The UCP Alberta Government - Threatens to Turn off Oil Taps

[BPA]

Oil spill on the coast (using Exxon Valdez spill in 1989) as a comparison. 

 

260,000 barrels of oil spill.  Clean up cost for Exxon US$3.5 B.  Spill was never fully cleaned up.   Estimated 26,000 job losses with US$2.4 B lost revenue.   Alaska sued for US$5 B.  After 14 yrs of lawsuits/appeals, Exxon pays US$500 M.

 

Supertankers today carry about 575,000 barrels.  Estimated US$10B (at least) for clean up.

 

Federal laws stipulates company (Kinder Morgan) must have minimum US$1B to cover liabilities related to land spill.  Presumably applies to coastline/waters as well.

 

So basically BC taxpayers pays almost (90%?) all the costs for any oil spills.

 

Probably Canada helps out a bit.  But no mention of AB footing the bill if a spill happens.

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

The problem is it doesn’t make it a very smart long term investment when the focus is to reduce dependency on oil. So for the mean time prices will remain high and which is kind of what the NDP wants and really force people to search for alternative options.

too funny.... i am pretty sure BC libs ruled bc for a bit...

 

You are showing your ignorance and prejudice

[bishopshodan]

22 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Sure, but the toxic sludge created by these cruise ships ( due to human waste) is a bigger issue of day to day pollution than a tanker and its 12 crew. 

This is also the reason why BC doesn't raise a peep ( until it was publicly shamed by other provinces and the oil lobby) for dumping raw sewage sludge into the Georgia strait around Victoria. 

Ok . So we peep a bit but need to peep a lot more. Increase the public pressure.

 

24 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

About 1 more per day IIRC

oh, that's not bad at all.

 

25 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

1. The main argument against train isn't just emissions, its Lac Megantique style big bada boom ( to borrow from 5th element), way, way more chances of train related accidents ( the train crossings will see 10x the congestion than it sees now). 

 

2. Cleanup for a spill is a massive red herring. its like saying do we have a clean-up plan for Burns Bog if a plane crashes into it ? Who pays for that ? Modern navigation tech makes it so that tanker accidents are literally unheard of. Every 2-3 years you will hear of a tanker catching on fire, registered in Togo or Burkina Faso and commuting between developing world ports who have much lower port safety standards. 

There is no meaningful, scientific discourse on 'spill risk' assessment. There is only fear-mongering and nonsense

Props for the 5th Element reference, love me some spacey movies.

 

I'm old enough to be spooked by the Exxon spill. There needs to be proper scientific discourse on spill assessment instead of nonsense, For sure.

 

Is there profit sharing tabled? BC must be getting offered a decent cut  for the land expropriation and risk? ( even though the chance of spill is low)

[BPA]

So then the question are:

 

1).  Is there US$9B contingency fund from BC to pay for a potential oil spill?

 

2).  What is the risk vs reward (ie. Spill vs Revenue)? 

 

3).  At 8% of pipeline profits, is that a fair share if BC is absorbing almost all the risks?

 

4).  Are the projected profits (remember it's only 8%) from the pipeline enough to cover BC portion of an oil spill?

[BPA]

I would be happy if BC gets only 5% profit and AB pays 100% of any oils spills (on land and water).

[RUPERTKBD]

19 minutes ago, BPA said:

I would be happy if BC gets only 5% profit and AB pays 100% of any oils spills (on land and water).

AFAIK, the first step is still "polluter pays", but if the shortfalls in clean up costs (after the polluter declares bankruptcy, or settles in court for an amount that doesn't cover the total cost of clean up) were divvied up in the same percentages as the revenues, I'd be behind the project 100%.

 

I know that some folks are stuck on the "It will never happen in a million years" mantra, but if that actually is the case, then the Feds and Alberta have exactly nothing to lose by agreeing to such an arrangement.

[canuckistani]

21 minutes ago, BPA said:

I would be happy if BC gets only 5% profit and AB pays 100% of any oils spills (on land and water).

If BC's risk liability is zero, then BC should also make 0% of the profits.

The risk to reward is again, a red-herring. Whats the risk to reward of having a plane crash in Burns Bog ? The 'actual risk' of a tanker spill, is as likely as a plane crash into downtown or Burns Bog. 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

AFAIK, the first step is still "polluter pays", but if the shortfalls in clean up costs (after the polluter declares bankruptcy, or settles in court for an amount that doesn't cover the total cost of clean up) were divvied up in the same percentages as the revenues, I'd be behind the project 100%.

 

I know that some folks are stuck on the "It will never happen in a million years" mantra, but if that actually is the case, then the Feds and Alberta have exactly nothing to lose by agreeing to such an arrangement.

The Feds would likely agree if BC owned up to the sabotage risk assumption. Enough nutty psuedo-enviro people here to sabotage the pipeline and then cry wolf in BC. 

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

The Feds would likely agree if BC owned up to the sabotage risk assumption. Enough nutty psuedo-enviro people here to sabotage the pipeline and then cry wolf in BC. 

So what you're saying is that the deal won't get done because there's a possibility some eco-terrorist will blow up the pipeline? It seems a stretch to assume that an environmentalist would damage to environment in order to protect the environment.....

[canuckistani]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

So what you're saying is that the deal won't get done because there's a possibility some eco-terrorist will blow up the pipeline? It seems a stretch to assume that an environmentalist would damage to environment in order to protect the environment.....

You mean just like how there have been fire-fighters who cause a forest fire ? 

