Why will BC not play ball with Canada to create an energy supper power...

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

All the other provinces are on board with a west-to-east pipeline except Quebec. Which is the base for the Liberals, and one they can't afford to lose too many seats to the BQ in.

BC has no problem with exporting its own fossil fuels, including coal, but doesn't feel the need to oblige another province. Well, too bad. They don't have any way to stop it.

Where is the talk from other provinces...that's my point. Maybe there is but I don't hear/read a lot about. I understand the politics but still surprised not more.

Yeah, I see the coal trains often. I'm not an Eby supporter but they have a number of ways to try and block it. I'd be real surprised if push came to shove and he actually did...but this is a hypothetical only, there's no investor/s.  

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

If they discovered oil under their reserves, you better damn well believe they'll be pumping it for all they're worth and building a pipeline right through the sacred habitat of whatever the hell gets in their way.

They didn't support it the first time, and doesn't sound like they support it this time.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

There is no force....you are either on team Canada or not it really is that simple.......all these projects are designed to make Canada an energy super power....SO how does going on national media and saying there will never be a pipeline going through bc....How is that belong as part of the team....No wonder Canada is a shit show right now,  provincial trade to , everyone wants their projects not the others.. And right after BC got two of the five projects for approval.....instead of being happy or grateful this is what eby does...Everyone needs to comply or make sacrifices....in order to enrich the country...not BC or Alberta, the whole country...What is wrong with that...

It's not a team if only one partner benefits and the other is harmed.  

And that's the problem. For better or worse the first nations and eby view this as a horrible risk to bc and the coast, with virtually no benefit. And smith says "too bad now bend over" as a reply, which tells me she does not expect this to go through and that is not her goal. 

"Fighting global warming is a benefit to everyone so alberta has to give up it's oil industry. (we'll find something else for them to do i promise)"  ....  i seem to recall that smith didn't LIKE the 'team canada' message when THAT was the fed's posiiton. 

And i seem to recall she was off side pretty hard at the beginning of the tariff war demanding that oil NEVER be considered in any retaliation plan even if it benefitted canada. 

Sorry  but she doesn't get to sing the "oh canada" tune now and waive the flag.  And her target obviosly isn't the pipeline or 'canada' but carney and stirring up anti canada sentiment. She's already said 'if we don't get this pipeline it's proof canada is broken"

Sorry but her fairy tale is suitable for children at bedtime or if she's trying to be the next disney evil step mom but otherwise iit's all ridiculous.  

What SHOULD happen is removal of the tanker ban and removal of the anti pipeline law and negotiation with the first nations and bc for pipelines with the firm understanding that we're discussing HOW it's going to happen and benefit them, not "IS" it going to and alberta should be out there talking about how they're willinlg to work and not proceed until everyone sees a benefit, and that the concerns of the first nations must be respected. 

NONE of that is happening. This is theatrics. 

[CdnFox]

Oh look - didn't take me long to be right this time did it  

Alberta Premier Smith says Ottawa is dodging responsibility for pipeline decision | Business News | thecanadianpressnews.ca

She doesn't care about the pipeline.  This is theatre for her to claim canada is broken and carney is justin 2 and whip up separation sentiment.  Which she will leverage to get stuff for alberta.  But it's a dangerous game. 

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

Can you even make sense in your arguments? Alaskan oil IS and has been transported for years through Juan deFuca to Washinton refineries so what does your complaint actually mean?
That the North Coast should bear the risk so you won't have to? Like eff off with that idea! You want it, you eat it!

Just FYI https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strait+of+Juan+de+Fuca/@48.2995919,-124.3665057,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x548f1c17aa46c8b7:0xb14a20223440b0c8!8m2!3d48.2579224!4d-123.3605481!16zL20vMGQ0YjM?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

They come around from the north to get right there. 

Alaska is north of there.

So, to get to that point, tankers travel south from Alaska. 

Any oil spilled between Alaska and the Strait of Juan de Fuca will be borne eastwards to the BC coast. 

Edited October 12, 2025 by WestCanMan

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

They didn't support it the first time, and doesn't sound like they support it this time.

It didn't belong to them the first time or now.

[Army Guy]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's not a team if only one partner benefits and the other is harmed.  

