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

Warhippy

Members
  • Posts

    41,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

Everything posted by Warhippy

  1. Yup. Keep blaming this on the NDP Ignore the fact that 50+ years of PCs in Alberta 14 years of CPC in Ottawa and 16 years of Faux Cons in the Liberals here in BC got jack and sh&t done and blame the guys in power after a measly 7 months. Also neglect the fact that they also promised to stop this project unless their "5 conditions were met" and then again ignore the fact they totally ignored the North Eastern area of the province from PG all the way to Ft Nelson unless it was a photo op for LNG headlines which never got off the ground while they were in power But that damned Horgan is all the problem no doubt.
  2. Well...there was a plan for more refineries in every province. There was a plan to sell to canadian companies and Canadians cheaper than world prices. Just wanted to point out that. A conservative Prime Minister destroyed our military might. A conservative prime minister destroyed our ability to refine resources in Canada A conservative leader right now is claiming that they will be different..... Seems to me that a lot of the issues haunting us now can be lead back to two conservative PMs people somehow claim were good for the nation The National Energy Program (NEP) was an energy policy of the Government of Canada from 1980 to 1985. It was created under the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau by Minister of Energy Marc Lalonde in 1980, and administered by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
  3. You saw that too eh? I really thought that we'd see Sergachev played more advantageously in the playoffs so far but that hasn't been the case yet.
  4. I feel the same way about OJ when he was drafted as I do about a Boqvist, Hughes or even a Bouchard. We'd be 2-4 years out on any of them. We're in no rush but any player picked that isn't in the league next year at any point is going to be proclaimed an immediate bust by this fan base, if not in the lineup in 2 years will unquestionably be a horrid pick and people will absolutely know that they would have picked [insert vague 2nd round picks name here] because they are already playing in the league. OJ will be fine. Half a season in Utica maybe a full season. We're in literally no rush right now. The actual transition a lot of us have been waiting for can start happening with the twins gone. Edler will be the next to either go or be re-signed for a lower cost and we'll have that completely new roster we've been waiting for since 2014
  5. So many excuses and defaming..Maybe Olli just isn't that good, or isn't what they are looking for? Don't reassure everybody how good a player is then when he doesn't make the team start blaming coaching/management and disregarding the talents of other players. Don't disregard the season OJ had or somehow equate his not being on a world team to him not being talented enough to play
  6. If you listen to 5th and anyone on HF boards. Yup He's an absolute bust
  7. Oh look. Mr. I don't crap on players himself. Maybe you're opinion about things is about as quality as your view on our prospects?
  8. Saw it the other night, kinda know what is going to happen for the 2nd to tie it together but have questions that will most likely not be answered which is frustrating.
  9. Eventually the water moves where it will. Far easier to clean up a puddle which will find its way to the ocean than it is a lake of man made chemical soup off of clam beds and spawning areas in one of the strongest tidal areas in the world.
  10. But he kept reposting it thinking either people haven't read it or that somehow the information has changed while disregarding the facts that said letter does not in fact in any way address the questions or concerns of the people of BC it is just a lot of political promises and if it happens we will statements.
