Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Nope. Jt is only playing albertans classic tactic How so? By saying it will get built? By approving it? By suggesting the feds may invest in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Well the feds are. thats true, the hypocrisy of how Trudeau treated Quebec vs how he's handling this isn't lost on us. I have a deal for you RS, lets open a restaurant together on the border between AB and BC. I'll take 50% of the profits, hire my own people (you don't get any), and bring free cash from an international sugar daddy, you take 8% and deal with the clean up of whatever mess is left behind. Sound fair? Edited April 21, 2018 by Jimmy McGill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats true, the hypocrisy of how Trudeau treated Quebec vs how he's handling this isn't lost on us. I have a deal for you RS, lets open a restaurant together on the border between AB and BC. I'll take 50% of the profits, hire my own people (you don't get any), and bring free cash from an international sugar daddy, you take 8% and deal with the clean up of whatever mess is left behind. Sound fair? Actually that does. Restaurants don't get to dirty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 Just now, Ryan Strome said: Actually that does. Restaurants don't get to dirty. you've never worked in one apparently. All hyperbole aside, in no way its the KM expansion a good deal for BC, particularly if AB is allowed to ship 100% dil bit through it. You'd never be pleased with a deal like that if it was reversed and BC was pushing it on AB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 8:08 PM, LordCanuck said: lol, this threads gone about as well as we need oil pipelines. build a refinery or 2 in alberta. this needs more love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: you've never worked in one apparently. All hyperbole aside, in no way its the KM expansion a good deal for BC, particularly if AB is allowed to ship 100% dil bit through it. You'd never be pleased with a deal like that if it was reversed and BC was pushing it on AB. I have said many times B.C should get a bigger cut but that cut should come from Ottawa not Alberta as it's our resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JM_ Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I have said many times B.C should get a bigger cut but that cut should come from Ottawa not Alberta as it's our resource. Actually 1/2 of it is as far as royalties go. The feds have never been good at sharing. JT would rather give that money to a US firm.... which I'm led to understand you don't like to do. AB wants access to the coast but doesn't want to share in the responsibility for a spill, thats a big part of the problem. If this was viewed as an actual partnership and shared responsibility by AB things would be much different today. This whole thing is rife with hypocrisy. People who want the line say people who oppose it just want to give money away to the US, but turn around and want Trudeau to give Kinder Morgan our tax dollars to prop up the deal. They say BC is bad because we'll buy gas from countries with poor emissions standards, but they want to sell 10X that amount of oil to one of the worlds worst polluters. Its Canada's coast but AB won't share in the cleanup responsibility. Edited April 21, 2018 by Jimmy McGill 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Warhippy Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I have said many times B.C should get a bigger cut but that cut should come from Ottawa not Alberta as it's our resource. Our coastline is our resource, we take all the risk, you get all the good jobs and bulk of the money. Since it's OUR resource, we want a bigger cut. 40% should do it, you and the feds can split the remaining 60% in OUR country for putting OUR resources at risk. See how that sounds now And therein lies the fundamental point of the argument Jimmy is making. It's YOUR resources, yet it's Canada's coastline. WE are taking the risks, yet YOU are getting the benefits. WE just want more oversight, a shade more money and a ton of extra research done which only benefits everyone. YOU just want it done. Edited April 21, 2018 by Warhippy 1 4 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 29 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Our coastline is our resource, we take all the risk, you get all the good jobs and bulk of the money. Since it's OUR resource, we want a bigger cut. 40% should do it, you and the feds can split the remaining 60% in OUR country for putting OUR resources at risk. See how that sounds now And therein lies the fundamental point of the argument Jimmy is making. It's YOUR resources, yet it's Canada's coastline. WE are taking the risks, yet YOU are getting the benefits. WE just want more oversight, a shade more money and a ton of extra research done which only benefits everyone. YOU just want it done. Hippy I understand @Jimmy McGill argument, he articulates himself very well. I may not agree on everything but I would argue if Ottawa wasn't so greedy a deal could be done already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Actually 1/2 of it is as far as royalties go. The feds have never been good at sharing. JT would rather give that money to a US firm.... which I'm led to understand you don't like to do. AB wants access to the coast but doesn't want to share in the responsibility for a spill, thats a big part of the problem. If this was viewed as an actual partnership and shared responsibility by AB things would be much different today. This whole thing is rife with hypocrisy. People who want the line say people who oppose it just want to give money away to the US, but turn around and want Trudeau to give Kinder Morgan our tax dollars to prop up the deal. They say BC is bad because we'll buy gas from countries with poor emissions standards, but they want to sell 10X that amount of oil to one of the worlds worst polluters. Its Canada's coast but AB won't share in the cleanup responsibility. 1) Don't get me started on that. 2) Totally agree. 3) Correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Our coastline is our resource, we take all the risk, you get all the good jobs and bulk of the money. Since it's OUR resource, we want a bigger cut. 40% should do it, you and the feds can split the remaining 60% in OUR country for putting OUR resources at risk. See how that sounds now And therein lies the fundamental point of the argument Jimmy is making. It's YOUR resources, yet it's Canada's coastline. WE are taking the risks, yet YOU are getting the benefits. WE just want more oversight, a shade more money and a ton of extra research done which only benefits everyone. YOU just want it done. It should have been done decades ago. The fact the arguing is happening in 2018 is ridiculous. I'm sure you agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: It should have been done decades ago. The fact the arguing is happening in 2018 is ridiculous. I'm sure you agree with that. And again 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 More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: Hippy I understand @Jimmy McGill argument, he articulates himself very well. I may not agree on everything but I would argue if Ottawa wasn't so greedy a deal could be done already. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: 1) Don't get me started on that. 2) Totally agree. 3) Correct. I wonder if all of this will lead us back to the idea of a new rail line from northern AB to the NWT to move oil. A few years back there was a lot of support for it and the economics make sense. There's a lot to be said for starting with willing partners. Edited April 22, 2018 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=659398 Butbutbut, everything's fine. Notley wants to "find out what went wrong" in order to do better. Not on our soil. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 37 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=659398 Butbutbut, everything's fine. Notley wants to "find out what went wrong" in order to do better. Not on our soil. well lets see.... pressurized pipes welded in a hurry... what could go wrong eh? Its so much simpler to simply dig up dirt and get it processed elsewhere for cleanup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=659398 Butbutbut, everything's fine. Notley wants to "find out what went wrong" in order to do better. Not on our soil. Don't forget, new double walled pipe, with leak detection and all the bells and whistles but the leak was discovered by accident. Oh and they're sorry. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 7:03 PM, Ryan Strome said: Lmao the new name of this thread is hilarious. Meanwhile Alberta and Ottawa are considering investing in the project. Both governments have a history of doing stupid things. No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 On 2018-04-22 at 9:01 AM, debluvscanucks said: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=659398 Butbutbut, everything's fine. Notley wants to "find out what went wrong" in order to do better. Not on our soil. its bad enough having to contend with all the natural disasters, but then there's alberta screwing up their province ,while trying to appease BRITISH COLUMBIANS ,that their going to do this right, when this happens it gets REALLY hard to listen to these corporations downplay FACTS or exaggerate some ridiculous forcast. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 17 hours ago, Gnarcore said: Both governments have a history of doing stupid things. No surprise there. All governments have a history of doing stupid things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts