO use some logic, corporate $$ pulled out of TMX and it took $34 billion of out tax dollars to complete and the same challenges exist for any new one no matter how much you wish it was different now just cuz some belligerent cow in Alberta demands it.

 

Yes you can look at trans mountain...Feds pass money around by the buckets....you see anyone still protesting...Most of the provinces new projects are already have large Native ownership , because that is what it takes now.

ya, more fish stories....there are millions of reasons your salmon stocks are not recovering...pipelines may be a threat but hardly the cause of your fish decline...tackle the main causes then you can complain about salmon and pipelines......

cooperate pulled out of TMX because BC's protester's drove them out...feds bought everyone out now everyone is fat and happy....

energy corridor from coast to coast, thats the main objective of all the provinces...don't want to play ball don't... fold your tent up and go home....liberals are not forcing anyone to do anything...so the corridor stops at the BC border...thanks for coming out..

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes you can look at trans mountain...Feds pass money around by the buckets....you see anyone still protesting...Most of the provinces new projects are already have large Native ownership , because that is what it takes now.

ya, more fish stories....there are millions of reasons your salmon stocks are not recovering...pipelines may be a threat but hardly the cause of your fish decline...tackle the main causes then you can complain about salmon and pipelines......

cooperate pulled out of TMX because BC's protester's drove them out...feds bought everyone out now everyone is fat and happy....

energy corridor from coast to coast, thats the main objective of all the provinces...don't want to play ball don't... fold your tent up and go home....liberals are not forcing anyone to do anything...so the corridor stops at the BC border...thanks for coming out..

Get back to us when there is any kind of pipeline to the east coast. Gas or oil.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

the whole premise of creating a energy corridor, coast to coast is to increase the amount of resources we get to market

Okay, we have one end of that corridor on the west coast now - the one TMX follows. Time to build the section that goes your way.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Get back to us when there is any kind of pipeline to the east coast. Gas or oil.

My sister converted her house in Truro to propane because "gas was coming' and that meant just a nozzle change.
That was twelve years ago....

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, Aristides said:

Get back to us when there is any kind of pipeline to the east coast. Gas or oil.

I would love to see the east coast get a pipeline...but the easiest project to complete at this time is another pipeline to tide water on the west coast...and all you have right now is excuses, to hold up this energy corridor....or pointing fingers at other provinces...according to the media it represents 50 bil a year profits for the nation....

To be honest this dream of a energy corridor is a mission impossible, Canadians don't want  to cooperate to build....most of the premiers do support it, but for the citizens they are still asking what is in it for me.....it's to bad it is one liberal plan/ project that made sense, it would be a great first step in uniting the country for all Canadians...not just a few select provinces...and instead of spending tax dollars on needless liberal projects this is something for all Canadians...

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I would love to see the east coast get a pipeline...but the easiest project to complete at this time is another pipeline to tide water on the west coast...and all you have right now is excuses, to hold up this energy corridor....or pointing fingers at other provinces...according to the media it represents 50 bil a year profits for the nation....

To be honest this dream of a energy corridor is a mission impossible, Canadians don't want  to cooperate to build....most of the premiers do support it, but for the citizens they are still asking what is in it for me.....it's to bad it is one liberal plan/ project that made sense, it would be a great first step in uniting the country for all Canadians...not just a few select provinces...and instead of spending tax dollars on needless liberal projects this is something for all Canadians...

We have an effing pipeline that gets almost a million barrels a day to tidewater. Maybe the RoC should stop preaching while doing SFA.

[Army Guy]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We have an effing pipeline that gets almost a million barrels a day to tidewater. Maybe the RoC should stop preaching while doing SFA.

The goal was to reach 2.5 million barrels a day...or 55 bil a year more in national revenue....The energy corridor is still in the planning phases with all provinces contributing something...to that idea...So ya the idea is that the ROC will be doing something....You make it sound like BC does not benefit in any way from increasing our national revenue...what is the point of this entire project if one province is going to veto another provinces projects...no wonder we can't get anything done in this country, everyone has their own agenda...

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I would love to see the east coast get a pipeline...but the easiest project to complete at this time is another pipeline to tide water on the west coast...and all you have right now is excuses, to hold up this energy corridor....or pointing fingers at other provinces...according to the media it represents 50 bil a year profits for the nation....

To be honest this dream of a energy corridor is a mission impossible, Canadians don't want  to cooperate to build....most of the premiers do support it, but for the citizens they are still asking what is in it for me.....it's to bad it is one liberal plan/ project that made sense, it would be a great first step in uniting the country for all Canadians...not just a few select provinces...and instead of spending tax dollars on needless liberal projects this is something for all Canadians...

If Canada comes apart and some or all of it gets absorbed into the U.S., it will be because of this.  If we can’t get “national projects of significance” done that will make us wealthy and strong, we shouldn’t be a country.  Let the provinces do their own thing or let Washington ignore the sucks in B.C. and Quebec, because let’s face it, it’s the leftist self-proclaimed victims among the natives and in Quebec and B.C. holding Canada back economically.  I’m sure the U.S. doesn’t want to deal with their nonsense either.  Washington should support Canada’s sovereignty just to save money on clean-up and management.

Interestingly, Alberta can’t be as independent as Ontario, B.C. or Quebec because they don’t have seacoast.  They need interprovincial/interstate infrastructure.  Even Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces have that important trade advantage.  

[Aristides]

I'm not saying these projects can't or shouldn't get done. What I am saying is that one province shouldn't have to accept almost all the environmental risk of these projects for almost no reward. That doesn't mean it should be impossible to make deals.

