Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk


kingofsurrey

Recommended Posts

Braid: B.C. NDP is well on the way to defeating Alberta NDP

 

With the stroke of a pen in British Columbia, Alberta’s New Democrats have descended from deep trouble to grave political crisis.

Their great hope of a smashing political win — construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline — is stymied yet again by the people Premier Rachel Notley used to call friends.

Alberta’s provincial election is set for spring of 2019. Notley needs that pipeline under final unhindered construction well before then, with no roadblocks ahead.

 

On Tuesday, B.C. Premier John Horgan’s NDP government announced rules that would effectively ban expanded bitumen shipments off the coast. This could become permanent, pending a scientific safety study whose results we can already guess.

B.C. is effectively declaring Kinder Morgan to be uneconomic. The goal — stated by NDP-affiliated B.C. interest groups — is to force the company to cancel the project. They even raise the spectre of Kinder Morgan completing the expansion, and then finding itself forbidden to turn on the tap.

Notley said Tuesday she knew B.C. was about to announce some kind of review, but had no idea this ban would be part of it. She attacked the action as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to trade pacts.

Notley went on to say: “I’m not pulling any punches. This is bad for British Columbia, this is bad for Alberta, this is bad for Canada.” She called the move “political game-playing and political theatre.”

 

She’s right on every count — but those are just words, not punches. What will Notley actually do to influence a government that clearly has no respect for other authorities, or even federal powers under the constitution?

 

 

We have no idea, because all she’s ever said is that Alberta is in the right and the legal process will prevail.

But the process isn’t prevailing. It’s failing. Horgan’s main interest appears to be holding the co-operation of the B.C. Greens, whose three legislature votes keep him in office.

He has vowed to use everything in the provincial tool box to block the pipeline. If he runs out of tools, he just invents a new one.

There’s no shred of party friendship here. Horgan clearly doesn’t care if his actions help defeat the only other NDP government in Canada. 

 

UCP Leader Jason Kenney pounced at a news conference Tuesday.

He called the B.C. action “another attack on Alberta’s energy industry by New Democrats — by Rachel Notley’s friends and fellow travellers, a party in B.C. for which she used to work.

“It’s extremely embarrassing for our premier that she has been unable to persuade her fellow New Democrats to stop this attack on our province’s economy and on free trade within Canada.

“It’s also unfortunate that the prime minister has been unable to stop this attack on the economic union within Canada.”

One knock on Notley is that she puts too much faith in the goodwill of others. She imposed a carbon tax and stringent carbon standards, partly for serious environmental reasons, but also to win “social licence” for pipelines from other Canadians.

If she is doubly betrayed — if Ottawa doesn’t resolve this and B.C. keeps throwing spike belts on the highway — her chances of re-election are virtually zero.

On Tuesday, Kenney rather tamely demanded a court challenge to the new B.C. rules, but in the past he’s threatened retaliatory trade action if B.C. continues to be obstructive.

“Trade is a two-way street, and if I were premier and the government of British Columbia were blocking one of our prime exports, we would find ways to respond in kind that would be an economic response,” he said last Aug. 4.

“There’s a great deal that British Columbia depends on that comes from Alberta. We’ll find whatever points of leverage are necessary to demonstrate that a province cannot do that.”

Notley doesn’t threaten any specific action. She perhaps hopes that Horgan is just playing to his base until Ottawa inevitably lowers the hammer and the pipeline goes ahead.

But, at this point, it’s foolish just to express outrage and hope it all works out.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-b-c-ndp-is-well-on-the-way-to-defeating-alberta-ndp/amp

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, beni said:

Cheaper to ship the crude off to be refined and brought back. The cost to build refineries and pay the wages expected here just does not work. It is not cost effective, also you are at the mercy of the global oil market.

 

Better to do it by pipeline than rail cars and transport trucks. If a Rail car, or Transport truck goes into the river in the Fraser Canyon it would be catastrophic. Goodbye to our already depleted Salmon runs. Do some research on Steelhead numbers, and then look at Sockeye returns. 

 

 

 

Canada needs to be in control of our own resources. Selling raw resources is always cheaper in the short term however it's bad for the long term. We need more refineries and  pipelines to both the Atlantic and the Pacific. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Actually, what's scarier is at ANY point in time US lines could simply say sorry we're at capacity.  Our oil would go nowhere.  With the Permian basin in Texas now viable again for the first time in decades, it's the closest; easiest oil in North America.  Couple that with the shale beds in the North East and really...we're against a wall.