And that's the problem. For better or worse the first nations and eby view this as a horrible risk to bc and the coast, with virtually no benefit. And smith says "too bad now bend over" as a reply, which tells me she does not expect this to go through and that is not her goal. 

"Fighting global warming is a benefit to everyone so alberta has to give up it's oil industry. (we'll find something else for them to do i promise)"  ....  i seem to recall that smith didn't LIKE the 'team canada' message when THAT was the fed's posiiton. 

And i seem to recall she was off side pretty hard at the beginning of the tariff war demanding that oil NEVER be considered in any retaliation plan even if it benefitted canada. 

Sorry  but she doesn't get to sing the "oh canada" tune now and waive the flag.  And her target obviosly isn't the pipeline or 'canada' but carney and stirring up anti canada sentiment. She's already said 'if we don't get this pipeline it's proof canada is broken"

Sorry but her fairy tale is suitable for children at bedtime or if she's trying to be the next disney evil step mom but otherwise iit's all ridiculous.  

What SHOULD happen is removal of the tanker ban and removal of the anti pipeline law and negotiation with the first nations and bc for pipelines with the firm understanding that we're discussing HOW it's going to happen and benefit them, not "IS" it going to and alberta should be out there talking about how they're willinlg to work and not proceed until everyone sees a benefit, and that the concerns of the first nations must be respected. 

NONE of that is happening. This is theatrics. 

How is BC being harmed...This project will employ BC members....not to mention the bags of money it will take to fill those  pockets of First nations and other lobby groups...

I'd like to here of this Horrible risk...if we are talking about a spill when was the last time BC had a tanker spill...The benefit comes in when Canada's revenue is higher, or are you saying BC does not get federal dollars for anything....

Global warming, come on is BC really worried about climate change, and global warming , why is there not a war on BC coal production, bc sells billions of dollars worth of coal, and natural gas production is going to increase ten fold...all of it effects global warming....or is that just Alberta's oil...

If Alberta does not get any of its suggested projects done, i would say yes your going to here getting louder....it will also send the message that these projects are really not meant to make Canada a energy super power...hard to do that with out oil....which will be here long after you and i are gone from this planet 

I agree changing liberal policy is a good first step...driving pipelines west and east would be another good step...This spat is just one example of why this energy super power thing is all but a dream....it will just be on fight after another....This is just the start....

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It didn't belong to them the first time or now.

Court said otherwise. 

And business isn't going to screw around with a protracted court fight to find out. 

[herbie]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

For better or worse the first nations and eby view this as a horrible risk to bc and the coast, with virtually no benefit.

exactly true

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

you are either on team Canada or not it really is that simple

Only for the simple minded. Yer either with us or agin us, only black and white exist prisms are 100% fake.

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

How is BC being harmed...

If an oil spill were to happen off the coast the devastation could be insane. And that's right where the first nations live. And is of primary concern to the environmentalists who back Eby. 

 I mean honestly, you didn't really need me to spell that out right? The first nations allowed natural gas because a spill wouldn't leave the same mess but oil is really bad.  no amount of money can compensate for that. 

Now personally i don't really think it's that much of a risk if the proper precautions and response capability is put in place but im' not the one who needs convincing. 

Quote

I'd like to here of this Horrible risk...if we are talking about a spill when was the last time BC had a tanker spill..

So you're saying it's not possible?  Because unless that's what you're saying then you're being a little silly.  Of COURSE there's a possibility of a spill, and it only takes one. 

Again i think you can have resources and rules on hand to severely minimize the chances of that going wrong but no matter what you do it's not zero  and with no tanker's it IS zero.  And that's what these people are concerned about. 

.

Quote

The benefit comes in when Canada's revenue is higher, or are you saying BC does not get federal dollars for anything....

BC already pays more federal dollars than it gets and to be honest a new pipeline would do little for the federal dollars. It would mostly benefit alberta in the long run and would have a short term benefit for ontario and bc as well. But the feds don't make all that much money from oil, they don't get subsidies like alberta does. It would likely mean increased income and jobs and that means personal taxes go up for the gov't but that's it. 

Quote

Global warming, come on is BC really worried about climate change

No, Not terribly. As i posted more than half support the pipeline. , and the gov't's got it's own plans for circling that square.  

