RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Just now, kingofsurrey said: The payment is for the risk and its WAY too low for the potential catastrophic bitumen spill to our harbour. Every province gets that and it's fair.....since those provinces are sacrificing land to help build Canada's oil industry....... everyone in Canada has to do there part..... That's what happens when our biggest money earner has to get to the coast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 @kingofsurrey skip to about 1:30 but would this help?? He explains it pretty easy too....sorry about the video like I said I don't know much about the ships they use to haul oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: @kingofsurrey skip to about 1:30 but would this help?? He explains it pretty easy too....sorry about the video like I said I don't know much about the ships they use to haul oil. I think this Video about tankers and Vancouver bridges is more appropriate..... Edited January 28, 2020 by kingofsurrey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I think this Video about tankers and Vancouver bridges is more appropriate..... Maybe true lol but if you skip my video to about 8 minutes he shows a safer way to ship oil and how to cut down on how much spills out and that's what your worried about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I think this Video about tankers and Vancouver bridges is more appropriate..... Okay what happens if you add more tug boats to help control the tankers? also if Canada owns the pipeline why doesn't b.c start a shipping company that way you are in control and can cut down on the risk...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Maybe true lol but if you skip my video to about 8 minutes he shows a safer way to ship oil and how to cut down on how much spills out and that's what your worried about right. So if the risk is minimal, then my suggestion of BC gets 0% revenue while AB and CAN gets 100% clean up and liability costs. Everybody wins!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BPA said: So if the risk is minimal, then my suggestion of BC gets 0% revenue while AB and CAN gets 100% clean up and liability costs. Everybody wins!!! That would be fair if Canada thought that way lol It would be covered by everyone that uses that pipeline so just add a tax and put that in the rainy day fund...... i like it lol edit* also both Canada and b.c would have to agree on a set amount set a side for a spill but just take that 25 million a year and put in that fund instead of b.c's pocket so there's a start ha Edited January 28, 2020 by RowdyCanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: That would be fair if Canada thought that way lol It would be covered by everyone that uses that pipeline so just add a tax and put that in the rainy day fund...... i like it lol Unfortunately, I don't believe any of the Government (Province or Federal) are capable of keeping a "rainy day" fund. They see it as free money to spend in order to get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, BPA said: Unfortunately, I don't believe any of the Government (Province or Federal) are capable of keeping a "rainy day" fund. They see it as free money to spend in order to get re-elected. I agree but that's on government not oil companies..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: That would be fair if Canada thought that way lol It would be covered by everyone that uses that pipeline so just add a tax and put that in the rainy day fund...... i like it lol edit* also both Canada and b.c would have to agree on a set amount set a side for a spill but just take that 25 million a year and put in that fund instead of b.c's pocket so there's a start ha So there you go again. You want BC to accept all the risks for minimal gain. If the risks are small then AB and CAN can collect 100% of the revenue but also pay 100% of the clean up costs and $$ from losses from affected industries. There is a reason why you don't like it. Because if an oil spill ever did happen, the estimated $40B (figures dated 2012...most like much higher since its 2020) would bankrupt AB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 27 minutes ago, BPA said: So there you go again. You want BC to accept all the risks for minimal gain. If the risks are small then AB and CAN can collect 100% of the revenue but also pay 100% of the clean up costs and $$ from losses from affected industries. There is a reason why you don't like it. Because if an oil spill ever did happen, the estimated $40B (figures dated 2012...most like much higher since its 2020) would bankrupt AB. Alberta and s.k and Manitoba has so why not b.c? but your fight is with the government not the oil companies..... like I stated from that cbc video ha that kinder Morgan offered to clean up the spills if they happen using the pipeline.... also King brought up the ocean so I worked that angle , that's why I posted the video on how we can make tankers safer and I even asked King if adding more tug boats would help..... people don't have a problem with the pipeline( not counting the route or now who cleans up what now, people know we need to move oil to the coast or Canada is going to feel the same pressure Alberta is right now. Let me ask you this, is it fair every provinces benefits from the oil industry in one way or another but the provinces that take the most risks right now are Alberta s.k and Manitoba ? Is it far for them to shoulder almost all of the oil industry? I proposed b.c starting its own shipping company that way it would have almost 100% control and create a lot new jobs and if there's a spill it's b.c's fault and Canada will still pay to clean it up , since the pipeline is owned by Canada ha. My way both sides win. Last I checked as country if one of us succeeds we all succeed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 43 minutes ago, BPA said: So there you go again. You want BC to accept all the risks for minimal gain. If the risks are small then AB and CAN can collect 100% of the revenue but also pay 100% of the clean up costs and $$ from losses from affected industries. There is a reason why you don't like it. Because if an oil spill ever did happen, the estimated $40B (figures dated 2012...most like much higher since its 2020) would bankrupt AB. That fear might actually help the oil Industry do a better and safer job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 13 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: There future lies in reducing climate change...... LNG Is dirty energy.... actually if China and India switch from coal to LNG we're all fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 10 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: Is that you? Especially when so many of them are living in poverty. Which imo needs to be eliminated in this country. Yes a far right conservative said no kid should live in poverty No he supports a growing the economy in a safe and responsible manner. I can respect your wanting complete over sight but you anger me when you attack Alberta. I enjoy debate with you, I feel some days this rig pig can keep up with the lawyer that gets to ski on work days but let's no longer attack something if we don't like it lets debate it. totally agree. And again, I have no problem with Alberta or the oil and gas industry. I have a problem with how its perceived and how its impact is described. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 9 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said: edit* also both Canada and b.c would have to agree on a set amount set a side for a spill but just take that 25 million a year and put in that fund instead of b.c's pocket so there's a start ha Keep the 25 milllion per year. Its blood money....