slippers

Not having a pipeline option costs the Canadian economy an input of about $20 billion a year because we get $29 a barrel instead of $49 (@ WTI $59). Add in another $17 billion for lost production due to BC threats (a million barrels/ day minimum), add in billions of lost capital investment, and then add in the unbelievably huge losses due to our gifting the LNG treasure to the US and Australia and we are likely talking half a trillion dollars of economic activity (with multipliers) stymied because you don't want to see two extra specs a day floating off into the horizon. The OPEC chapter of the Sierra Club should get a medal. Very patriotic of them to concentrate their message north of the border. Some here have the nerve to complain about lack of money for social safety nets.

Our environment will be safer after the pipeline is installed and tanker traffic increases. Protesters conveniently forget tanker traffic currently cruises in and out of Vancouver without the safety infrastructure KM will bring. Further, the existing pipeline is old and likely to begin having failures. If the environment is the issue there will be an outcry to have the pipeline completed asap. But the environment is not the issue. The issue is preserving new energy markets for our competitors. Oil sands are only a portion of the oil industry and oil is only a portion of the energy industry. Short sighted water carriers for our competitors and cucks like Harper have mostly destroyed our meal ticket for the future by spurning Chinese investment and not jamming pipelines in a la Dakota access. It's done and that's the last we will hear about it. Eco systems are robust, not fragile. No coastlines have been ruined by oil tanker traffic. A rare few microscopic spots have experienced temporary issues. BC will not be one of those places because of the ridiculous safeguards proposed. My agenda is I don't want five people moving into my basement and I prefer a wealthy country to a poor country.

lol...BC has already said this, you're a bit late. Alberta is mildly retaliating.

The article mentions that a fisherman blames the oil spill 25 years ago for the declining population of silver herring and the bird that eats them. Sounds far fetched considering the population of sea otters, which reside on the top of the local food chain, has been unaffected. The article mentions drunken sea captains are no longer the last line of defence. Double hull tankers, double tug boats and modern clean up equipment are the new norm. The video describes a relatively thorough clean up. There are no issues that anyone is aware of. Part of the discussion was gratefulness that it was bitumen and not another more dangerous type of oil. Again, thanks for the back up. This was 20 times the amount of oil in a tanker. People are blaming fumes for various mental and physical issues. No comment. Brazil. No standards. Did not read. They get business that should be ours. If we didn't have to pay a $30 dollar a barrel stupid tax to our US masters, that money would be available for taxation. The oil companies provide good wages which are hugely taxed. Those huge income tax windfalls can quickly transformed UI benefits going the other way. What risk? There has been no destruction of a tourist industry or a fishery from an oil spill anywhere in history. Are you cancelling your trip to Brazil? What's your true agenda?

The "fellow", as you refer to him, is the vice president of the environmental society. He was only happy after the spill was cleaned. The "citizen" is a disgruntled lady who had her property bought from her by Enbridge but that wasn't enough, she also wanted them to pay for her business, whatever that was. Kinder Morgan is a puny beneficiary of the pipeline. Oil sands alone kicked in 23 billion into our economy in 2015. With some effort and better prices that yearly contribution could increase ten fold. Without the energy industry there is no money for first nations, no money for health care, no money for pensions. The cost to Canadians of this foreign inspired fear of pipelines and development is unfathomable. We must be the only fertile ground on earth for this kind of fear mongering. Is there any examples of other countries stopping oil flow out of fear? Identify an oil spill disaster area in Canada that isn't fine 10 years later (or even fine now). At least there'd be a talking point.

If it's more expensive to clean up bitumen that's the company's problem. Enbridge did it's clean up job well in Kalamazoo. In this case it turned out to be more expensive because the EPA went rogue by demanding the river be re-dredged, even though local officials considered the spill to already mitigated. Most considered the unheard of demands by the EPA to be more damaging than the spill. Sock it to the foreign pipeline company. Enbridge lived up to its promise For Dr. Jim Dobbins, a retired family doctor and vice-president of a local conservation society in Marshall, that assessment of the company might be a little harsh. He admits he was sickened and angry as he watched the oil course under the bridge that spans the Kalamazoo just west of town. But when then Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel addressed a community meeting in Marshall soon after the spill, he decided to give the company a chance. "[Daniel] said, 'We've made a mess and we're going to clean it up,'" recounted Dobbins. He admits to being pleasantly surprised. 1 of 8 "I'm not angry at the company," said Dobbins, although he is rankled by the spill. "But generally, it appears as though they have done what they said they would do. And that is clean up the river." He also thinks the EPA has gone too far with this latest order to re-dredge the river. "I'm very concerned about them doing more damage to the river than [they] are good by retrieving that amount of oil that's left," said Dobbins. He thinks it is all about the EPA throwing its weight around rather than worry over the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.

Tough choices have to be made when US refineries demand $30 a barrel discounts from their hostage. Imagine, these guys can still make a profit selling for $35 a barrel. Unstoppable. Conventional producers have a choice so they leave for booming economies where profit is easy.

Good choice, but we should also take in California so we can have an uninterrupted pipeline of future dreamers streaming in. Alberta can set up there own thing with the US heartland.

nvm

Eight more rigs leaving Canada today for the USA. The oil economy continues to boom. World Oil consumption breaking records with no end in sight. Canada left standing on the outside, sucked in by moderately intelligent foreign players. http://www.4-traders.com/TRINIDAD-DRILLING-LTD-1411890/news/Trinidad-Drilling-Responds-to-Increased-Customer-Demand-with-Relocation-of-Rigs-to-Permian-Basin-25888114/

Would you prefer BC to maintain an affiliation with Ontario east or do you favour BC independence? I assume you wouldn't be in favour BC being a part of an independent Western Canadian energy superpower if the protest ultimately backfires.

Well, I did say "doing well here", and by "here"......I mean the pipeline issues. lol

If Trudeau sticks with Notley, who is also doing well here, disaster can be avoided.

You and about a million others.

There will be more than a trade war. The country is finished unless oil flows. Alberta and Saskatchewan will leave. Consequences will not matter.

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.