The oil spill risk is the big issue. And again it's mostly an issue with a select group of people but those people are VERY passionate about it and the project would need some support from them to be ilkelu to go forward

nd global warming , why is there not a war on BC coal production, bc sells billions of dollars worth of coal, and natural gas production is going to increase ten fold...all of it effects global warming....or is that just Alberta's oil...

Quote

If Alberta does not get any of its suggested projects done, i would say yes your going to here getting louder....it will also send the message that these projects are really not meant to make Canada a energy super power..

That's what Smith is counting on. She's already poisioning the well on this and setting carney up as the bad guy. 

Quote

I agree changing liberal policy is a good first step...driving pipelines west and east would be another good step...This spat is just one example of why this energy super power thing is all but a dream....it will just be on fight after another....This is just the start....

Sure.  Most sensible people agree that oil AND natural gas AND electrical infrastructure should be running east west and even north and south as fast as possible. But right now we have a lot of politicians playing politics and that's getting in the way. Smith is not serious about driving a pipeline, Eby is not realistic and is freaking out at the mere suggestion, carney is trying to insist he's FOR pipelines while actually being against them in practice and smith is stoking separatist sentiment to exploit that and pin carney's colours to the mast. 

It's a mess, and carney  is not experienced enough to navigate this. He'll just dodge and try to avoid blame, pinning it on eby and smith and saying they have to work it out etc.  And nothing will get done. 

[Shady]

Eby wants to keep in place the status quo, which has failed Canada.  He should be hanged for treason at this point.

[I am Groot]

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Court said otherwise. 

What court said what oil/gas belonged to natives?

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And business isn't going to screw around with a protracted court fight to find out. 

They will if the federal government signals it intends to see a pipeline through.

[I am Groot]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If an oil spill were to happen off the coast the devastation could be insane. And that's right where the first nations live. And is of primary concern to the environmentalists who back Eby. 

Tankers go back and forth between Alaska and Washington every day. They aren't a problem but Canadian tankers are?

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Again i think you can have resources and rules on hand to severely minimize the chances of that going wrong but no matter what you do it's not zero  and with no tanker's it IS zero. 

Unless an American tanker has problems.

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

BC already pays more federal dollars than it gets and to be honest a new pipeline would do little for the federal dollars. It would mostly benefit alberta in the long run and would have a short term benefit for ontario and bc as well.

Short term? As in our lifetimes? The economic activity generated by developing oil and gas, and their export, provides huge amounts of taxes to the federal government.

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

..That's what Smith is counting on. She's already poisioning the well on this and setting carney up as the bad guy.

Carney is the bad guy.

 

[I am Groot]

Due to the proximity of the Vancouver and Seattle areas, analysis of tanker movements on the West Coast must include Canadian and American traffic. Essentially all tankers must transit the Strait of Juan de Fuca bordered to the north by Vancouver Island and to the south by Washington State.

Of the approximately 1.2 million barrels per day of oil that goes though the Strait of Juan de Fuca, about 500,000 barrels per day of mainly Alaskan oil similar in grade to Canada's diluted oilsands crude moves south to the Seattle area.

About 700,000 barrels per day moves from the Vancouver region transported by various means, including tugboat-towed barges, refined fuel tankers and, five days a month, an outbound tanker carrying crude from Kinder Morgan's Vancouver pipeline terminus. Despite hundreds of millions of barrels of seaborn petroleum movements over many decades, the only significant spill on the West Coast didn't come from a tanker. It occurred when the BC Ferries vessel Queen of the North foundered near Price Rupert with 1,750 barrels of fuel on board.

https://www.miningandenergy.ca/read/sinking-the-myth-of-dangerous-west-coast-oil-tanker-traffic

 

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If an oil spill were to happen off the coast the devastation could be insane. And that's right where the first nations live. And is of primary concern to the environmentalists who back Eby. 

 I mean honestly, you didn't really need me to spell that out right? The first nations allowed natural gas because a spill wouldn't leave the same mess but oil is really bad.  no amount of money can compensate for that. 

Now personally i don't really think it's that much of a risk if the proper precautions and response capability is put in place but im' not the one who needs convincing. 

