Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 436

Thread: Are you boycotting BC?

  1. #1

    Default Are you boycotting BC?

    Just curious.

  2. #2

    Default


    Canadian oil selling at a deep discount - and it hurts
    Most Canadian oil selling far below North American prices

    Analysis, Kyle Bakx · CBC News, January 19, 2018

    582 shares 857 comments

    “North American oil prices are marching toward $65 US a barrel this month, giving the industry a boost after the market collapsed three years ago. The oil sector hasn't seen these prices since late 2014, but most companies in Alberta are receiving significantly less, just above $40 US a barrel. ...”

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business...-oil-1.4491527
    Bolding mine



    Saturday’s letters: Boycott B.C. wine, fruit and vacations – Edmonton Journal
    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/l...-and-vacations

    Five ways Alberta could retaliate against B.C.’s pipeline obstacles – Edmonton Journal
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...line-obstacles

    Alberta talks B.C. boycott | CTV Vancouver Island News
    https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1317682


    BC businesses hope Albertans stay loyal despite political pipeline battle brewing – Calgary Herald
    “...Even business owners in Calgary are confident customers will stay loyal to their B.C. brands, including popular wines and fruit ciders from the Okanagan.

    “We’re really proud to support B.C. talent in winemaking. There’s a lot of diversity there,” said Erin Rosar, director of retail at Willow Park Liquor Store.

    “People love B.C. wines. They love to go to B.C., taste the wines, and then when they buy them here it brings them back to those good memories.”

    Rosar says she hasn’t seen anyone turn away from B.C. brands yet. “I don’t think we’re there. We certainly haven’t seen people not going into our B.C. wines aisle.

    “And I would like to think that Albertans are bigger than that. I think Albertans would have the common sense to separate business and politics.”



    http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...battle-brewing
    Alberta could retaliate against B.C. over Trans Mountain, but it may get ugly | Calgary Herald
    August 2017

    “...
    The federal government could also invoke its rarely used declaratory power, which would allow it to override provincial jurisdiction and take control of the pipeline file, Morton said.

    The former energy minister said this option could come with the unintended consequence of setting a precedent for future federal governments to use this power down the road and potentially “take away jurisdiction from Alberta.” “


    http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-observers-say


    Letters: Boycott B.C., pipelines, oil, Stephen Harper, climate, euthanasia
    BY PROVINCE OPINION, MAR 7, 2016
    http://theprovince.com/opinion/lette...ate-euthanasia
    Last edited by KC; 04-02-2018 at 06:17 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    If you're boycotting B.C., you should also boycott Grande Prairie.
    Grande Prairie neighbours sour on natural gas deal
    'The only choice I have, if I don't accept the risk, is to sell and move,' landowner says

    A sweet natural gas storage facility planned for a depleted reservoir on the outskirts of Grande Prairie, Alta. has struck a sour note with people who live over the site.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...dale-1.4517369

  4. #4

    Default

    I'll do what I can. We'll be cancelling the westcoast visit this year. I'm not too keen on BC Wines so nothing much to cut down on on that front. I'll pay increased attention to where the fruits and vegetables are coming from and avoid BC fruit and vegetables. I'll find out where the lumber is from in the hardware store. Stop shopping at Save On effective immediately.

    In terms of National Parks I will not go to Kootenay, Yoho, etc. For vacay we will stay in Alberta or go East.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm not vacationing in BC this summer.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Just curious.
    we just returned from a week in bc...

    boycott's don't work without discussion. not buying a bottle of bc wine without communicating why to bc voters and politicians is probably more of an effortless feel-good statement to self than an effective action, particularly if you simply bought a bottle of ontario or california wine instead (which would be hypocritical as well as ineffective).

    take the business trip, take the holiday and talk to your business associates, family, friends, bartenders, waiters, taxi drivers. strike up a conversation at the bar. changing attitudes is work and requires the exchange of information. most british columbians don't even know that their marine strategic response in the lower mainland and wcmrc has major upgrades planned based on kinder morgan that would be available for responses regardless of any link to kinder morgan (which has not been involved with a major spill since it opened in 1953).

    most british columbians aren't even aware of the tanker traffice which already moves through the lower mainland's waterways or that the only major recent oil spill was from a brand new freighter built in south korea and delivering goods from asia to the port of vancouver.

    on the other hand, supporting alberta's boycott of site c power and encouraging major corporations to do likewise in a public manner that again includes public rationale and education should certainly be encouraged...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Boycott BC?

    Given the complex political makeup, I wonder who we're really punishing.

    For example, the Okanogan has a different political makeup than the lower mainland. The main opposition as I see it is from the lower mainland and the island.

    I'm going a few times to BC this year for family reasons (Kelowna). I won't pass spending time with my ailing father just to make some political point that ideologues won't even hear.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Boycott BC?

    Given the complex political makeup, I wonder who we're really punishing.

    For example, the Okanogan has a different political makeup than the lower mainland. The main opposition as I see it is from the lower mainland and the island.