  11. "polluter pays" right? BC doesn't have the same laws as Alberta....but federal laws allow for companies to abandon reclamation and mitigation/clean up via bankruptcy or lease agreements. Who pays? https://www.producer.com/2018/03/orphan-wells-albertas-47-billion-problem/ TABER, Alta. — As farmers drove to the March 8 Action Surface Rights meeting, the news had just broken that Calgary-based Sequoia Resources Corp. had ceased operations. Its demise, if it occurs, would add at least another 2,300 oil and gas wells and possibly as many as 4,000 to the list of energy infrastructure sites on Alberta farm and ranch land that will require reclamation. The trouble is that Sequoia, like many other energy companies that have entered receivership or gone bankrupt in recent years, cannot cover the cost of that reclamation The Orphan Well Association, a non-profit organization funded by the energy industry and the province, can’t either. As of Feb. 28, it had 1,038 wells on its list for reclamation and a plan, using existing funds and a government loan of $235 million, to clean up about 700 wells in the next three years. It also has a list of more than 1,900 orphan wells on its list for abandonment or suspension, along with more than 3,600 pipeline segments. What of those, the newly abandoned energy assets, and others that might fall to economic ruin in coming years? Landowners — Alberta farmers and ranchers — could be left with the problem. Many are reluctant to discuss problems they’ve had with energy companies, fearing land devaluation in the case of orphan wells or contamination, or risk to future compensation from those companies if they go public. “It’s been my concern for many years, as an advocate for landowners and farmers, that diligence by government and the oil industry was required to ensure that farmers and ranchers don’t get left with the legacy problems of old oil and gas wells,” said Keith Wilson, a lawyer known for his work on property rights. He quoted a report by the C.D. Howe Institute that estimates more than 155,000 Alberta energy wells have no economic potential and will eventually require reclamation. He also quoted Orphan Well Association figures that it costs an average of $304,448 to reclaim a well. That math leads to a big number: $47.19 billion in future reclamation costs. “Who has $46 billion right now to go deal with this problem? No one. Who’s likely to be left with the problem? You,” Wilson told landowners at the Taber meeting. “My real concern is that what’s going to end up happening is that the government and industry are going to say, ‘we just don’t have the money.’ The capital that existed and the profits that the oil companies made, that should have been put into cleaning up these wells on farmland, have fled, and left the country or been consumed by other things,” he said in a later interview Daryl Bennett of My Landman Group, who is also a director with Action Surface Rights, has experience representing landowners in disputes involving resource companies. He said energy companies with more liabilities than assets are required to provide a deposit that is held by the Alberta Energy Regulator for use on well reclamation. Now the money on deposit is insufficient. “The cost to reclaim all these assets is now far higher than the value of those assets,” he said. A ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada on the Redwater case, expected this spring, could have a major effect on the situation, Bennett added. It will determine whether lenders can sell off profitable assets from a bankrupt company and essentially renounce the rest. In the case of Redwater, that could put the cost of reclaiming unproductive energy assets onto the government and possibly landowners. If previous court rulings are upheld, it would essentially negate the “polluter pay” principle, said Bennett. Back at the local level, as energy companies go into bankruptcy or receivership, they stop paying landowners their annual rental fees. Landowners can apply to the Surface Rights Board for payment through the government, but the process is now backlogged with claims, Bennett said. In the meantime, the banker may be asking landowners for loan payments and lenders might impose lending restrictions due to environmental contamination of land. Wilson said the provincial government is well aware of the extent of the orphan well problem, though he speculated that it might be paralyzed by the magnitude. The general public, on the other hand, doesn’t understand that most oil and gas wells are on private property, nor do they realize that in Alberta, landowners cannot refuse to allow energy development. That unique law, said Wilson, came with a social contract balancing the rights of landowners with the rights of companies to develop the resource. In the early days of Alberta’s energy development, attitudes were different, he added. “The whole philosophy of government and the industry was that the oil and gas industry is a guest on farmers’ land, and that we have to behave that way.” Bennett stated it baldly. “The social contract is broken. What are we going to do about it? This never was supposed to happen. Government promised us that this would never happen.” Wilson said he and others involved in the issue had considered calling for a moratorium on new oil and gas development in the province as a way to sound the alarm. They decided against it, he said, noting landowners have benefitted from the energy industry and generally continue to support