RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 23 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: But doesn't the east and government make the rules about the pipeline and tells them what they can and can't do? So s.k and Manitoba never had a fighting chance and also both those provinces have oil so they accepted the risk and got paid to accept,thx to them taking on the risk b.c didn't have too until the oil industry was forced too. government made the rules so why didn't b.c speak up sooner, way sooner, if they have Canada's best at heart? I agree ocean spills are different but who are we to judge? A spill is a spill , land or water.....it's all part of the risk of doing business with oil.....it's why Canada benefits from selling oil cause Alberta , s.k and Manitoba accepted most of the risk...but now when they ask a province to do the same....it's unfair? Lost of of industry is lost of industry..... each province is different so it affects them in different ways, they still accept it for Canada , putting a nation before a province is such a bad thing? ..... AFAIK, BC spoke up right away. It was the Christy Clark government and IIRC, they put out a list of requirements for support of pipeline expansion, before they would support the idea. Then the NDP took over and because they needed the Greens to support them, they dug in harder. You're correct in saying that the Feds have the final say, which is why the courts have gotten involved. BTW: I disagree with your assertion that "a spill is a spill". The Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon are not the same as the spill at Nexen's Long Lake project near Ft Mac in 2015....or any spill that has occurred on land, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: AFAIK, BC spoke up right away. It was the Christy Clark government and IIRC, they put out a list of requirements for support of pipeline expansion, before they would support the idea. Then the NDP took over and because they needed the Greens to support them, they dug in harder. You're correct in saying that the Feds have the final say, which is why the courts have gotten involved. BTW: I disagree with your assertion that "a spill is a spill". The Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon are not the same as the spill at Nexen's Long Lake project near Ft Mac in 2015....or any spill that has occurred on land, for that matter. If he worked an oil spill, he would have never said "a spill is a spill". I worked on a crew that responded to the Pembina Pine river spill in summer 2000 that threatened Chetwynd's drinking water. The amount of dead fish that floated by was sad. There were crews working at cleanup of the shoreline of the river for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said: AFAIK, BC spoke up right away. It was the Christy Clark government and IIRC, they put out a list of requirements for support of pipeline expansion, before they would support the idea. Then the NDP took over and because they needed the Greens to support them, they dug in harder. You're correct in saying that the Feds have the final say, which is why the courts have gotten involved. BTW: I disagree with your assertion that "a spill is a spill". The Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon are not the same as the spill at Nexen's Long Lake project near Ft Mac in 2015....or any spill that has occurred on land, for that matter. I mean spill is risk of doing business with oil, until Canada no longer needs oil to support it , we have to live with that risk.... would the effects big bigger on the ocean yes but saying it the way you did makes it look like s.k and Manitoba are at no risk cause their pipeline is in the ground.... if a spill happens in either place does it not hurt either place just as bad in theory? also like I pointed out to other posters....most people have a problem with the ships and that area ...... everyone knows we need the pipeline but tanker ships are the problem arnt they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Just now, RowdyCanuck said: I mean spill is risk of doing business with oil, until Canada no longer needs oil to support it , we have to live with that risk.... would the effects big bigger on the ocean yes but saying it the way you did makes it look like s.k and Manitoba are at no risk cause their pipeline is in the ground.... if a spill happens in either place does it not hurt either place just as bad in theory? also like I pointed out to other posters....most people have a problem with the ships and that area ...... everyone knows we need the pipeline but tanker ships are the problem arnt they? If it was normal light crude. Bitumen is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Just now, thedestroyerofworlds said: If he worked an oil spill, he would have never said "a spill is a spill". I worked on a crew that responded to the Pembina Pine river spill in summer 2000 that threatened Chetwynd's drinking water. The amount of dead fish that floated by was sad. There were crews working at cleanup of the shoreline of the river for months. No but I have family in s.k that couldn't drink water from the tap thx to a pipeline spill..... it effects everyone different so how do you value something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: If it was normal light crude. Bitumen is another matter. Okay why? Now it the pipeline your worried about or tankers at sea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Just now, RowdyCanuck said: I mean spill is risk of doing business with oil, until Canada no longer needs oil to support it , we have to live with that risk.... would the effects big bigger on the ocean yes but saying it the way you did makes it look like s.k and Manitoba are at no risk cause their pipeline is in the ground.... if a spill happens in either place does it not hurt either place just as bad in theory? also like I pointed out to other posters....most people have a problem with the ships and that area ...... everyone knows we need the pipeline but tanker ships are the problem arnt they? I made no such assertion. That was your projection. In answer to your questions, yes anyone living in the area of a spill is hurt, but in the event of a spill on water, the spill is much harder to contain and therefore has to potential to hurt far more people. And yes, tankers are the bigger concern, which is why the situations in BC and the prairies are not analogous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Okay why? Now it the pipeline your worried about or tankers at sea? Go read up on the Kalamazoo oil spill. Just a spill in a river that has cost over a billion dollars and years in cleanup. Diluted bitumen is not going to be easy to clean up in the event of a spill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: I made no such assertion. That was your projection. In answer to your questions, yes anyone living in the area of a spill is hurt, but in the event of a spill on water, the spill is much harder to contain and therefore has to potential to hurt far more people. And yes, tankers are the bigger concern, which is why the situations in BC and the prairies are not analogous. Well you highlight what could happen if or when oil is spilled in the ocean but never really mentioned about the spills or damage it has done in the prairies ......so yea projectioning so rather then saying fu to oil why don't we get to the heart of the problem and that's tankers for most people...... like you said pipelines in the ground are at less risk right so should be no problem putting it threw, once we figured out the shipping side, so how do we do that? Please remember the government owns the pipeline not the oil industry so it's not up to the oil industry to fund everything since Canada is offering a service, so they would or should take accountability..