    I'm going a few times to BC this year for family reasons (Kelowna). I won't pass spending time with my ailing father just to make some political point that ideologues won't even hear.
    While I certainly respect anybodies right to make their own decision, and due to their own circumstance it should be countered that a Provincial govt is a provincial govt. This is who BC elected and who they support.

    Nor Do I think certain boycotts or directives would be insignificant. For instance stopping any softwood imports or BC logging trucks at the border. Not permitted, go home. Or for instance in Alberta seeking to obtain energy not originating from BC. Or ALCB not further stocking ANY BC wines or products. Any of these decisions could be made on our behalf and I'd be fine with them occurring. Some restaurants are already unilaterally removing BC products from menus. I support this fully.

    Next, the irony of places like the Okanagan, Radium, Lower mainland wanting our business and coin but not wanting to cooperate, in any way, to Albertans having the vital industry to support its buying habits.

    In short in BC they want Albertans money, even if they don't support Albertans having a vital economy and income.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-02-2018 at 11:44 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  9. #9
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Boycott BC?

    Given the complex political makeup, I wonder who we're really punishing.

    For example, the Okanogan has a different political makeup than the lower mainland. The main opposition as I see it is from the lower mainland and the island.

    I'm going a few times to BC this year for family reasons (Kelowna). I won't pass spending time with my ailing father just to make some political point that ideologues won't even hear.
    While I certainly respect anybodies right to make their own decision, and due to their own circumstance it should be countered that a Provincial govt is a provincial govt. This is who BC elected and who they support.

    Nor Do I think certain boycotts or directives would be insignificant. For instance stopping any softwood imports or BC logging trucks at the border. Not permitted, go home. Or for instance in Alberta seeking to obtain energy not originating from BC. Or ALCB not further stocking ANY BC wines or products. Any of these decisions could be made on our behalf and I'd be fine with them occurring. Some restaurants are already unilaterally removing BC products from menus. I support this fully.

    Next, the irony of places like the Okanagan, Radium, Lower mainland wanting our business and coin but not wanting to cooperate, in any way, to Albertans having the vital industry to support its buying habits.

    In short in BC they want Albertans money, even if they don't support Albertans having a vital economy and income.
    while certain boycotts or directives might not be insignificant, i'm still not convinced many of them would be effective. my concern is the short term emotional "boycotts" that are self serving and inconsequential other than damaging as many who may be in favour of kinder morgan as against kinder morgan. who knows which winery employees and owners are in fact in favour of kinder morgan's expansion and not opposed to it? what's the point of boycotting them all of you can't tell the difference? you may well end up penalizing your supporters and not your opponents.

    if you're looking for irony, bc is no more unanimous in regard to their current government's actions than americans were in regard to keystone xl. you'll have to forgive me but i don't recall any alberta boycott campaigns against california wineries or american automobiles or iphones or fruits and vegetables while the previous american administration did everything in its power to delay/kill keystone xl.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  10. #10

    Default

    I boycott the USA for countless numbers of reasons and until further notice. Heh, its ongoing. I realize I might increasingly limit where I feel I can go with conscience, but that's good too as Alberta is a great province and I love it.

    Montreal is another place I'm not going to. People take notes, make decisions and even if unstated. if Albertans stop frequenting BC places and businesses it will very quickly get noted and create counter political pressure, in BC, which is what is required. So that those that are prepared to stand by Alberta, and dependent on it could certainly be doing more than they are doing to counter the lower mainland noise.

    Actually I find comments like this, from The BC Liquor manager, more offputting;

    "Rosar says she hasn’t seen anyone turn away from B.C. brands yet. “I don’t think we’re there. We certainly haven’t seen people not going into our B.C. wines aisle.

    “And I would like to think that Albertans are bigger than that. I think Albertans would have the common sense to separate business and politics.”

    I think theres circumstances which obviously mandate more concern and its not an absence of common sense to realize how important and necessary this is to Alberta. But invariably an Alberta with less money lessens out of province travel, out of province expenditure, and purchase of wines. Would that not too be Albertans exacting "common sense"?

    In anycase the quote itself is interesting in that it confirms that they would access what buying habits of Albertans are and monitor that closely. So that there could be noted effect in a ban.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-02-2018 at 12:14 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #11
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I boycott the USA for countless numbers of reasons and until further notice. Heh, its ongoing. I realize I might increasingly limit where I feel I can go with conscience, but that's good too as Alberta is a great province and I love it.

    Montreal is another place I'm not going to. People take notes, make decisions and even if unstated. if Albertans stop frequenting BC places and businesses it will very quickly get noted and create counter political pressure, in BC, which is what is required. So that those that are prepared to stand by Alberta, and dependent on it could certainly be doing more than they are doing to counter the lower mainland noise.

    Actually I find comments like this, from The BC Liquor manager, more offputting;

    "Rosar says she hasn’t seen anyone turn away from B.C. brands yet. “I don’t think we’re there. We certainly haven’t seen people not going into our B.C. wines aisle.