The only positive is that the Gulf coast refineries are tooled up to process heavy oil at the moment, so they have some need for our oil, especially since Venezuelan production is failing.  The U.S. has been using it's newly fracked light shale oil  for export.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Nope because his posts were personal attacks and violate board rules. Considering you have nothing to add maybe you should grow up and move along.

the worst thing he said was that you're a joke, you're being petty because you don't like what he said. FYI I agree with you on the pipeline thing, but don't be a whiner because someone else doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nucksfollower1983 said:

the worst thing he said was that you're a joke, you're being petty because you don't like what he said. FYI I agree with you on the pipeline thing, but don't be a whiner because someone else doesn't.

That wasn't the worst thing and I will let the mods decide. As for the pipeline it's a no brainer, well at least for any other place not called Canada. Ottawa will for sure intervene and it will be interesting to see how JT plays this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Canada needs to be in control of our own resources. Selling raw resources is always cheaper in the short term however it's bad for the long term. We need more refineries and  pipelines to both the Atlantic and the Pacific. 

Yup.  The price isn't going to drop over the long-term and we don't have an unlimited supply.  Why not make the investment and contribute to Canada's economy instead of outsourcing yet more jobs?  Why not provide incentive to businesses to make this financially viable?  I'm sick of seeing our raw natural resources shipped out with no added value.  Producing what we need here in Canada makes us less reliant on trade deals with other countries.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Yup.  The price isn't going to drop over the long-term and we don't have an unlimited supply.  Why not make the investment and contribute to Canada's economy instead of outsourcing yet more jobs?  Why not provide incentive to businesses to make this financially viable?  I'm sick of seeing our raw natural resources shipped out with no added value.  Producing what we need here in Canada makes us less reliant on trade deals with other countries.

Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 100% for pipelines and oil exploration all across Canada so long as 

1. it doesn't involve extraction from sands which wastes an evil amount of fresh water
2. we open more refineries and keep it for ourselves and stop selling it to the "global market" only to buy it back at a higher price (fkn DUH)
3. Companies that run these operations are 100% CANADIAN (and not shell entities) and abide by the strictest of regulations to ensure they don't turn the areas they work, into post-apocalyptic landscapes. 

Of course, Traeudink will never allow such common sense to ever invade Canada as it would allow our nation to prosper, and would interfere with his life ambition of helping minorities, specifically those non-citizens who currently reside outside of Canada or are actively seeking to gain citizenship.
The guy needs votes, eh?

His daddy sold us all down the river in 1973. 
Apple fall far from the tree much?

/rant
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find the 'official' part....

 

I have no issues at all with forcing oil companies to prove that they can clean up dil bit. But this isn't new, its in the conditions of approval for the project. 

 

If they can, then its very hard to shut this project down. If they can't its probably grounds to stop it, or at least drag it out for a decade in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, beni said:

Cheaper to ship the crude off to be refined and brought back. The cost to build refineries and pay the wages expected here just does not work. It is not cost effective, also you are at the mercy of the global oil market.

 

Better to do it by pipeline than rail cars and transport trucks. If a Rail car, or Transport truck goes into the river in the Fraser Canyon it would be catastrophic. Goodbye to our already depleted Salmon runs. Do some research on Steelhead numbers, and then look at Sockeye returns. 

 

 

 

is that really the case though? There have been a couple of proposals for a new BC refinery, one of them is actually a group of First Nations investors with the Aqulini's. Personally I love the idea of a First Nations group being the primary beneficiaries of a project like this for economic and historical reasons. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I can't find the 'official' part....

 

I have no issues at all with forcing oil companies to prove that they can clean up dil bit. But this isn't new, its in the conditions of approval for the project. 

 

If they can, then its very hard to shut this project down. If they can't its probably grounds to stop it, or at least drag it out for a decade in court. 

No one can.

 

I think we will see the Federal government get involved sooner than later. It's a project with economic importance to Canada and JT strongly approved the plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, darkpoet said:

I'm 100% for pipelines and oil exploration all across Canada so long as 

1. it doesn't involve extraction from sands which wastes an evil amount of fresh water
2. we open more refineries and keep it for ourselves and stop selling it to the "global market" only to buy it back at a higher price (fkn DUH)
3. Companies that run these operations are 100% CANADIAN (and not shell entities) and abide by the strictest of regulations to ensure they don't turn the areas they work, into post-apocalyptic landscapes. 

Of course, Traeudink will never allow such common sense to ever invade Canada as it would allow our nation to prosper, and would interfere with his life ambition of helping minorities, specifically those non-citizens who currently reside outside of Canada or are actively seeking to gain citizenship.
The guy needs votes, eh?

His daddy sold us all down the river in 1973. 
Apple fall far from the tree much?

/rant
 

Actually.