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: Go read up on the Kalamazoo oil spill. Just a spill in a river that has cost over a billion dollars and years in cleanup. Diluted bitumen is not going to be easy to clean up in the event of a spill. I agree but closing the oil door is only going to hurt Canadians and now how do we stop it? Please don't say just don't ship it..... ive admitted to not knowing much on the ocean side of things but that's why I'm asking questions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: I agree but closing the oil door is only going to hurt Canadians and now how do we stop it? Please don't say just don't ship it..... ive admitted to not knowing much on the ocean side of things but that's why I'm asking questions..... My point and that of others is that spills happen, and cleanup is not going to be easy or cheap. Discounting our demands for more money and more for cleanup is not as unreasonable as some of the Wexit crowd make it out to be. This coming from a guy who worked on a spill of light crude Edited January 28, 2020 by thedestroyerofworlds 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Well you highlight what could happen if or when oil is spilled in the ocean but never really mentioned about the spills or damage it has done in the prairies ......so yea projectioning so rather then saying fu to oil why don't we get to the heart of the problem and that's tankers for most people...... like you said pipelines in the ground are at less risk right so should be no problem putting it threw, once we figured out the shipping side, so how do we do that? Please remember the government owns the pipeline not the oil industry so it's not up to the oil industry to fund everything since Canada is offering a service, so they would or should take accountability..... I never mentioned the prairies, because it was a question of why BC wants assurances that funds will be made available to clean up any spills that occur in BC. It's not the same as saying "Manitoba and Saskatchewan don't matter". they just weren't the topic of discussion, until you brought them up. It's the same reason I didn't include Michigan. A spill close to a waterway in Michigan absolutely has the potential to affect Canadians, but we were talking about BC and Alberta.... We "figure out the shipping side" by committing to cleaning up a spill, if and when it happens, no matter where in Canada it happens. (Including territorial waters) This is what I've been saying all along. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer. Finally, in regards to your last sentence, I have clearly stated that I expect the governments, not the oil companies to fund any necessary cleanup. In the case of TMX, they're the same thing, so it's a moot point anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: My point and that of others is that spills happen, and cleanup is not going to be easy or cheap. Discounting our demands for more money and more for cleanup is not as unreasonable as some of the Wexit crowd make it out to be. I agree but you have to see that other provinces take the same risk, different scale yes but same risk to their people and industries. Hopefully the government does better then huskie..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: I never mentioned the prairies, because it was a question of why BC wants assurances that funds will be made available to clean up any spills that occur in BC. It's not the same as saying "Manitoba and Saskatchewan don't matter". they just weren't the topic of discussion, until you brought them up. It's the same reason I didn't include Michigan. A spill close to a waterway in Michigan absolutely has the potential to affect Canadians, but we were talking about BC and Alberta.... We "figure out the shipping side" by committing to cleaning up a spill, if and when it happens, no matter where in Canada it happens. (Including territorial waters) This is what I've been saying all along. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer. Finally, in regards to your last sentence, I have clearly stated that I expect the governments, not the oil companies to fund any necessary cleanup. In the case of TMX, they're the same thing, so it's a moot point anyway. My point is why are the rules okay if they don't affect b.c but once they do.....watch out..... you don't see how ironic that is? i agree though with adding funds to clean up oil spills but how do you add funds when you don't have any to spare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, RowdyCanuck said: My point is why are the rules okay if they don't affect b.c but once they do.....watch out..... you don't see how ironic that is? i agree though with adding funds to clean up oil spills but how do you add funds when you don't have any to spare? What "rules"? And no, I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said: What "rules"? And no, I don't. What about the pipeline , it went threw all legal channels and b.c still fought, I agree on some of the reason their fighting but they never fought to help protect s.k but they were happy to take oil money...... thats ironic in my books. Lol I thought all provinces were equal and were about putting Canada's interest above their own but .......... people in the east don't t want the oil industry that way , b.c doesn't want the oil industry......but everyone is happy to collect that oil money right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 13 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said: But if nothing happens you collect money for nothing in theory don't you? How much property tax is paid on the pipeline right of way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: What about the pipeline , it went threw all legal channels and b.c still fought, I agree on some of the reason their fighting but they never fought to help protect s.k but they were happy to take oil money...... thats ironic in my books. Lol I thought all provinces were equal and were about putting Canada's interest above their own but .......... people in the east don't t want the oil industry that way , b.c doesn't want the oil industry......but everyone is happy to collect that oil money right..... If you say so. I see nothing ironic about a province fighting for it's own interests. By that logic, it's "ironic" that Alberta is complaining about how unfair the Federal government is to them, since they aren't the only ones paying Equalization. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: If you say so. I see nothing ironic about a province fighting for it's own interests. By that logic, it's "ironic" that Alberta is complaining about how unfair the Federal government is to them, since they aren't the only ones paying Equalization. They pay for something that doesn't help their industries..... B.c is doing the same thing lol ironic. I agree but b.c is acting like its own country right now......ironic ah? Lol i do find it ironic that albertans are complaining cause Canada saves our rear when oil crashes but funny thing is when oil crashes Canada usually follows suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 13 minutes ago, Boudrias said: How much property tax is paid on the pipeline right of way? I couldn't find a bunch of on the states but not much on Canada.... but when I signed a leased agreement to rent range land or pasture....I have a year or set time to pay what I offered and most deals you have to put so much money down first......then pay the balance over time. if b.c went about it like this guy states things would have been easier...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now