    “And I would like to think that Albertans are bigger than that. I think Albertans would have the common sense to separate business and politics.”

    I think theres circumstances which obviously mandate more concern and its not an absence of common sense to realize how important and necessary this is to Alberta. But invariably an Alberta with less money lessens out of province travel, out of province expenditure, and purchase of wines. Would that not too be Albertans exacting "common sense"?

    In anycase the quote itself is interesting in that it confirms that they would access what buying habits of Albertans are and monitor that closely. So that there could be noted effect in a ban.
    emphasis added...

    if that's the case, then instead of boycotting all things bc, wouldn't it make more sense to boycott only those wineries that don't support the pipeline and buy more wine from those that do?

    of course, that would require a bit more work than simply drinking a california chardonnay from a winery totally opposed to the oil sands who donates 10% of their profits to greenpeace...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Just curious.
    Nope. In fact I’ll be spending a significant amount of money in BC this spring & sunmer. I am building an addition and deck at our cabin near 100 Mile House, and normally I’d buy all my supplies in Edmonton and haul them out, saving the HST. But the area suffered significantly due to the fires last year and they can use the sitmulus. This is also not an area that opposes pipelines, there’s a big NG pipeline expansion going on there right now, lots of AB plated trucks and staff spending money in local hotels, restaurants, and local contractors providing services to the sites. I see no reason to punish the good folks of the Cariboo region for decisions they largely don’t agree with
    Parkdale

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Hmm, maybe their wine..I like other wines

  14. #14
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Vancouver - Edmonton
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Well I live there.... so no. They were able to employ me at a time when Alberta couldn't.

  15. #15

    Default

    I don't think it's right to be hitting the everyday people who work and produce goods in B.C. What should be done is all levels of government should be sitting down and sorting this out. It's fine Tater Tot saying the pipeline(s) are going to be built but how is it going to happen if roadblocks are thrown up all the time. Talking about 'stuff' does not get it done. When are there going to be shovels in the ground, equipment on site and actually work done. There has to come a point when someone says 'that's it, no more stalling'. So far that has not happened. If talking got the job done it would have been build years ago.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  16. #16

    Default

    The way I take it is in effect an Alberta hoodwink has already occurred through the lack of cooperation we've been getting federally and provincially on the pipelines. BC not only elected a provincial govt and leader that was going to be opposed to the pipeline but they just finished having a prior elected provincial govt that was just as unhelpful and also elected a Federal Govt that has also been unhelpful.

    BC has a huge urban to rural difficulty, maybe even disparity at times, and I get that. But at the end of the day this is a province that has been very unhelpful and opposed to the Alberta pipeline proposals for a long time.

    To put it in simplest terms extremely poor neighbors. I can't say that our provincial govt is seeing it any other way either.

    To Trudeaus small credit he blew a gasket in his west coast forum this week as well. Obviously frustrated as well at the BC roadblocking.

    As far as BC regional disparity that's something the province needs to figure out so that not just the lower mainland voice is getting heard or represented.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I boycott the USA for countless numbers of reasons and until further notice. Heh, its ongoing. I realize I might increasingly limit where I feel I can go with conscience, but that's good too as Alberta is a great province and I love it.

    Montreal is another place I'm not going to. People take notes, make decisions and even if unstated. if Albertans stop frequenting BC places and businesses it will very quickly get noted and create counter political pressure, in BC, which is what is required. So that those that are prepared to stand by Alberta, and dependent on it could certainly be doing more than they are doing to counter the lower mainland noise.

    Actually I find comments like this, from The BC Liquor manager, more offputting;

    "Rosar says she hasn’t seen anyone turn away from B.C. brands yet. “I don’t think we’re there. We certainly haven’t seen people not going into our B.C. wines aisle.

    “And I would like to think that Albertans are bigger than that. I think Albertans would have the common sense to separate business and politics.”

    I think theres circumstances which obviously mandate more concern and its not an absence of common sense to realize how important and necessary this is to Alberta. But invariably an Alberta with less money lessens out of province travel, out of province expenditure, and purchase of wines. Would that not too be Albertans exacting "common sense"?

    In anycase the quote itself is interesting in that it confirms that they would access what buying habits of Albertans are and monitor that closely. So that there could be noted effect in a ban.
    emphasis added...

    if that's the case, then instead of boycotting all things bc, wouldn't it make more sense to boycott only those wineries that don't support the pipeline and buy more wine from those that do?

    of course, that would require a bit more work than simply drinking a california chardonnay from a winery totally opposed to the oil sands who donates 10% of their profits to greenpeace...
    Well, when a province takes virtually any action to oppose pipelines it impacts all Albertans, it impacts the entire country, and not specifically. So that theres ample and widespread harm for all Albertans as well as our entire economy. Should there just be that for Albertans or should that impact not be directed to the province yet again shutting Alberta down?