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 9 hours ago, BPA said: So if the risk is minimal, then my suggestion of BC gets 0% revenue while AB and CAN gets 100% clean up and liability costs. Everybody wins!!! I applaud you for the suggestion of compromise, but your idea would never fly.... ...in such a scenario, BC has exactly nothing to gain, but potentially everything to lose. How long does this clean up take? What happens to BC industries who rely on the Coastal waters for their living? And in exchange for assuming this risk, we get zero percent of the revenue? That's a Mike Milbury trade, right there..... I think a better solution is a contingency fund, contributed to by all three principals, commensurate with the percentage of expected revenue for each party and in an amount that all agree will reasonably address clean up costs should the unthinkable occur. It would also require a commitment for increasing such a fund (again, commensurate with revenues) should the moneys set aside prove insufficient for finishing the clean up job. Using round numbers, (my recollection is that Canada and Alberta each expect about 20B, and BC gets 5B) it means that the federal and Alberta governments each commit approximately 45% to the slush fund, while BC assumes a 10% commitment. Again, using rough figures, lets say (as a starting point) Ottawa and Edmonton each kick in 4.5B and BC 1B. That gives us a 10 Billion dollar emergency fund, with a commitment to continue contribution proportionally, until the clean up is completed. I think if such an agreement were on the table, there wouldn't be such opposition. In fact, I believe that the majority of BCers support the idea of pipelines, as long as such conditions are met and if we can expect a decent return for assuming the bulk of the risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 21 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Keep the 25 milllion per year. Its blood money....... Every province gets some sort of way lol that's the way Canada works and why Alberta wants to leave Canada lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: I applaud you for the suggestion of compromise, but your idea would never fly.... ...in such a scenario, BC has exactly nothing to gain, but potentially everything to lose. How long does this clean up take? What happens to BC industries who rely on the Coastal waters for their living? And in exchange for assuming this risk, we get zero percent of the revenue? That's a Mike Milbury trade, right there..... I think a better solution is a contingency fund, contributed to by all three principals, commensurate with the percentage of expected revenue for each party and in an amount that all agree will reasonably address clean up costs should the unthinkable occur. It would also require a commitment for increasing such a fund (again, commensurate with revenues) should the moneys set aside prove insufficient for finishing the clean up job. Using round numbers, (my recollection is that Canada and Alberta each expect about 20B, and BC gets 5B) it means that the federal and Alberta governments each commit approximately 45% to the slush fund, while BC assumes a 10% commitment. Again, using rough figures, lets say (as a starting point) Ottawa and Edmonton each kick in 4.5B and BC 1B. That gives us a 10 Billion dollar emergency fund, with a commitment to continue contribution proportionally, until the clean up is completed. I think if such an agreement were on the table, there wouldn't be such opposition. In fact, I believe that the majority of BCers support the idea of pipelines, as long as such conditions are met and if we can expect a decent return for assuming the bulk of the risk. I like your points but may I ask a dumb question...... how come no one had a problem with the pipeline geting put in Manitoba or s.k , they accept most the risk and also face risk to other industries but cause it's not ocean front it doesn't matter? But the principal of the points stay the same, different scale but everyone accepted the risk cause they know it would do more good then bad.....for the province and Canada. but because those other provinces have oil it's their duty to help grow Canada's largest industry......... how does that sound fair? Everythng b.c is doing is what Alberta wants to do, Alberta wants control over the oil and money and how they spend it..... but like you said how is it fair for one province to assume so much risk.......well those three have and have paid the price over the years but everyone gains from oil...... people are are happy to accept oil money but they don't want the risk that goes with it...... well I can solve that easy, if provinces don't support oil or if they don't want oil in their province then they shouldnt get a dime from the oil industry , share the wealth and risk......that's why Alberta leaving Canada is gaining bit by bit 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: I like your points but may I ask a dumb question...... how come no one had a problem with the pipeline geting put in Manitoba or s.k , they accept most the risk and also face risk to other industries but cause it's not ocean front it doesn't matter? But the principal of the points stay the same, different scale but everyone accepted the risk cause they know it would do more good then bad.....for the province and Canada. but because those other provinces have oil it's their duty to help grow Canada's largest industry......... how does that sound fair? Everythng b.c is doing is what Alberta wants to do, Alberta wants control over the oil and money and how they spend it..... but like you said how is it fair for one province to assume so much risk.......well those three have and have paid the price over the years but everyone gains from oil...... people are are happy to accept oil money but they don't want the risk that goes with it...... well I can solve that easy, if provinces don't support oil or if they don't want oil in their province then they shouldnt get a dime from the oil industry , share the wealth and risk......that's why Alberta leaving Canada is gaining bit by bit It's up to Manitoba and Saskatchewan to stand up for themselves, however, the slush fund that I referred to wouldn't just apply to BC. It would be available to cover clean up costs for the entire length of the proposed pipeline. As far as existing pipelines on the prairies, I don't know what provisions are in place. That should have been up to the principals before construction to hammer out, but it's not fair to expect BC to accept substandard protections, just because a different province may have done so 20 or 30 years ago. There's also the fact that a spill on land and a spill on the ocean are two completely different problems. An ocean spill would be far more devastating and difficult to remediate. 1 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: It's up to Manitoba and Saskatchewan to stand up for themselves, however, the slush fund that I referred to wouldn't just apply to BC. It would be available to cover clean up costs for the entire length of the proposed pipeline. As far as existing pipelines on the prairies, I don't know what provisions are in place. That should have been up to the principals before construction to hammer out, but it's not fair to expect BC to accept substandard protections, just because a different province may have done so 20 or 30 years ago. There's also the fact that a spill on land and a spill on the ocean are two completely different problems. An ocean spill would be far more devastating and difficult to remediate. 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? ..... 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