 

If PET had been able to enact his National Energy Plan our energy and resource sector would look a lot like Norways

 

With the country controlling majorities in energy production and resource extraction, employing people which would insulate through downturns in prices and world markets, as well as ensuring that there was a minimum of 2 refineries in each province ot ensure that costs were kept as low as possible which would have had a net effect keeping the costs of everything lower via lower transportation costs.

 

As well our national fund would be looking very well and we'd have little debt to speak of.

 

But MUlroney came in on the wings of anti eastern sentiment and swore to never force Albertans to sell oil to the east at below market prices (canadians helping canadians) and instead after being elected worked out NAFTA

 

NAFTA gave US companies different pricing in effect instead of selling to other Canadians cheaper we sold to the US for even LESS and are forced to buy it back at inflated prices.

 

NAFTA ensured we'd see raw product leave the country for below world prices.  Brent Crude vs West Texas Intermediate

 

So no, in essence "his daddy didn't sell us down the river" his daddy tried to save us but idiots and greed killed us.

 

IN fact not 4-5 years ago the Harper government tried to enact major parts of PET's national energy plan and found that in the 80's it was economically feasible, but now the costs to buy back all the land and infrastructure would all but bankrupt the country.

 

Fancy that eh

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

No one can.

 

I think we will see the Federal government get involved sooner than later. It's a project with economic importance to Canada and JT strongly approved the plan. 

yup. But like i said the oil clean up part isn't news - that's one of the conditions of approval. Most reasonable people would agree that we need to be able to clean up a spill on the coast before turning on the tap and thats what was approved. I don't know the current state of the R&D on cleanup tech though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notley's response is what you'd expect: http://www.news1130.com/2018/01/30/bc-uncertainty-trans-mountain/

 

One thing I find really interesting is when AB tries to say stopping the pipeline is "unconstitutional" which isn't necessarily the case (you'll notice she never actually points to a specific part of the constitution, just says "in our view" a lot). The idea is  that no province can impede the economy of another, but thats never been tested on the basis that a project in one province may harm the economy or environment of another if it proceeds. I think it would go all the way to the supreme court and might not go AB's way. 

 

It would be so much better if AB politicians wouldn't whip out the "Canada's coast" comments but it appears thats where this is going to go. 

 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Notley's response is what you'd expect: http://www.news1130.com/2018/01/30/bc-uncertainty-trans-mountain/

 

One thing I find really interesting is when AB tries to say stopping the pipeline is "unconstitutional" which isn't necessarily the case (you'll notice she never actually points to a specific part of the constitution, just says "in our view" a lot). The idea is  that no province can impede the economy of another, but thats never been tested on the basis that a project in one province may harm the economy or environment of another if it proceeds. I think it would go all the way to the supreme court and might not go AB's way. 

 

It would be so much better if AB politicians wouldn't whip out the "Canada's coast" comments but it appears thats where this is going to go. 

 

 

As I have said before, Horgan and Weaver can join hands and sing kumbaya in front of the bulldozers, and the feds will just override them in the national interest, as is their right, making sure than not only the oil, but even a pipeline, is coming through, now don't you worry, I still am sticking to that.

 

However, let's just say team Green wins. Watch how fast you see $20/l for gas, if you can find it. Big oil can just turn off the tap. Never, ever, EVER get in a fight with the railroads. They always win, and have the feds in their pocket.

 

I was wondering how long it would take the NDP to do something stupid. At least this time it's completely inconsequential.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't understand the public's obsession with building pipelines and refineries. 

 

We're not that far off from fossil fuels being irrelevant and unnecessary. The world is moving towards renewables. Most European countries are setting short-term targets for when no new fossil-fuel powered vehicles will be sold - this is becoming the norm and it wont' be long until other countries follow suit. This is just the beginning of the movement, but we're talking a decade or less in most cases. By the time Canada has built these pipelines and refineries, they're going to be obsolete. 

 

I'd rather Canada be the energy superpower of the future. We have the world's largest coastline that can be used for wind-power generation. We have the perfect country for both geo-thermal, hydro, and solar power generation. Why are we so stuck on trying to create fossil fuel infrastructure when the need for fossil fuels are going to be greatly reduced in the coming years?

 

I get that we're stuck with fossil fuels in the short term and that they're still currently the most dominant form of energy. I have no problem with the pipeline > rail argument for environmental safety reasons. I get the financial arguments for why building pipelines and refineries would be good for the economy - but those numbers are based on the fact that fossil fuels will never be replaced.

 

I do not think it is in Canada's interest to spend billions of dollars developing fossil fuel infrastructure when the end of fossil fuels as we know it is within sight. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...