    Invariably it will be anyway. BC regions that are heavily reliant on Alberta booms or healthy economy will suffer in some way. Maybe they should do more to support critical Alberta voices and industry.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-02-2018 at 03:59 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #18

    Default

    Time to annex BC as part of Edmonton....
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #19
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,049

    Default

    Notley is overreacting. Sure its good she's exploring options but good god nobody is talking about a trade war here or even wants one FFS.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #20

    Default

    Amazing that two governments ruled by the NDP are infighting.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #21
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,049

    Default

    Who ever would have thought that Govt. infighting would happen at all? Hello St Albert city hall
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Amazing that two governments ruled by the NDP are infighting.
    Not really? Different provinces have different interests to protect, irrespective of the party labels on their leaders. Danny Williams might've been a Tory, but that didn't stop him from having a poisonous relationship with Stephen Harper.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Amazing that two governments ruled by the NDP are infighting.
    Not really? Different provinces have different interests to protect, irrespective of the party labels on their leaders. Danny Williams might've been a Tory, but that didn't stop him from having a poisonous relationship with Stephen Harper.
    And the original Energy Wars in the early 1980s were between Lougheed and Davis, both heading Conservative governments.

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Amazing that two governments ruled by the NDP are infighting.
    Not really? Different provinces have different interests to protect, irrespective of the party labels on their leaders. Danny Williams might've been a Tory, but that didn't stop him from having a poisonous relationship with Stephen Harper.
    your comparison is a bit misleading... the difference is your example took place between different parties - even if they share a name or a label - that are organizationally completely separate and independent. the provincial ndp parties are not different or independent in that fashion as they are all subsidiary branches of the same federal party.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    And those formalities hardly matter when the realities of representing different constituencies and interests set in.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  26. #26

    Default

    The business case for extra pipeline capacity is marginal at best; its need has been greatly exaggerated by oil company propaganda seeking to rationalize their heavy investment into what turns out to be an inferior product. Any regional benefit to Alberta is far outweighed by the global costs. We need to start the slow and painful process of moving on to a post-carbon economy and if takes a government in BC standing up for the environment to motivate this change then I say good on them.

    Needless to say I for one will not be taking part in this petulant and parochial boycott.

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    What evidence can you back that up with?

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    The business case for extra pipeline capacity is marginal at best; its need has been greatly exaggerated by oil company propaganda seeking to rationalize their heavy investment into what turns out to be an inferior product. Any regional benefit to Alberta is far outweighed by the global costs. We need to start the slow and painful process of moving on to a post-carbon economy and if takes a government in BC standing up for the environment to motivate this change then I say good on them.

    Needless to say I for one will not be taking part in this petulant and parochial boycott.

    BC doesn’t have a great environmental record. Raw waste dumped into the ocean, clear cutting, fish farming... I think they are cherrypicking from a number of valid environmental issues and just happening to pick one issue that doesn’t harm their own industries.


    A timeline of salmon farms in B.C.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/a-timel...b-c-1.23111386



    B.C.’s environmental hypocrisy | Toronto Sun
    Mark Bonokoski
    Published: July 27, 2012
    http://torontosun.com/2012/07/27/bcs...4-c7e35eb147ca
    Last edited by KC; 05-02-2018 at 07:16 PM.

  29. #29
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Did not buy BC apples at the weekend. Perhaps when beautiful BC clean up their own act, then we can discuss pipelines.

    Yep, beautiful BC
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...oria-1.3762234

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    The business case for extra pipeline capacity is marginal at best; its need has been greatly exaggerated by oil company propaganda seeking to rationalize their heavy investment into what turns out to be an inferior product. Any regional benefit to Alberta is far outweighed by the global costs. We need to start the slow and painful process of moving on to a post-carbon economy and if takes a government in BC standing up for the environment to motivate this change then I say good on them.

    Needless to say I for one will not be taking part in this petulant and parochial boycott.

    BC doesn’t have a great environmental record. Raw waste dumped into the ocean, clear cutting, fish farming... I think they are cherrypicking from a number of valid environmental issues and just happening to pick one issue that doesn’t harm their own industries.


    A timeline of salmon farms in B.C.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/a-timel...b-c-1.23111386



    B.C.’s environmental hypocrisy | Toronto Sun
    Mark Bonokoski
    Published: July 27, 2012
    http://torontosun.com/2012/07/27/bcs...4-c7e35eb147ca
    Those two examples involve different governments than the current one, but your point is taken: BC's environmental record is deeply flawed and I am not here to defend that. However, on the particular point of pipelines I think they have it right and I hope they succeed.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    What evidence can you back that up with?
    I'm not sure which part of my missive you're requesting evidence for. The marginal business case for pipelines? The oil company propaganda? Their inferior product? The need for a post-carbon economy? That's a lot of territory. I'll start with the marginal business case for pipelines.

    When facts fail you: Trudeau and Trans Mountain

    Evaluating the Need for Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy

  32. #32

    Default

    “Inferior product”!

    I’d love an electric car for a number of obvious reasons. I’d also love a steam car for obvious reasons. However, there’s obvious reasons for them not being dominant products.

