Gnarcore Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 17 hours ago, I.Am.Ironman said: Is that the actual figure? IMO BC needs its fair share of revenue for taking on the risk to our environment and coastline. I'm not opposed to it but BC needs its fair share and adequate spill plans/finances in place. It's what I've read in recent weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 12 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: people that have legit concerns over the coastal economy aren't "loonies" just like everyone in Calgary isn't a rig pig. But the ones who are Flames fans can go &^@# themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 30 minutes ago, Gnarcore said: But the ones who are Flames fans can go &^@# themselves. well, yah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/02/09/Sorry-Alberta-BC-Will-Not-Pay-For-Your-Bungling/ Last month Suncor announced it was eliminating 400 bitumen-mining jobs by purchasing self-driving ore trucks. This is only the latest indignity (or “efficiency” as industry calls it) for a sector that produces more carbon and less and less employment and public revenue. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley are staking their political careers on the Trans Mountain pipeline and massively increased bitumen production. Why? Bitumen royalties now make up a puny 3.5 per cent of the total Alberta budget. Last year, the oil patch shed 14 per cent of its workforce. Over the last decade 5,100 fewer people were employed by Alberta’s oil and gas sector — a trend that oil companies have assured shareholders will continue. Meanwhile Canada was just ranked 51st out of 60 counties in the 2018 Climate Change Performance Index — weighed down in large part by a certain oily elephant north of Edmonton. If we are selling out core Canadian values like aspiring to be a global leader on climate policy, let’s at least negotiate a decent price. But as usual Canada seems to get very little for exploitation by others of our vast resource endowment. On the campaign trail before her upset victory, Notley pledged to improve Alberta’s wretched record on capturing resource rents. The NDP platform stated “the PCs failed to earn Albertans’ full and fair value for their oil and gas by maintaining one of the world’s lowest oil royalty rate structures.” How has that panned out? In the budget year 2013/14, Alberta collected $5.2 billion in bitumen royalties on production of 778 million barrels with a market worth of about $73 billion — a revenue capture of around seven per cent. Two years later, Alberta collected a mere $1.5 billion on 942 million barrels of bitumen production, worth only $38 billion due to collapsed oil prices. This resource rent works out to less than four per cent return to Alberta taxpayers. Compare that to the days of former premier Peter Lougheed when Alberta captured 28 per cent of resource revenue, or even 15 per cent even in the days of Ralph Klein. Norway taxes oil company profits at close to 80 per cent. In spite of pledging to diversify the dangerously oil-dependent Alberta economy, the Notley government has doubled down on a bitumen pipedream — running large provincial deficits and doubling the debt in the belief that future bitumen royalties will return to over $5 billion in 2019-2020. Is this realistic under such an obviously ineffective royalty system? Beyond the Potemkin village of provincial politics and irrational expectations of many Albertans, the world is rapidly changing. The Trans Mountain pipeline is ostensibly to access Asian markets hungry for Canada’s bitumen, primarily refined into transportation fuel. Yet China recently announced it will soon outlaw the sale and manufacture of gas and diesel vehicles. Britain and France have made similar pledges to be implemented by 2040. China has made manufacture and adoption of electric vehicles a strategic priority with the express goal of reducing oil imports. With massive government support, China’s battery manufacturers are on track to bring online more than three times the production capacity of the rest of the world combined. According to Swiss-based investment expert Anthony Milewski, quoted in Bloomberg, “China, unabashedly, wants to be the Detroit of electric vehicles. There is no question in my mind that they are going to lead the world in capacity and, eventually, in the technology.” Besides cauterizing the supposed market for Alberta bitumen, what does this have to do with Trans Mountain? Some analysts predict global adoption of electric vehicles could reduce oil demand by two million barrels a day by 2023, causing a global crash in the price of oil similar to 2014, except this would be permanent and accelerating. Energy expert Tony Seba believes disruptive technologies such as ever-cheaper batteries and electric vehicles will cause global oil demand to peak at 100 million barrels per day as early as 2020 and decline to 70 million by 2030, collapsing global oil prices to around $25/barrel. He specifically dismisses the business case for Canada’s bitumen exports at the 48-minute mark in this keynote presentation, saying, “any pipelines out of Canada are basically gone.” Rather than drinking more oil revenue Kool-Aid, Alberta should be more concerned with being saddled with massive cleanup costs when the market evaporates for the lowest-value petroleum on the planet. The Alberta