it as an important economic driver. However, landowners can take some action to prevent the problem of insolvent energy companies and lack of well site reclamation from worsening. “If an oil company approaches them for a new well site on their land they should object, to the Alberta Energy Regulator, to that well site and they should demand that the Alberta Energy Regulator impose requirements on the oil company to protect the landowner so that if the company goes bankrupt, the landowner’s not left holding the bag, as they are today,” said Wilson. “I also strongly recommend, for some complex legal reasons, that landowners do not voluntarily sign surface leases or right of way agreements for pipelines. Instead, force the oil company to obtain a right of entry order from the Surface Rights Board because it will provide additional protections to landowners in the case of a problem in the future.” Wilson said there might be a window of opportunity in which big oil companies and farmers could seek solutions together. Big oil is frustrated with smaller companies that enter and exit the sector, exacerbating the orphan well problem. “There’s an opportunity for ag groups to reach out to the larger organizations in the oil industry and say, ‘how can we work together to solve some of these problems?’ And I think if there can be some movement there, and they go to government with some solutions, it will be an easy sell.” Provincial politics create another hurdle, both Wilson and Bennett said. The NDP government is pushing for pipelines to tidewater and is sensitive to any suggestions that it is hindering Alberta’s energy industry because of its importance to the economy. At the same time, it has adopted policies it says are designed to show greater environmental responsibility, among them a tax on carbon emissions. The United Conservative Party, the official opposition, is critical of policies that it deems to hinder the energy sector and is opposed to the carbon tax. The scenario doesn’t bode well for a solution regarding energy site abandonment and reclamation, which will be costly no matter how the expense is shared.
  12. I think they'll be far closer to daycare promises than we were at this point last year. I also think that BC will still be livable for those who are ok making less, paying a shade more or who don't carry unmanageable debt. Honestly not much will change between now and next election but without question people will somehow someway play the division card and somehow claim the NDP did all the bad things, when all they did was exactly what Clarks team would have
  13. Well in all fairness 16 years under the Libs and nothing got done but promises and wasted time and money. So more of the same.
  14. Great news. I still question how people can be so staunch in their view that the NDP is so anti everything when they've approved almost everything that was slated by the previous government including LNG and Site C. In fact the only thing they've dug their feet in on is the KM expansion
  15. Ties in to my entire belief that people like that are just clueless. Would be like us claiming all of Alberta's water is undrinkable and flammable but...it's only a few areas. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/12/flammable-well-water_n_875520.html
  16. Why are you so ignorantly stubborn that you REFUSE to even consider anyone else's point of view? Seriously, your entire schtick here is that you're ALWAYS right when quite frequently you're proven wrong, then you tuck tail and frag off for a while then come back with the same tired argument I am stuck on polluter pays because they don't always pay. If/when a major spill happens it is invariably the taxpayers in canada who eat cost. an estimated 4000+ orphaned wells, lines and energy infrastructure in Alberta say hi. Tiers 2-4 prove sweet f all. You know that. Then you ignore that companies simply close up shop declare bankruptcy and oh no...who is left footing the bill? I don't have to be a Sears employee wondering where my pension went to explain that to you. PS enjoy your hypocritical BS. Your cute AJHL hockey career and that sublime arrogance you pack around because it's really all you'll ever have isn't it? The Al Bundy of the Alberta Junior Hockey League. As for where I want to move. I am glad you're taking such interest in that and don't understand that my family is moving more for my kids than for any cost of living issue. Somewhere with a University that our kids will not have to flee the area to attend is the big draw. But again, you can't see past your own nose so what does it matter trying to explain things to you. Go back to hockey talk, explaining to plebs why they're wrong and you're right because once upon a time you scored 4 goals in a single game Don't worry about the door hitting you. BC is closed for your type.
  17. Not so much. I just despise ignorance. When I show proof and state that polluter pays doesn't always work in canada then cite the biggest example of this, being the Orphaned well situation and someone says that it's not true, that the polluter does always pay Much like the Trump thread I refuse to accept ignorance without speaking against it. I am pro pipeline, but I also see the concerns and understand them. My only gripe is the monetary compensation for BC, the rest in my opinion is mostly common sense argument. How do we clean it, what about the increased traffic, is there actually a plan in place or are you just going to say we have money for it.