    I asked a cab driver today about his hybrid Camry. He loved it, but told me not to buy a hybrid - because of, yes, the battery. He said they make up for the battery costs through the huge number of km they drive.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,633

    Default

    Not boycotting really, (though will likely stop buying BC wines).

    But I think we need to take a serious look at some of the dangerous goods being transported by rail and truck from the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert to Canada and the United States. Really, might be better for shippers to use the port of Seattle.

    Given their environmental puritanism, I'm sure everyone in Burnaby would support moving 50 or 60% of shipping traffic to Seattle.

    Unless they're total hypocrites? Nah, couldn't be. That'd almost like being racists.

    Also, need to take site C to the United Nations and stir up some international attention of B.C.'s environmental record vis a vis the Peace River and downstream environmental impacts including habitat degradation, pollution, impact (not even acknowledged, let alone considered) to downstream indigenous communities.

    Oh yes, and Victoria pouring tons of untreated human waste every day of the year into a sound they profess to care so much for.

    And Whistler has had zero environmental impact>

    Really, a seriously pathetic record, we should let the world know about.
    Last edited by McBoo; 05-02-2018 at 10:17 PM.
    ... gobsmacked

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    What evidence can you back that up with?
    I'm not sure which part of my missive you're requesting evidence for. The marginal business case for pipelines? The oil company propaganda? Their inferior product? The need for a post-carbon economy? That's a lot of territory. I'll start with the marginal business case for pipelines.

    When facts fail you: Trudeau and Trans Mountain

    Evaluating the Need for Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy

    So an opinion piece and a think tank. The counterparts to the National Post opinion pages and the Fraser Institute. Okay then.

  35. #35
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Just being they cynic...and learning from the flip flops of our current Administration...

    Given what I know of BC, and of the lower mainland's environmental record, I'm getting the sense this isn't as much about the safety standards that are (or not) in place...as more a play to get more revenue in exchange for support. BC gets $$$, and looks like a hero to those supporting them by saying the big bad oil baddies forced us...along with the big baddie feds.

    If they had the bitumen...you bet your bottom hypocritical dollar they'd be shipping it everywhere, touting success, pocketing the revenue, and being oh-so-holier-than--thou about it...as only this Lotus Land dominated province can be. They've got smug hypocrisy down to an art!
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  36. #36
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Amazing that two governments ruled by the NDP are infighting.
    Not really? Different provinces have different interests to protect, irrespective of the party labels on their leaders. Danny Williams might've been a Tory, but that didn't stop him from having a poisonous relationship with Stephen Harper.
    your comparison is a bit misleading... the difference is your example took place between different parties - even if they share a name or a label - that are organizationally completely separate and independent. the provincial ndp parties are not different or independent in that fashion as they are all subsidiary branches of the same federal party.
    If the various Conservative parties are all totally separate entities, why did they, at one time, almost all adopt the rather uncommon title "Progressive Conservative"? That's not a generic name like "Conservative" or "Liberal", and I don't think it's something that most parties would choose on their own individual volition, unless they were trying to express an affinity with other parties of the same name.

    I think you're correct about the formal ties between the various NDPs being tighter than the ties between the various permutations of other parties, eg. back when I was a member of the NDP, you couldn't join the provincial party without at the same time also joining the federal party(I assume that's the same now, but don't really know). But, in practice, and especially when you're talking about parties that form the government, there are going to be times when they feel the need to put their own province first, regardless of what other NDP governments might want. The Alberta NDP by and large opposed LEAP, for example.
    Last edited by overoceans; 06-02-2018 at 08:36 AM.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    “Inferior product”!

    I’d love an electric car for a number of obvious reasons. I’d also love a steam car for obvious reasons. However, there’s obvious reasons for them not being dominant products.

    I asked a cab driver today about his hybrid Camry. He loved it, but told me not to buy a hybrid - because of, yes, the battery. He said they make up for the battery costs through the huge number of km they drive.
    I was referring to the quality of the raw product recovered from the oil sands; my apologies for not being clear. Allow me to explain.

    Athabasca bitumen is very heavy and sour: it has an API gravity of about 8°and contains about 4 to 5% sulphur (source). That places it completely off the scale at the bottom right in comparison to other petroleum products on this graph (the most desirable products are at the top left).



    (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_oil_products)

    Athabasca bitumen is basically solid at room temperature. It's no good to anyone; it can't even be easily shipped anywhere. In order to convert Athabasca bitumen into something that will at least flow in a pipeline a lot of energy (read money) needs to be put into either diluting it or upgrading it. Even then, the result is something like Western Canada Select which has properties very similar to Maya crude at the bottom right (inferior) part of the graph: it still needs a lot more energy (more money) put into it relative to other crude oils to convert it into retail-grade products (source).

    Due to all the extra energy (money) required to process it, Athabasca bitumen will always sell at a discount relative to its lighter and sweeter competition regardless of how many pipelines are built. That's why it's an inferior product.