government estimates that outstanding environmental liabilities now top $31 billion, yet security bonds cover only 0.5 per cent of that amount. Industry’s demonstrated desire to wash their hands of thousands of orphaned conventional oil and gas wells portends big problems if the bitumen market goes bust. After squandering a resource bounty for decades and having virtually nothing to show for it other than public debt of $45 billion, the government of Alberta seems incredulous that British Columbians are less than enthused about dangerous diluted bitumen shipments off our coast. A spill of this toxic unstable emulsion, particularly in the confined airshed of Canada’s busiest port, would be catastrophic. It didn’t have to be this way. Alberta extracted $500 billion more petroleum than Norway, yet this small Nordic country has so far managed to sock away more than $1 trillion USD from the resource. If Alberta’s finances weren’t in such a shambles, perhaps there wouldn’t be a panic to punch a pipeline with such a dubious business case to the B.C. coast. Premier John Horgan is correct to put the interests of British Columbians first, as Rachel Notley purports to do with her own province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 2 hours ago, riffraff said: Thanks for you input. My question would be: despite our strict and top of the line standards we are potentially allowing ships in our waters from other countries whose safety, and maintenance standards are almost non existent. How does bc/Canada ensure there is a national standard that is upheld? I think that what ever guideline the Country puts on, the company would have to follow, including what type of ships are used. Basically, the country (Canada) can dictate what type of ship the company will charter...........if we implement a pre-inspection of the ship, that is how it would be done. Think of it this way. We can dictate what ships enter Canadian waters, and can turn away any ship that does not conform, we can also hold up a ship from entering or leaving, if the weather dictates they do.............extra tugs can also be ordered or mandated....... Think of it this way............how many planes have you heard fall from the sky at YVR? None! Because the inspection process is so stringent, it does not happen. That is not to say it is 100 % infallible...nothing is, but the chance is minute. Think about how many oil tankers pass through our waters every day, months and years on end..............it is already happening.............. I like the idea of "Marshalls" like air marshal's being placed on these tankers along with a coastal pilot, to ensure the captains are sober and all operations are working properly.... Keep in mind that the risk is all on the out bound ships, as the tanker arrives empty, like every other tanker arriving at the Port of Vancouver, it is just in the loading and departures that there is extra risk which can be mitigated. But as most have pointed out............there is nothing without risk......... * Incidentally, Canada through Transport Canada is the governing agency, and they have an excellent record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 22 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: I think that what ever guideline the Country puts on, the company would have to follow, including what type of ships are used. Basically, the country (Canada) can dictate what type of ship the company will charter...........if we implement a pre-inspection of the ship, that is how it would be done. Think of it this way. We can dictate what ships enter Canadian waters, and can turn away any ship that does not conform, we can also hold up a ship from entering or leaving, if the weather dictates they do.............extra tugs can also be ordered or mandated....... Think of it this way............how many planes have you heard fall from the sky at YVR? None! Because the inspection process is so stringent, it does not happen. That is not to say it is 100 % infallible...nothing is, but the chance is minute. Think about how many oil tankers pass through our waters every day, months and years on end..............it is already happening.............. I like the idea of "Marshalls" like air marshal's being placed on these tankers along with a coastal pilot, to ensure the captains are sober and all operations are working properly.... Keep in mind that the risk is all on the out bound ships, as the tanker arrives empty, like every other tanker arriving at the Port of Vancouver, it is just in the loading and departures that there is extra risk which can be mitigated. But as most have pointed out............there is nothing without risk......... * Incidentally, Canada through Transport Canada is the governing agency, and they have an excellent record. The risk isn't just on outbound ships..an empty ship still has fuel and would be a massive disaster is something extreme happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 31 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Think of it this way............how many planes have you heard fall from the sky at YVR? None! Because the inspection process is so stringent, it does not happen. That is not to say it is 100 % infallible...nothing is, but the chance is minute. https://www.bing.com/search?q=plane+crash+yvr&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-ca&httpsmsn=1&refig=fd63b5cf71ec44c6a8c7185323480b39&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=plane+crash+yvr&sc=2-15&qs=n&sk=&cvid=fd63b5cf71ec44c6a8c7185323480b39 1,180,000 results for, plane crash yvr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Fair comment. I think it is dirty politics... / smart politics - no ethics ...... JT is playing both sides..