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

Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk


kingofsurrey

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

I'd vote for this guy! 

 

 

Great post. You hit a home run.

 

 

 

BC Politicians   have  a duty to our BC citizens to protect our coastal communites. 

 

Alberta and Ottawa Politicians   have failed all Canadians.....  They are not real  Canadians.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gnarcore said:

I'd vote for this guy! 

 

 

Just like the rest of canada the ownership of anything past the low tide line falls under federal jurisdiction.he makes good points but falls short and now hes sitting in the same spot as horgan only this guy has more power than horgan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gnarcore said:

I'd vote for this guy! 

 

 

I would have.  But won't now

 

He's a hypocrite.  he turned down the nomination for leadership citing a desire to spend more time with his family.

 

Then ran again, and after he won embarked on a campaign of why isn't anyone doing something, why won't someone do better.  He HAD the chance but turned it down and is now whining about it.  Now his party is saddled with an un-electable leader who doesn't even have the stones to run in a riding until such time as he knows without question it is a safe riding for him.

 

Edit** That being said, he is in fact bang on with his statements.  Really wish he'd have ran for leadership when he had the chance

Edited by Warhippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I would have.  But won't now

 

He's a hypocrite.  he turned down the nomination for leadership citing a desire to spend more time with his family.

 

Then ran again, and after he won embarked on a campaign of why isn't anyone doing something, why won't someone do better.  He HAD the chance but turned it down and is now whining about it.  Now his party is saddled with an un-electable leader who doesn't even have the stones to run in a riding until such time as he knows without question it is a safe riding for him.

 

Edit** That being said, he is in fact bang on with his statements.  Really wish he'd have ran for leadership when he had the chance

He did run for the NDP leadership and finished third behind angry Tom and some other guy who's name I can't remember. When the opportunity came around again, he had young children and couldn't commit the time required to be a party leader. That doesn't mean that he can't continue being an MP.

 

I think your "hypocrite" statement is completely out of line.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

He did run for the NDP leadership and finished third behind angry Tom and some other guy who's name I can't remember. When the opportunity came around again, he had young children and couldn't commit the time required to be a party leader. That doesn't mean that he can't continue being an MP.

 

I think your "hypocrite" statement is completely out of line.

The hypocrite statement is in regards to his complaining about the leadership of the Liberal and Conservative parties yet knowing he had the opportunity to do something about it but opted not to.

 

For me, that is the same as not voting but complaining about the politicians running the place.

 

The sad thing is, as a paid public servant you sacrifice a lot.  While he's still a damned fine MP he COULD have been a damned fine leader, he lost to Angry Tom because angry Tom was in fact Laytons left hand man and Cullen was still a relative unknown.  During the last leadership run up he had every single opportunity to win it but opted to not run.

 

So now he gets to be a damned fine MP in a failing party without any credible leadership complaining about a lack of credible leadership with the two other major parties

 

Hypocriticial?  Ok maybe not.  ironic...almost.  There's a middle ground there for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT has played Alberta  / Ontario   perfectly.

 

Act like the liberals are pushing for Kinder  when in fact they already knew the constitution / first nations issues would never allow the pipeline to be constructed.

 

Seem strange that Alberta media can't see through JT's tactics though.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How B.C. blocking the Kinder Morgan pipeline does damage to us all

 

By DAVID OLIVEBusiness Columnist
Thu., April 19, 2018

There’s a strong possibility that the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan crude oil pipeline from Alberta’s Athabasca oil sands to the B.C. coast will never be built.

And that setback will do no small damage to Canada.

It’s been two weeks since the sponsor of the Ottawa-approved $7.4-billion megaproject, Kinder Morgan Inc., suspended all but essential operations on the pipeline.

 

Kinder Morgan gave Ottawa until May 31 to persuade the Houston-based company that there will be an end to B.C.’s relentless obstruction of the project. The company noted that B.C. “has been clear and public in its intention to use ‘every tool in its toolbox’ to stop the project.”

Since Kinder Morgan’s stunning announcement, the Trudeau government and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley have not been able to dissuade B.C. from its threatened court challenges and relentless calls for studies into every aspect of a project thoroughly examined and approved by the National Energy Board.

It’s rare that the fate of a single project has the potential to disrupt a federation. But it is folly to downplay what’s at stake here.

The issue is not the pipeline, but the causes and consequences of the project’s quite possible demise.

B.C.’s delaying tactics on Kinder Morgan are borderline illegal. B.C. Premier John Horgan has acknowledged as much, having told his environment minister that trying to stop the project outright would be “inappropriate and unlawful.”

 

To get around that, Horgan, 53, devised the campaign of B.C. obstructionism that has been playing out for months.

But since formally blocking the project and causing it to be ceaselessly delayed amounts to the same thing, Horgan’s government is paying scant heed of the law.

Construction of the Kinder Morgan project, which would provide Athabasca’s landlocked oil access to global markets, would enable currently discount-priced Athabasca oil to command a much higher price.

The reward would be greater employment income, R&D prowess, and government royalties that Alberta, in particular, needs in its bid to diversify away from oil and gas.

 

Much more troubling is that the cancellation of this project could lead Canada into a constitutional crisis. It would require Canadians to decide whether a province or territory can trample on federal authority with impunity.

 

The demise of the project would likely also prompt a foreign-investment chill in Canada. If the project dies, Kinder Morgan stands to lose the approximately $1 billion it has already spent on it. The company will also have wasted the more than four years it has spent obtaining approvals for the expansion, including agreements with the 41 Indigenous communities closest to the pipeline route.

Any country in which the national government cannot enforce its authority is a place that global investors understandably avoid.

Foreign investment is not only an engine of oilsands development. It is also powering the growth of Southern Ontario’s remarkable high-tech eco-system.