So you're saying it's not possible?  Because unless that's what you're saying then you're being a little silly.  Of COURSE there's a possibility of a spill, and it only takes one. 

Again i think you can have resources and rules on hand to severely minimize the chances of that going wrong but no matter what you do it's not zero  and with no tanker's it IS zero.  And that's what these people are concerned about. 

.

BC already pays more federal dollars than it gets and to be honest a new pipeline would do little for the federal dollars. It would mostly benefit alberta in the long run and would have a short term benefit for ontario and bc as well. But the feds don't make all that much money from oil, they don't get subsidies like alberta does. It would likely mean increased income and jobs and that means personal taxes go up for the gov't but that's it. 

No, Not terribly. As i posted more than half support the pipeline. , and the gov't's got it's own plans for circling that square.  

The oil spill risk is the big issue. And again it's mostly an issue with a select group of people but those people are VERY passionate about it and the project would need some support from them to be ilkelu to go forward

nd global warming , why is there not a war on BC coal production, bc sells billions of dollars worth of coal, and natural gas production is going to increase ten fold...all of it effects global warming....or is that just Alberta's oil...

That's what Smith is counting on. She's already poisioning the well on this and setting carney up as the bad guy. 

Sure.  Most sensible people agree that oil AND natural gas AND electrical infrastructure should be running east west and even north and south as fast as possible. But right now we have a lot of politicians playing politics and that's getting in the way. Smith is not serious about driving a pipeline, Eby is not realistic and is freaking out at the mere suggestion, carney is trying to insist he's FOR pipelines while actually being against them in practice and smith is stoking separatist sentiment to exploit that and pin carney's colours to the mast. 

It's a mess, and carney  is not experienced enough to navigate this. He'll just dodge and try to avoid blame, pinning it on eby and smith and saying they have to work it out etc.  And nothing will get done. 

I get it there is a concern over a spill, but i asked when was the last tanker spill in or around BC....there hasn't  been one ...all your spills have come from other sources like cargo ships , but does the tanker ban include tugs and cargo ships....no they don't.......and tech has only been getting better over the years to prevent tanker spills........BC has more to fear from earth quakes than pipelines or tanker spills....

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/spills-environmental-emergencies/spill-incidents/past-spill-incidents

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, herbie said:

exactly true

Only for the simple minded. Yer either with us or agin us, only black and white exist prisms are 100% fake.

Maybe i have not explained it right.....there is one team with one goal....That's team Canada, and it's goal is to make an energy corridor so we as a nation can become a energy super power....I'm not sure what is so tough about that...Now if the goal was to improve different provinces then maybe you would have a point...but it is not the goal....team Canada is the goal.....and right now BC is refusing to play....Because the money bags guy has not arrived and paid everyone off....He will be coming around that's how we get things done around here, pay off the opposition ....right now it is still  a project Alberta wants...right now it looks like BC is out for what they can get from the feds and scre* everyone else...I would not be surprised if BC gets opposition to some of their other projects...

[August1991]

On 10/7/2025 at 3:20 PM, blackbird said:

The BC NDP only represent about 40% of B.C.  They don't speak for Canada on national projects.  Neither to FNs who are only 5% of the population and have their own agenda that is not in Canada's interest.  Much like environmentalists who oppose everything because they worship mother earth.

Well said.

Vancouver Island has three federal seats - true?

A poster on this forum once explained the island to me: tree-huggers vs tree-cutters. 

Edited October 13, 2025 by August1991

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Well said.

Vancouver Island has three federal seats - true?

A poster on this forum once explained the island to me: tree-huggers vs tree-cutters. 

Actually there are seven federal seats on Vancouver Island.  3 Conservative, 2 Liberal, 1 NDP and 1 Green.

[eyeball]

On 10/11/2025 at 6:46 PM, CdnFox said:

So why do you have such a tough time finding ANY actual science to quote when myself or others here rub your nose in your climate claims  

The same reason the IPCC does. It's not their fault either.

 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

What court said what oil/gas belonged to natives?

 

the supreme court said that the land they want to move it over belongs at least in part to the natives, so if we're talking about MOVING the oil/gas then yep, the natives have a say. 

Again - lets be clear. I don't really LIKE that nor do i think the court was correct.  But. Here we are. 