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats interesting.... what would 'leadership' look like to you on this? Horgan and Notely are leading their respective camps, Trudeau and his ministers have come out pretty forcefully in the media saying the project is going to happen.... Horgan hit a real nerve bringing up the issue the way he did, and for once I actually agree with him. The safety aspect of this project is murky, we're essentially experimenting with the BC coast until someone comes forward with a viable response and cleanup method. Leadership would look like weighing all the scientific and political issues and articulate ONE vision that balances those aspects that respects that there are polarized views on this and that you cannot play to both sides. Horgan did what he is paid to do - so did Notely. The one person who is not doing what they are supposed to do is the Prime Minister. JT needs to articulate what HE thinks is in the best interest of all Canadians inclusive of environmental and economic concerns. He has done nothing remotely close to this to date. Whether I agree or not with him, I would at least respect him if he showed an ounce of leadership here versus implying he is supportive of all sides on this (and seemingly ever other) issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Leadership would look like weighing all the scientific and political issues and articulate ONE vision that balances those aspects that respects that there are polarized views on this and that you cannot play to both sides. Horgan did what he is paid to do - so did Notely. The one person who is not doing what they are supposed to do is the Prime Minister. JT needs to articulate what HE thinks is in the best interest of all Canadians inclusive of environmental and economic concerns. He has done nothing remotely close to this to date. Whether I agree or not with him, I would at least respect him if he showed an ounce of leadership here versus implying he is supportive of all sides on this (and seemingly ever other) issue. Yah I can get behind that. I am a little tired of the "balancing the economy and environment" statement that doesn't have any specifics to it. It does concern me that we really haven't heard much about a federal marine safety plan yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 5 hours ago, gurn said: https://www.bing.com/search?q=plane+crash+yvr&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-ca&httpsmsn=1&refig=fd63b5cf71ec44c6a8c7185323480b39&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=plane+crash+yvr&sc=2-15&qs=n&sk=&cvid=fd63b5cf71ec44c6a8c7185323480b39 1,180,000 results for, plane crash yvr No doubt it happens, but don't take things out of context.........no one said it can't happen, but let's say it has a very small possibility of happening...... We have so many tankers and freighters going up our coast daily.....I just don't see the negligence, or even accidents that you are so sure will happen....... But no doubt it could.............and I agree it would be a catastrophe if it did happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Gnarcore said: The risk isn't just on outbound ships..an empty ship still has fuel and would be a massive disaster is something extreme happens. No doubt empty ships do have fuel on them........but there are 10's of thousands of ships travelling world wide daily My biggest problem with environmentalist is that they offer no alternative and still use oil based products on a daily basis themselves......... Imagine if we had a horse for every person on earth.....deal with the problems of that.........the pollution/deforestation/room........but there is your transportation..... Or maybe Bikes are the way to go?................wooden tires and frames....no metal face it, "MAN" is a consumer...................give me an alternative that I can afford, and I will use it.........."IF" you do as well! It is such a multifaceted problem, with no simple answers......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 On 13/02/2018 at 2:43 PM, Bitter Melon said: The problem with the pipeline that Alberta doesn’t seem to get is that BC is assuming nearly all of the risk. A spill here could be catastrophic to multiple ecosystems, a spill in Alberta might soil an area that’s essentially Mordor already. I’m not inherently opposed to pipelines either, I just think it’s hysterical that Alberta is losing its mind and being as petty as resorting to things like a wine boycott because BC is being cautious. You're right, because none of the pipeline will be in alberta at all. Yup, no risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 hour ago, MikeyBoy44 said: You're right, because none of the pipeline will be in alberta at all. Yup, no risk. I’m guessing he’s never been to Alberta before... Everyone is forgetting the 100s to 1000s of rail cars and trucks carrying oil through our province daily. A pipeline is safest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 8 hours ago, Gnarcore said: Premier John