The legacy of a failed Kinder Morgan would also include years and possibly decades of soured relations between not only Alberta and B.C., but Alberta and Ottawa. Facts to the contrary, it is widely believed by Albertans that Ottawa has made little effort to get Kinder Morgan built.

In the absence of tidewater access for Athabasca output, Canada’s oil industry will continue to have just one customer, the United States.

Reliance on a sole customer is a profoundly unwise business strategy. Already, most Athabasca oil is sold to the Americans, and at a deep discount to the global price because it can’t be sold elsewhere. Which means Canadians are subsidizing U.S. oil consumption.

Access for Athabasca’s heavy crude to the immense markets of China and Japan, the world’s second- and third-largest economies, respectively, would correct that long-standing anomaly.

 

Depending on world oil-market conditions, Western Canadian Select (WCS), the benchmark price for Athabasca crude, trades at a discount of between $10 and more than $30 (U.S.) per barrel to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent, two of the most prominent global benchmarks, and even to Mexico's flagship Maya, which is of the same lower quality as WCS but has access to global markets."

Insufficient pipeline capacity is the culprit in that yawning price differential. As Canadian production has increased while pipeline capacity has stagnated, producers have been forced to turn to rail to serve U.S. customers. But the steep cost of rail transport further widens the price differential.

In the absence of an expanded Kinder Morgan, whose capacity would roughly triple if the project proceeded, Canada will continue to forfeit billions of dollars in annual royalty and other revenue.

 

That forfeiture is a punishing reality for all Canadians. The Alberta oilpatch has always been a major customer of suppliers elsewhere in Canada, notably Central Canada.

 

B.C. is run by a newish minority NDP government propped up by the Green Party. The Greens can topple Horgan at any moment if he reneges on his campaign promise to somehow block an expanded Kinder Morgan.

 

Officially, B.C.’s antipathy to Kinder Morgan is all about protecting the B.C. coastline from potential spills by oil tankers. Actually, it’s about Horgan keeping his government in power by appeasing the Greens.

 

It is galling to consider the logic-free hand B.C. is playing.

 

The Port of Vancouver handles about half of Canada’s ocean shipping. Each of those vessels manages to navigate the admittedly challenging sea lanes of that portion of the B.C. coastline.

 

But B.C., offering no proof, argues that tankers calling on Kinder Morgan’s terminal at Burnaby would be unable to do so.

 

B.C. is a major exporter of coal, the fossil fuel most powerfully implicated in climate change.

 

And the Horgan government has been using the lure of taxpayer subsidies to induce the LNG Canada consortium to proceed with a $40-billion natural-gas megaproject. That project includes a new tanker terminal on the B.C. coastline and – sit down for this – a new pipeline carved through B.C. mountain ranges to feed that terminal.

 

It also happens that for 65 years residents of B.C.’s Lower Mainland have been supplied with Alberta oil by the Trans Mountain pipeline, opened in 1953. The Kinder Morgan expansion would essentially twin that existing pipeline, requiring no new right of way.

 

So, B.C. is not averse to pipelines or more tankers off the B.C. coastline – just those associated with the Kinder Morgan expansion project.

Obviously, the mere existence of oil is a problem for many people.

 

But the hard reality is that global oil demand is expected to keep rising between now and 2040, according to the latest forecast of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA). Oil not sourced from Athabasca will be obtained from the emirs of Kuwait, the perpetual conflict zone Nigeria, or the Siberian oilfields that enrich the kleptocratic regime of Vladimir Putin.

 

It would not be difficult to rally to Victoria’s side in wishing for a world free of fossil fuels. Except that’s not remotely John Horgan’s game.

The obstructionism of a B.C. government oblivious to its hypocrisy is a cynical exercise in political self-preservation.

 

It is also a clear and present danger to the Canadian federation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Lmao the new name of this thread is hilarious. Meanwhile Alberta and Ottawa are considering investing in the project.

The National Energy Program (NEP) was an energy policyof 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The National Energy Program (NEP) was an energy policyof 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.

K.

Edited by Ryan Strome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this fails Alberta will have cost itself and Canada billions by outright refusing to work hand-in-hand with BC. They will have no one to blame but themselves for not giving any heed to the concerns of BC and instead creating this campaign of deflection, threats, blame and unconstitutional tarrifs. All in an attempt to force BC's hand in accepting all the risk despite gaining little in return.

 

It would seem to me that they would rather sell their oil at cheaper rates to the Americans than work on an equitable solution with BC. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toews said:

If this fails Alberta will have cost itself and Canada billions by outright refusing to work hand-in-hand with BC. They will have no one to blame but themselves for not giving any heed to the concerns of BC and instead creating this campaign of deflection, threats, blame and unconstitutional tarrifs. All in an attempt to force BC's hand in accepting all the risk despite gaining little in return.

 

It would seem to me that they would rather sell their oil at cheaper rates to the Americans than work on an equitable solution with BC. 

1) How so?

 

2) No that's people like you, kos and jimmy.

 

3) The project will get completed. Again you keep saying Alberta but Ottawa has repeatedly said it would get built.

 

Edit- Btw a majority of BCers support the project and two thirds of Canadians support it.

Edited by Ryan Strome
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

K.

I will ALWAYS go back to this because by putting taxdollars in to a pipeline and propping up a company that is essentially a small part of what the NEP would have done, except in this case the taxpayers will be lucky to see a total return while with the NEP

 

Well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I will ALWAYS go back to this because by putting taxdollars in to a pipeline and propping up a company that is essentially a small part of what the NEP would have done, except in this case the taxpayers will be lucky to see a total return while with the NEP

 

Well....

You mean huge deficits and insane interest rates just like what was predicted to happen. Anyhow I'm not arguing the NEP it's long gone and never coming back no matter how you or I feel about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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