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Unless an American tanker has problems.

They're not likely to be inside the straights or passages. So at least it's less of a problem. 

 I mean, sure.  I think it's a bit silly.  But it's the argument being made and it's not entirely without merit. 

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Short term? As in our lifetimes?

As in "for a few years while it's being built, and then hardly any at all". 

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Carney is the bad guy.

Well yes, that's true, but she very specifically wants him to be the bad guy in this very specific case  

She most likely knows his whole 'i'd allow a pipeline' talk was full of crap. So she praised him and said how great it was to have a prime minister that finally understands and so on and so forth and he basked in it and the whole media industry picked up their jaw and couldn't believe she was being so nice.... And now she's going to try to force him to pin his colours and expose his lies for her benefit. It's very like her. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I get it there is a concern over a spill, but i asked when was the last tanker spill in or around BC....

But there have been many oil spills. Including for the pipeline they just twinned.  And there has been oil spills into the deep cove and vancouver harbour.  

So it's just being pedantic to suggest there's on risk of a spill.  The risk is infinitely higher than if there's no pipeline. 

Trying to pretend there's no risk is not the answer.  Just like pretending there's nothing that mitigates that risk is not the answer. 

the answer is to look at the risk honestly and what can be done to reduce it to a level everyone's comfortable with and make sure there's compensation. What if among the solutions was the need for a 10 billion dollar bond put up by the gov't or oil company that is immediately cashable to fight a spill should one occur? what if it included training for first nations all along the pipeline and the creation of a first nations response force that was fully equipped to immediately respond to any spill anywhere along the pipeline with insane speed and effectiveness?

 Something like that.  But lets not play the 'derp, there's been no TANKER spiill game", Tankers can spill and there's definitely been oil pipeline spills and the tanker ban is what prevents pipelines.  The concern about a spill is real and would need to be addressed. 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

BC has more to fear from earth quakes than pipelines or tanker spills...

And if it were possible to ban earthquakes i'm sure many would opt for that.  We HAVE to live with earthquakes, we don't HAVE to live with oil spills.  And we HAVE had a few bad ones.  No pipeline no risk, 

That is the argument being put forward.  And it is correct in as far as that goes. Pretending there's no risk is simply not a real argument. 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

right now it looks like BC is out for what they can get from the feds and scre* everyone else...I would not be surprised if BC gets opposition to some of their other projects...

Well all of BC's projects are within BC so probably won't be the same sort of issue.

And right now what we're hearing from is the first nations and Eby, not 'bc'.

But here's the thing. If you wanted to sell the first nations on it, and to be frank that's the only real roadblock, then you have the guy with the money bags show up first. You talk to the first nations, you look for ways to address their concerns. you show there's a benefit for them that outweighs the risks, and you show how you reduce the risks and maximize the benefits. 

Smith knows that and she did the exact opposite. She has no intention for this project to go through. Everything she's doing is wrong, and she's experienced enough and smart enough to know that so that tells me it's probably wrong on purpose. 

As far as Alberta goes, smith is the first one to get whiny and cry and fight Ottawa whenever she doesn't like its effect on Alberta so she can f off. Alberta is a whiny little biatch province that screams about how unfair everyone is to it and then demands everyone does what it wants whenever it feels like.  It's like the petulant younger child in the family.  

When they actually have a pipeline project that they're serious about they need to do the right things which will be to make sure that British Columbia and more importantly the first nations are satisfied that there's a benefit that outweighs the risks. At the very onset they have to make it clear that they intend to sit down with the first nations and address the concerns and that they are committed to the consultation process.   

Calling the first nations up and saying "hey, it's NOT YOUR coast, now get out of the way you peons" is NOT going to result in a project being completed this decade   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The same reason the IPCC does. It's not their fault either.

 

So because it doesn't exist?    Yeah, well there's yer problem... 

[Army Guy]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But there have been many oil spills. Including for the pipeline they just twinned.  And there has been oil spills into the deep cove and vancouver harbour.  

So it's just being pedantic to suggest there's on risk of a spill.  The risk is infinitely higher than if there's no pipeline. 