  18. It's called being a centrist and not having an agenda. When you can see both sides of the argument you can argue both sides of the situation
  19. You're right. I dont know either. Your unfailing ability to not be able to pull your head from your arse and refusal to see anyone elses point of view combined with the galling arrogance of alwsys velieving you are right while ignoring essential information is exhausting. We here in BC have valid concerns. In your ignorance of your sublime belief in superiorityyou continue to claim that your rights trump ours. You are not now nor will you ever be that important to the grand scheme of things where that will be true. It is not worth our time to continue. Please just stop now. This is our province. These are our concerns. Meet them and respect that or frag off. By the way. For your records. Since the polluter ALWAYS pays in your eyes. Can you tell us; who is paying for the almost 4000 total estimated orphaned wells and lines and energy infrastructure in Alberta. You know. Since they ALWAYS pay and in no way skirt the rules like i have stated numerous times https://www.producer.com/2018/03/orphan-wells-albertas-47-billion-problem/ Be sure not to slam the door on your way out though since you are done. Wouldn't want you to cut that cloud of smug self satisfaction off prematurely
  20. A. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/18/news/first-nation-considering-lawsuit-after-diesel-spill-destroys-clam-beds Yes it can do long term damage to sensitive areas. B. Polluter pays does not mean polluter pays. We've done this already and you can ignore it or claim otherwise but the courts are populated with cases in which the company simply declares bankruptcy and the taxpayer ends up paying the full remaining cost of industrial clean ups from orphaned wells to mine sites to yes, oil spills. As well due to Harpers CNOOC and FIPA agreements any state owned or privately owned international firm or corporation doing business in canada can rightfully sue for the ability to avoid clean up or avoid payment of clean up claiming it is an impedment to further investment. This was very closely scrutinized and derided when Harper signed in to power that free trade agreement with China. Without even mentioning the laughable state of affairs in which Chinese companies almost never pay their bills in this type of matter Again at any point in time a "polluter" can simply dissolve the company or declare bankruptcy and be free of much of the cost of clean up and remediation. Due to so many 3rd party hands being involved in the process it is fairly easy for companies to walk away from a mess. Alberta's new 100+ wells added to the orphaned well fund should be ample proof. as for the $1.5 BILLION clean up fund Golden Boy assured canadians would exist. Do tell, who is paying that fund? Taxpayers or the oil companies? https://www.loc.gov/law/help/oil-spill-liability/canada.php II. Oil Spill Liability A. Insurance Requirements Section 27 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) provides that companies who apply for exploration or production permits or licenses must provide “proof of financial responsibility in the form of a letter of credit, a guarantee or indemnity bond or in any other form satisfactory to the National Energy Board [NEB], in an amount satisfactory to the Board.”[13] Holders of permits or licenses are required to prove that their letter of credit, guarantee, or indemnity will remain in force for the duration of the work.[14] The NEB can order money to be paid out of the funds available under the letter of credit, guarantee, or indemnity bond in respect of any claim for which proceedings may be instituted, regardless of whether legal proceedings have been commenced.[15] Amounts so paid out are deducted from any subsequent awards.[16] The federal government has thus decided to give the NEB broad powers to decide what types of financial guarantees are acceptable and what the amount of a particular guarantee should be. There are no fixed insurance requirements. B. Response Costs COGOA generally prohibits oil spills and requires all spills to be reported.[17] Persons who are responsible for an oil spill are required to “take all reasonable measures consistent with safety and the protection of the environment to prevent any further spill, to repair or remedy any condition resulting from the spill and to reduce or mitigate any danger to life, health, property or the environment that results or may reasonably be expected to result from the spill.”[18] The Chief Conservation Officer in the NEB can step in to take any actions that he deems necessary.[19] This official can also bring in other parties to do work that is not being done by the polluter.[20] The costs are to be borne by the polluter and constitute a debt owed to the government.[21] Third parties hired by the government are not liable for any damages unless they act unreasonably.