Many 'environmentalists' protesting the pipeline are not actually environmentalists - you just have to go past their trash pile in BBY mountain to see that. 

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You mean just like how there have been fire-fighters who cause a forest fire ? 

Many 'environmentalists' protesting the pipeline are not actually environmentalists - you just have to go past their trash pile in BBY mountain to see that. 

If you say so....

 

It seems odd to me to point to the possibility of sabotage as the reason the Feds won't pony up for potential clean up costs, but it seems like you're convinced, so, carry on....

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

If you say so....

 

It seems odd to me to point to the possibility of sabotage as the reason the Feds won't pony up for potential clean up costs, but it seems like you're convinced, so, carry on....

Its not odd - I havn't read the liability proposals, but generally speaking, there is always a proposal relating to non-accidental damage to the said facility and who bears responsibility for it. 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Its not odd - I havn't read the liability proposals, but generally speaking, there is always a proposal relating to non-accidental damage to the said facility and who bears responsibility for it. 

 

So what you're saying is that if it could be proven that a spill was the result of sabotage by a British Columbian and BC agreed to assume the costs of cleaning it up, then the Feds and Alberta will agree to cover the lion's share of clean up costs for accidental spills?

 

I haven't heard of any such discussions taking place, but if they have and if it were up to me, I'd say we have a deal.

[BPA]

15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

If BC's risk liability is zero, then BC should also make 0% of the profits.

The risk to reward is again, a red-herring. Whats the risk to reward of having a plane crash in Burns Bog ? The 'actual risk' of a tanker spill, is as likely as a plane crash into downtown or Burns Bog. 

I prefer to think the 5% as a land use fee.  The risks borne should be those who desperately want it built.  I even went to a lower % rate to be more accommodating. 

 

Um..you like to compare apples to oranges.  What does a plane in burns bog have to do with any of this?  I can use a recent example of Boeing aircrafts resulting in loss of life.  Newer technology didn't help.  It was potentially the cause of the crashes.  So yeah...accidents can happen.

 

Risk:  Estimated US$10B clean up fee.  Estimated 26,000 lost jobs (as referenced from Exxon spill), Estimated lost revenue US$2.5B (as reference from Exxon spill).  Estimated $? land oil spill clean up, etc.

 

Reward:  Revenue per year (from % pipeline,  dock fees, increased jobs, etc).

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, BPA said:

I prefer to think the 5% as a land use fee.  The risks borne should be those who desperately want it built.  I even went to a lower % rate to be more accommodating. 

Its not BC's land, its Canada's land. The risk should be borne by the ones making the profits. 

2 minutes ago, BPA said:

Um..you like to compare apples to oranges.  What does a plane in burns bog have to do with any of this?  I can use a recent example of Boeing aircrafts resulting in loss of life.  Newer technology didn't help.  It was potentially the cause of the crashes.  So yeah...accidents can happen.

The same 'risk factor' idea applies to a plane crash as to a tanker crash. Actually tankers are safer than planes for the last 40 years. 

2 minutes ago, BPA said:

 

Risk:  Estimated US$10B clean up fee.  Estimated 26,000 lost jobs (as referenced from Exxon spill), Estimated lost revenue US$2.5B (as reference from Exxon spill).  Estimated $? land oil spill clean up, etc.

 

Reward:  Revenue per year (from % pipeline,  dock fees, increased jobs, etc).

Except that the reward is an actual, tangiable reward, while the risk is near non-existent. 

[BPA]

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

So what you're saying is that if it could be proven that a spill was the result of sabotage by a British Columbian and BC agreed to assume the costs of cleaning it up, then the Feds and Alberta will agree to cover the lion's share of clean up costs for accidental spills?

 

I haven't heard of any such discussions taking place, but if they have and if it were up to me, I'd say we have a deal.

Here's the kicker.  I haven't read any article yet that says AB will pay anything regarding an oil spill in BC.  I may have to continue digging for it.  But if someone (like canuckistani) can provide a link that says AB will pony up, it would help resolve some of the underlying issues regarding clean up costs.

[Shift-4]

6 minutes ago, BPA said:

Here's the kicker.  I haven't read any article yet that says AB will pay anything regarding an oil spill in BC.  I may have to continue digging for it.  But if someone (like canuckistani) can provide a link that says AB will pony up, it would help resolve some of the underlying issues regarding clean up costs.

https://clearseas.org/en/who-pays-oil-spill/

[BPA]

3 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

https://clearseas.org/en/who-pays-oil-spill/

Read that already.  Pretty much sums up what I said that company / tankers pay a nominal fee (US$1B at most). Doesn't mention AB paying for any clean up costs.   So pretty much BC taxpayers would be on the hook.

[BPA]

16 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Except that the reward is an actual, tangiable reward, while the risk is near non-existent. 

 

Risk is not non-existent.   Here's some articles to prove otherwise. 

 

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/crews-cleaning-up-oil-spill-at-kinder-morgan-station-north-of-kamloops-b-c-1.3947496?cid=ps:localnewscampaign:searchad:ds:vancouvercrawl

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3156604

 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, BPA said:

 

Risk is not non-existent.   Here's some articles to prove otherwise. 

 

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/crews-cleaning-up-oil-spill-at-kinder-morgan-station-north-of-kamloops-b-c-1.3947496?cid=ps:localnewscampaign:searchad:ds:vancouvercrawl

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3156604

 

Risk is nearly non-existant, as its virtually one of the safest industrial persuits of mankind ( shipping of oil). The articles are not scientific, they are simple opinion pieces.