  38. #38
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Athabasca bitumen will always sell at a discount relative to its lighter and sweeter competition regardless of how many pipelines are built. That's why it's an inferior product.
    Correct, it will generally sell for a discount. But bottlenecking of piping capacity creates a constraint on our end which drives prices down. One could argue the price hit is due to overproduction in our catchment basin, or not enough pipe capacity to get it out, or a combination of both of them. But that is the reason why WCS sells at a discount to similar heavies in North America.

    If the US goes forward with its plan to ban Venezuela imports, that becomes our big market. The refineries on the gulf coast that process the Venezuela crude are used to the heavy oil and our WCS is the best replacement around.

    If your argument is that the price difference of WCS is due to being an inferior product and not due to pipe bottlenecking, then your premise must be that adding more pipe capacity will not change the current outflows. Therefore, adding new capacity has no downside since it will not result in net growth of fluids moving.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    What evidence can you back that up with?
    I'm not sure which part of my missive you're requesting evidence for. The marginal business case for pipelines? The oil company propaganda? Their inferior product? The need for a post-carbon economy? That's a lot of territory. I'll start with the marginal business case for pipelines.

    When facts fail you: Trudeau and Trans Mountain

    Evaluating the Need for Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy

    So an opinion piece and a think tank. The counterparts to the National Post opinion pages and the Fraser Institute. Okay then.
    So basically you have no counterpoint then?

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Athabasca bitumen will always sell at a discount relative to its lighter and sweeter competition regardless of how many pipelines are built. That's why it's an inferior product.
    Correct, it will generally sell for a discount. But bottlenecking of piping capacity creates a constraint on our end which drives prices down. One could argue the price hit is due to overproduction in our catchment basin, or not enough pipe capacity to get it out, or a combination of both of them. But that is the reason why WCS sells at a discount to similar heavies in North America.

    If the US goes forward with its plan to ban Venezuela imports, that becomes our big market. The refineries on the gulf coast that process the Venezuela crude are used to the heavy oil and our WCS is the best replacement around.

    If your argument is that the price difference of WCS is due to being an inferior product and not due to pipe bottlenecking, then your premise must be that adding more pipe capacity will not change the current outflows. Therefore, adding new capacity has no downside since it will not result in net growth of fluids moving.
    My argument is that the advocates for more pipeline capacity are being misleading because they focus on the discount created by the glut of WCS in Hardisty and choose to ignore the other factors contributing to the discount.

    In addition, I'm not saying that adding more pipeline capacity will not change the current outflows. In fact, it would almost certainly have the opposite result. However the net benefit to Alberta from increasing those outflows is being overstated by the pipeline lobby because they're not talking about the other components of the discount.

    I would also like us to consider moving towards a post-carbon economy by first moving to a low-carbon economy. This kind of paradigm shift would take a generation or more and would not be without pain. A reasonable first step would be to dismiss the expectation from the oil lobby that they are entitled to continual growth in production; constraining pipeline capacity is a pragmatic way this can be achieved.

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    My argument is that the advocates for more pipeline capacity are being misleading because they focus on the discount created by the glut of WCS in Hardisty and choose to ignore the other factors contributing to the discount.
    WCS will always sell at a discount to Brent or WTI or other sweeter oils. But not a $30 discount. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    My argument is that the advocates for more pipeline capacity are being misleading because they focus on the discount created by the glut of WCS in Hardisty and choose to ignore the other factors contributing to the discount.
    WCS will always sell at a discount to Brent or WTI or other sweeter oils. But not a $30 discount. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.
    You and I know this, but the mainstream media tends to ignore it. Here's a typical example of how it plays in the press:

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37816144/
    Anger in Alberta over obstructions and cancellations to Canadian pipeline projects – which leaves the country's industry at a competitive disadvantage with other global oil and gas producers, including the United States – grew with B.C.'s announcement this week.

    ...

    Mr. Trudeau had appeared to come to Alberta's side in a radio interview Thursday morning. He said it's in Canada's interest to get oil to new markets across the Pacific, and that the country cannot continue to be "trapped" by the significant price discount on Canadian heavy oil paid by U.S. refineries.
    As you have correctly pointed out--but which is conveniently ignored above--Alberta oil will always be at a competitive disadvantage no matter how many pipelines are built. But the narrative is that the disadvantage is strictly due to the pipelines. Cue the ridiculous hecklers from the gallery demanding to boycott BC wine.

  43. #43
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    If increasing shipping capacity allows for a greater volume of product shipped and a narrowing of the price discount it sure sounds like Alberta will benefit from having pipelines built.

    Obviously Athabasca bitumen is good for someone or it would still be in the ground.

    I am not boycotting BC in any way.

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    If increasing shipping capacity allows for a greater volume of product shipped and a narrowing of the price discount it sure sounds like Alberta will benefit from having pipelines built.

    Obviously Athabasca bitumen is good for someone or it would still be in the ground.

    I am not boycotting BC in any way.
    Hmm, well it looks like that's out of your hands!

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Just being they cynic...and learning from the flip flops of our current Administration...