[22] C. Limits on Liability Persons who cause oil spills are also generally liable for damages caused to third parties without proof of fault or negligence, subject to limits established by applicable regulations.[23] This is the principle of limited strict liability. In Canada, the limits on liability are generally relatively low. In the Arctic and Northern Canada, the general limit on liability to third parties is generally Can$40 million (about US$38.98 million). In non-prescribed areas the limit is Can$30 million. (about US$29.24 million).[24] These limits do not apply to damages caused by fault, negligence, or violations of COGOA.[25] There is a six-year limitation period on the filing of claims.[26] D. Offenses and Punishments COGOA provides that the following acts are criminal offenses: (1) Making false statements, reports, or documents; (2) Knowingly destroying, mutilating, or falsifying any report, record, or other document; (3) Contravening the Act or regulations; (4) Producing oil under an amended agreement that has not been filed; (5) Undertaking unapproved work; and (6) Failing to comply with a direction, requirement, or order of a safety officer.[27] All of the above offenses are punishable with a fine of up to Can$100,000 (about US$97,256) and imprisonment for up to one year if they are prosecuted in summary proceeding. The same offenses are punishable with fines of up to Can$1 million (about US$972,930) and imprisonment for up to five years if they are prosecuted by way of an indictment.[28] The distinction between summary and indictable offenses is similar to the distinction between misdemeanors and felonies in the United States. The decision as to whether an accused should be tried summarily or by way of an indictment rests with the government. https://www.siskinds.com/envirolaw/pays-polluters/ In practice, however, the actual polluter is often no longer around. When a choice must be made between doing nothing, paying from the public purse, or imposing the costs on the innocent, regulators are increasingly turning to picking the pockets of the innocent. https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/adherence-to-polluter-pays-principle-should-remain-at-the-core-of-canadas-preparedness-response-to-1002769478/ The report notes that Canada’s Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund “is available to pay compensation for reasonable claims for oil pollution response costs or preventive measures taken to minimize damage caused by the discharge of oil from a ship, of any class, in Canadian waters.” In the case of a catastrophic spill that exceeds available international compensation, the fund could provide addition compensation, if needed. However, despite the fund having “a current reserve of approximately $400 million, its total liability for claims for any one spill is approximately $161 million,” panel members write in the report. C. People are gullible and they are uneducated but they are also rightfully passionate about what they believe in. Many on the west coast believe the pipeline is not int he best interests of their area of the country at this point without further study and understanding of how dilbit responds. They also want to see concrete proof of safety measures and not promises of taxpayer monies to clean up spills in the event a company decides they cannot or will not pay. I stand with the pipeline crowd and believe this is the lesser evil. but I also understand the concerns of those regarding so much increased traffic, how dilbit and bitumen respond in cold pacific waters with storm caps and wave heights in excess of 30 ft and also the amount of remuneration paid to British Columbia for their monetary share. I also refuse to abide by PM True Doughs demands BC get on board yet his turning tail at Coderre's refusal of line east. We can yet again agree to disagree but being unwilling to even consider the other sides arguments only shows that some aren't much better than the other in their stubborness and ignorance
  21. Your land? Please show me your status papers.
  22. I look at it the same way I did Northern gateway. Although NG had a host of other issues including lying and a shoddy terminal plan. "The tax revenue that would flow to the B.C. government would be $1.2 billion over the course of 30 years. There will be about 560 to 600 full-time jobs, good-paying full-time permanent positions," said Nogier Under the current terms, B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said Monday that British Columbia would get only eight per cent of the pipeline revenue while assuming 100 per cent of the marine risk for the port terminal and tanker traffic on the West Coast, and 58 per cent of the land-based risk for the pipeline. This is essentially the same with a fractionally better return for BC as the Northern gateway revenue plan. Among the other requests (some very valid) I think this is in the top 3 for good reason
×
×
  • Create New...