Trying to pretend there's no risk is not the answer.  Just like pretending there's nothing that mitigates that risk is not the answer.

the answer is to look at the risk honestly and what can be done to reduce it to a level everyone's comfortable with and make sure there's compensation. What if among the solutions was the need for a 10 billion dollar bond put up by the gov't or oil company that is immediately cashable to fight a spill should one occur? what if it included training for first nations all along the pipeline and the creation of a first nations response force that was fully equipped to immediately respond to any spill anywhere along the pipeline with insane speed and effectiveness?

 Something like that.  But lets not play the 'derp, there's been no TANKER spiill game", Tankers can spill and there's definitely been oil pipeline spills and the tanker ban is what prevents pipelines.  The concern about a spill is real and would need to be addressed. 

And if it were possible to ban earthquakes i'm sure many would opt for that.  We HAVE to live with earthquakes, we don't HAVE to live with oil spills.  And we HAVE had a few bad ones.  No pipeline no risk, 

That is the argument being put forward.  And it is correct in as far as that goes. Pretending there's no risk is simply not a real argument. 

Well all of BC's projects are within BC so probably won't be the same sort of issue.

And right now what we're hearing from is the first nations and Eby, not 'bc'.

But here's the thing. If you wanted to sell the first nations on it, and to be frank that's the only real roadblock, then you have the guy with the money bags show up first. You talk to the first nations, you look for ways to address their concerns. you show there's a benefit for them that outweighs the risks, and you show how you reduce the risks and maximize the benefits. 

Smith knows that and she did the exact opposite. She has no intention for this project to go through. Everything she's doing is wrong, and she's experienced enough and smart enough to know that so that tells me it's probably wrong on purpose. 

As far as Alberta goes, smith is the first one to get whiny and cry and fight Ottawa whenever she doesn't like its effect on Alberta so she can f off. Alberta is a whiny little biatch province that screams about how unfair everyone is to it and then demands everyone does what it wants whenever it feels like.  It's like the petulant younger child in the family.  

When they actually have a pipeline project that they're serious about they need to do the right things which will be to make sure that British Columbia and more importantly the first nations are satisfied that there's a benefit that outweighs the risks. At the very onset they have to make it clear that they intend to sit down with the first nations and address the concerns and that they are committed to the consultation process.   

Calling the first nations up and saying "hey, it's NOT YOUR coast, now get out of the way you peons" is NOT going to result in a project being completed this decade   

So there is love for Smith in BC.....it all comes down to that...that's what this is all about the hate for Alberta....Saying no to pipelines and oil is just an excuse, to get more money ?.... i mean how many pipelines are there in BC, and how many bils of dollars has it cost to grease the pockets of BC citizens...and first nations...personally i hope BC continues to say no perhaps that energy east pipelines would become more viable....we love to have high paying jobs and a larger oil and gas industry here in NB....

 

 

 

[herbie]

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That's team Canada, and it's goal is to make an energy corridor s

We have several. The TMX is for oil. So why not spend 1/10 the energy griping to Ont/Que about using Cdn oil? Or a pipeline to the OTHER coast too? Europe imports oil. You don't like the idea of China buying it. So why TWO on the West Coast when the existing one isn't even fully utilized?

Those would be Team Canada ideas rather than Team Alberta only short sightedness.

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

We have several. The TMX is for oil. So why not spend 1/10 the energy griping to Ont/Que about using Cdn oil? Or a pipeline to the OTHER coast too? Europe imports oil. You don't like the idea of China buying it. So why TWO on the West Coast when the existing one isn't even fully utilized?

Those would be Team Canada ideas rather than Team Alberta only short sightedness.

Your preaching to the choir  here, i love pipelines...we should not be buying any foreign oil from any where so ya pipelines for everyone, east coast, west coast, north. south....China is not the only nation off the west coast...and most of it love our oil...

because of the caps placed on production, like emissions caps and while not a production cap per say, once they hit their emissions cap product , which is why Carney has said he will approve carbon capture tech project to be built in Alberta to support another pipeline...

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/oil-gas-emissions-cap.html

PBO mentions oil capacity in our pipeline are at 85 % now....but there is no mention of what the safety levels are set at....

•  

  Quote

   

  Production growth: 

  The PBO estimates that oil production can increase by about 500,000 barrels per day, a 15% increase above 2022 levels. Natural gas production could also see a 12% increase.