    Given what I know of BC, and of the lower mainland's environmental record, I'm getting the sense this isn't as much about the safety standards that are (or not) in place...as more a play to get more revenue in exchange for support. BC gets $$$, and looks like a hero to those supporting them by saying the big bad oil baddies forced us...along with the big baddie feds.

    If they had the bitumen...you bet your bottom hypocritical dollar they'd be shipping it everywhere, touting success, pocketing the revenue, and being oh-so-holier-than--thou about it...as only this Lotus Land dominated province can be. They've got smug hypocrisy down to an art!
    amen. This is exactly it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  46. #46

    Default

    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-02-2018 at 07:23 PM.

  47. #47

    Default

    Speculating that BC might flip flop in exchange for dollars completely ignores the political dynamic there. Remember that Horgan's NDP actually have fewer seats than the Liberals in the legislature; the NDP is only in power because of support from the Greens. It would be political suicide for the NDP to enter into a deal that would see them agree to Trans Mountain: the Greens would walk, the government would fall, and the NDP would get slaughtered in the subsequent election.

    Remember a large part of the NDP gains in 2017 were explicitly because of their stand against Trans Mountain especially in swing seats. For example, all four Burnaby ridings went NDP in 2017 boosted by anti-pipeline sentiment. Horgan needs be seen to be doing everything in his power to stop the pipeline and not to be seen as negotiating a compromise.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Well all their jet fuel comes from us, maybe turn off that tap, they can be carbon negative then..

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    I thought that was stopped, Victoria dumping raw sewage?

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    I thought that was stopped, Victoria dumping raw sewage?
    2016:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...as-for-decades

  52. #52

    Default

    Friday’s letters: B.C. treats its environment poorly | Edmonton Journal
    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/l...ronment-poorly

    Nelson: Something stinks and it’s not just the sewage | Calgary Herald
    http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...ust-the-sewage
    Last edited by KC; 06-02-2018 at 11:27 PM.

  53. #53
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    I thought that was stopped, Victoria dumping raw sewage?
    2016:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...as-for-decades
    What Montreal starting a trend dumping their raw sewage?

    Yeesh
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Well all their jet fuel comes from us, maybe turn off that tap, they can be carbon negative then..
    25 million passengers per year use YVR alone using jets that burn 12 to 15 hundred liters per hour. Then there is all the other airports, all the trucks, cars, motorcycles, equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, other uses plus all the by products used each day. BC also produces a lot of oil and gas and products from their NE from which they collect billions in royalties. I wonder how people in Ft. St. John and Dawson Creek feel about their new government. If BCers were not such heavy users of oil and gas one could have some sympathy but they are one of the heaviest consumers on the planet. Once they are finished their protest most of them jump in their cars and burn down the freeway. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 07-02-2018 at 06:20 AM.

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,940

    Default

    Seattle has been complaining for decades about all of the raw sewage dumped into Puget Sound. Most coming from Victoria, the capital. Ironic that the leaders of the province that are protectors of their environment flush their own waste untreated into the Sound. Recently King County has had problems with their facility and dumped a lot of raw sewage themselves quieting down their protests for now while Victoria has a treatment facility under construction. A trade off. Oh these Lotus Landers.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 07-02-2018 at 09:33 AM.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Well all their jet fuel comes from us, maybe turn off that tap, they can be carbon negative then..
    25 million passengers per year use YVR alone using jets that burn 12 to 15 hundred liters per hour. Then there is all the other airports, all the trucks, cars, motorcycles, equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, other uses plus all the by products used each day. BC also produces a lot of oil and gas and products from their NE from which they collect billions in royalties. I wonder how people in Ft. St. John and Dawson Creek feel about their new government. If BCers were not such heavy users of oil and gas one could have some sympathy but they are one of the heaviest consumers on the planet. Once they are finished their protest most of them jump in their cars and burn down the freeway. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    The doubling in capacity of Trans Mountain has nothing to do with meeting current or forecast demand for bitumen in BC, Canada, or the United States. The doubling in capacity is all about sending bitumen to Asia under the assumption that Asian refineries will be reconfigured to be able to process the oil sands' inferior product. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in their rationale for doubling capacity say exactly this. Here are a few quotes from one of their publications:

    It is important to note that, while total (world) demand for oil will increase, oil’s share of total energy consumption will fall while the use of renewables increases rapidly.

    ...

    The US is a mature economy and its vehicle market is saturated. All market analysts agree that US demand for oil will essentially be flat over the next 20 to 25 years.

    ...

    If China could be certain that oil would be available from Canada, it is probable that it would be more inclined to invest in refining capacity that would be ideally suited for Canadian heavy.
    Source: http://www.cepa.com/wp-content/uploa...Tidewaterr.pdf

    So doubling Trans Mountain is not about the security of Canada's energy supply, it's not about keeping existing jobs in Alberta. Instead it's all about locking our future livelihood into a single industry even though it's well recognized--even by the members of that industry--that it's not required for our own needs. It's all about the oil industry's belief that they are entitled to perpetually increasing profits whatever that may cost the rest of the economy.