If Alberta is getting the lion's share of revenue, they should at least accept the lion's share of correcting any environmental damage that results from it.

[herbie]

53 minutes ago, Aristides said:

one province shouldn't have to accept almost all the environmental risk of these projects for almost no reward

👍

Somebody GETS it.

And notice how no one at all sees that the whole conversation is on exporting gas and oil. Not a bloody peep about using those Cdn resources for our own people. Zero about Irving refining Alberta oil instead of Saudi.

Chop dat wood! Dig dat coal! Simply can't evolve past that mentality.

[Nationalist]

On 6/2/2025 at 1:30 PM, herbie said:

There ARE pipelines all over BC liar. Alberta can already triple oil exports through TMX. No one's opposing connecting to or expanding existing LNG pipes.
We rejected Northern Gateway oil, get over it. BC is not obligated to risk the Inside Passage for zero benefit out of 'obligation to' or demands from Danielle Smith and the oil companies.
So f^ck off with your BS claims that either you or I would gain anything and maybe demand that Danielle STFU and get to negotiating other routes. The people say, not the oil barons.

Marvelous. Alberta should separate from jack-asses like you and send all oil south.

[PIK]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

👍

Somebody GETS it.

And notice how no one at all sees that the whole conversation is on exporting gas and oil. Not a bloody peep about using those Cdn resources for our own people. Zero about Irving refining Alberta oil instead of Saudi.

Chop dat wood! Dig dat coal! Simply can't evolve past that mentality.

B.C loves their coal.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

👍

Somebody GETS it.

And notice how no one at all sees that the whole conversation is on exporting gas and oil. Not a bloody peep about using those Cdn resources for our own people. Zero about Irving refining Alberta oil instead of Saudi.

Chop dat wood! Dig dat coal! Simply can't evolve past that mentality.

Thats where the revenue is, selling stuff to other countries...Natural gas pipeline to Quebec is about both using natural gas in quebec/ Atlantic and selling it to Europe...Shit most of your (BC) refined oil and gas comes from Alberta via pipeline....wtf are going on about...Here in the east we would love a pipeline from the west, but thats not in the cards today is it...

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats where the revenue is, selling stuff to other countries...Natural gas pipeline to Quebec is about both using natural gas in quebec/ Atlantic and selling it to Europe...Shit most of your (BC) refined oil and gas comes from Alberta via pipeline....wtf are going on about...Here in the east we would love a pipeline from the west, but thats not in the cards today is it...

We used to have 4 refineries on the lower mainland but now we have one. The decision to concentrate refining in Alberta and Washington was made by the oil companies, not government.

Now Parkland wants to sell out to Sunoco. Oil companies do nothing for BC.

Edited yesterday at 01:43 AM by Aristides

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We used to have 4 refineries on the lower mainland but now we have one. The decision to concentrate refining in Alberta and Washington was made by the oil companies, not government.

Now Parkland wants to sell out to Sunoco. Oil companies do nothing for BC.

Nothing except give good paying jobs, provide taxable wages and profits, where do you think the feds get their money from....and i have to ask where did all the money come from for natural gas refineries...that BC is building  pipelines for...maybe that should be one of BC projects for the energy corridor, building a new refinery....

And where does BC get their refined oil and gas from ...i thought it was piped in...from alberta...so they do stuff for BC...right...

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Nothing except give good paying jobs, provide taxable wages and profits, where do you think the feds get their money from....and i have to ask where did all the money come from for natural gas refineries...that BC is building  pipelines for...maybe that should be one of BC projects for the energy corridor, building a new refinery....

And where does BC get their refined oil and gas from ...i thought it was piped in...from alberta...so they do stuff for BC...right...

Not for BC. All those jobs are in Alberta and Washington State. BC is building pipelines to sell BC gas. Who is going to build an oil refinery? They cost between 5 and 15 billion USD depending on their size. Do you think oil companies are going to spend billions on more refineries to glut the market and get less for their product. Why do you think they closed refineries in the first place?

Edited yesterday at 02:04 AM by Aristides

[blackbird]

On 6/6/2025 at 9:35 PM, herbie said:

Oil is already going through Juan De Fuca, risking the Fraser River salmon run, and BC's not about to put the Skeena run under threat as well.

Nonsense.  You have become an environmental fanatic.

There is no big threat from another oil pipeline.  If there is the rare spill, it can be cleaned up.  It is unlikely to affect a salmon run.  A terminal in Prince Rupert is in the open ocean, not in the Skeena River.  If a pipeline terminal is built in Kitimat, that is a saltwater inlet and not connected to the Skeena River.   I don't think there is any threat to salmon runs from the TMX pipeline terminal in Burnaby or a future terminal if built at Prince Rupert or Kitimat. 

The B.C. coast is huge and the distances are huge.  So a spill would likely be in a very small area and not affect the huge areas through the B.C. coast.  The B.C. coast is made up of many islands and the area from the open Pacific to the inner coast from the southern border to the Alaska panhandle is probably thousands of square kilometers.  So even if there was a spill somewhere in that vast area, it would be a drop in the bucket.  That means it would be unlikely to affect any salmon runs.

The Canadian coast guard also uses marine traffic control now to control freighters and oil tankers moving in and out of the seaports which further reduces the possibility of an accident.

"Marine traffic control in Prince Rupert and Kitimat uses shore-based radar¹²³. The radar provides extensive coverage from the Prince Rupert Harbour and approaches, past the Triple Island Pilot Station to the west¹. The system aims to improve vessel visibility and monitoring³."

Edited yesterday at 03:23 AM by blackbird