Horgan is correct to put the interests of British Columbians first, as Rachel Notley purports to do with her own province. Actually, neither is putting the interests of their respective provinces first. Both are doing it for political reason. John Horgan is doing it because of the NDPs coalition with the Green Party. The NDP has to appease the Greens; if not, the coalition collapses and the NDP would be out of power. Rachel Notley is facing re-election and is in a tough fight with the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 hour ago, MikeyBoy44 said: You're right, because none of the pipeline will be in alberta at all. Yup, no risk. A+ reading comprehension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: I’m guessing he’s never been to Alberta before... Everyone is forgetting the 100s to 1000s of rail cars and trucks carrying oil through our province daily. A pipeline is safest. Not for BC Keep the bitumen tar in the ground until we have the technology to transport it safely.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: No doubt it happens, but don't take things out of context.........no one said it can't happen, but let's say it has a very small possibility of happening...... We have so many tankers and freighters going up our coast daily.....I just don't see the negligence, or even accidents that you are so sure will happen....... But no doubt it could.............and I agree it would be a catastrophe if it did happen If there is a miniscule risk of an accident, that risk becomes a certainty the more times you do something. To say an oil spill only happens every 1,000,000 times a tanker sails is to admit that an accident is inevitable, just a matter of time. Build a refinery, turn that oil into gas, then load it on tankers. There would be more Canadian jobs and less opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 38 minutes ago, gurn said: If there is a miniscule risk of an accident, that risk becomes a certainty the more times you do something. To say an oil spill only happens every 1,000,000 times a tanker sails is to admit that an accident is inevitable, just a matter of time. Build a refinery, turn that oil into gas, then load it on tankers. There would be more Canadian jobs and less opposition. And maybe that is the political end game,...............who knows? I do know that in most spill escapement is underreport by both the ship owner and the Government, and that booms and sorbents are only a PR gimic, and that only 10 to 25% is actually picked up, and that somehow the waters recover.................................. It is actually the heavy oils, and the light gases that evaporate, that are the impossible one......what ever is floating has a good chance to be collected, with the right amount of equipment....................I know that there will be 5 new oilspill response stations being built along the coast, by WCMRC, who are paid your by the oil industry and will be up and running prior to any new tanker sytstem coming on line.........millions of dollars will be spend on state of the art buildings, boats, and equipment. I know the Port of Nanaimo has a state of the art marine traffic station, that can track a commercial vessel 24/7 and tell tem how much water is under their keel at all times, and can see all the vessel movements within the gulf at one time. all through AIS, Radar, Satelite Navigation, and customized mapping stations...............I can tell you they can removed movements in retime and be able to talk to VTS and the ships.............and this is only what the Post of Nanaimo has done.......................there are sister systems in both Vancouver and Price Rupert, as well as sophisticated systems in Victoria and the west coast Near Tofino. I can tell you that CCG flies our coast line on a daily schedule looking for spills, and I can tell you there are CCG aux. units stationed in other smaller ports along the coast doing similar work by boat. I can tell that the Port of Vancouver runs the echo program that monitors whale migration in through out the marine traffic zones as part of several programs in conjunction with the BC Pilot Authority to mitigate noise interference to whales crossing in front our behind ships, and that all federal Ports in Canada belong to Green Marine an environmental watchdog who has the Ports voluntarily sign on to their rules and regs. I can tell you that Prince Rupert and Nanaimo Port Authorities commit 100's of thousands of dollars to make our upland and marine communities safe, and give them an ear for their concerns. I can tell you that the Pacific Marine Institute runs pollution experiments all the time and monitors for many aquatic anomalies..... I can say from the professional people that I have worked for and alongside, are well trained and very professional and they care, because that is why they are there. The marine system as we know it today, is very safe.........the marine system we will see in the future, would blow you away! I trust the decision makers in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 7 hours ago, gurn said: Build a refinery, turn that oil into gas, then load it on tankers. There would be more Canadian jobs and less opposition. While many would admit that would be the preferred outcome it's just not as profitable compared to shipping unrefined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.