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    I thought that was stopped, Victoria dumping raw sewage?
    2016:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...as-for-decades
    What Montreal starting a trend dumping their raw sewage?

    Yeesh
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/b...ires-1.4102251

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    I thought that was stopped, Victoria dumping raw sewage?
    2016:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...as-for-decades
    It's 2018 now. It took me one quick Google search to find this:

    https://www.crd.bc.ca/project/wastew...atment-project

    And all the same "hypocrites" opposing Trans Mountain have in fact been lobbying for years to rectify the situation in Victoria. Now that the aforementioned project is underway they have moved on to other things.

    Flush with sewage success, Victoria icon Mr. Floatie retires

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,940

    Default

    https://www.enbridge.com/energy-matt...bitumen-bricks. This could solve a lot of problems. Coal cars and ships full of pucks.

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Well all their jet fuel comes from us, maybe turn off that tap, they can be carbon negative then..
    25 million passengers per year use YVR alone using jets that burn 12 to 15 hundred liters per hour. Then there is all the other airports, all the trucks, cars, motorcycles, equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, other uses plus all the by products used each day. BC also produces a lot of oil and gas and products from their NE from which they collect billions in royalties. I wonder how people in Ft. St. John and Dawson Creek feel about their new government. If BCers were not such heavy users of oil and gas one could have some sympathy but they are one of the heaviest consumers on the planet. Once they are finished their protest most of them jump in their cars and burn down the freeway. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    The doubling in capacity of Trans Mountain has nothing to do with meeting current or forecast demand for bitumen in BC, Canada, or the United States. The doubling in capacity is all about sending bitumen to Asia under the assumption that Asian refineries will be reconfigured to be able to process the oil sands' inferior product. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in their rationale for doubling capacity say exactly this. Here are a few quotes from one of their publications:

    It is important to note that, while total (world) demand for oil will increase, oil’s share of total energy consumption will fall while the use of renewables increases rapidly.

    ...

    The US is a mature economy and its vehicle market is saturated. All market analysts agree that US demand for oil will essentially be flat over the next 20 to 25 years.

    ...

    If China could be certain that oil would be available from Canada, it is probable that it would be more inclined to invest in refining capacity that would be ideally suited for Canadian heavy.
    Source: http://www.cepa.com/wp-content/uploa...Tidewaterr.pdf

    So doubling Trans Mountain is not about the security of Canada's energy supply, it's not about keeping existing jobs in Alberta. Instead it's all about locking our future livelihood into a single industry even though it's well recognized--even by the members of that industry--that it's not required for our own needs. It's all about the oil industry's belief that they are entitled to perpetually increasing profits whatever that may cost the rest of the economy.
    We know all this. Thanks. It's the idea of slowing an industry which you are such a part of that's objectionable.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    We know all this. Thanks. It's the idea of slowing an industry which you are such a part of that's objectionable.
    Who said anything about slowing? Not doubling does not mean slowing.

    And speaking of objectionable: assuming that I and all Albertans are "such a part" of the oil industry is highly objectionable. Believe it or not there's more to Alberta than oil and gas.


    http://www.albertacanada.com/busines...c-results.aspx

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Well all their jet fuel comes from us, maybe turn off that tap, they can be carbon negative then..
    No doubt something like that would make the B.C. NDP think twice. Cut of the fuel and watch their prices go sky high on what they have in storage. But I still think this issue needs intervention from the feds. There should be a mechanism in place where if it's in the interest of the whole country one province should not be able to hold others hostage.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  63. #63
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default



    Yeah, that would be hilarious.

    Cut them off and watch them squeal like piggies.

  64. #64

    Default

    ^Not nice Dawg, remember Pickton.
    No, cut them off and let their economy suffer. On the other hand, all people in mainland B.C. seem to worry about is the price of their houses.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  65. #65
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    We know all this. Thanks. It's the idea of slowing an industry which you are such a part of that's objectionable.
    Who said anything about slowing? Not doubling does not mean slowing.

    And speaking of objectionable: assuming that I and all Albertans are "such a part" of the oil industry is highly objectionable. Believe it or not there's more to Alberta than oil and gas.


    http://www.albertacanada.com/busines...c-results.aspx
    the problem with the pie chart and your mistaken use of it in this context is that those pie slices are not discrete...

    yes, "oil & gas & mining" might only make up 18.3% of the overall economy but the 61 billion dollars that slice represents contributes to a large portion of of the activity represented by every other one of those slices from construction to manufacturing and everything in between.

    because they are not discrete slices, one you reduce or slow down one of them, you reduce or slow down all of them two-fold. one, you reduce the direct expenditures between them and two, you eliminate completely the velocity of that reduced money flow through the rest of the economy.

    you are conflating diversity with independence and those are two very different things.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default

    Xackly.

    Pretty much all manufacturing in these parts is for the oil & gas industry.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Horgan has to appease the greenies, because they keep him in power..NDP vs NDP. Glorious!

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default



    Yeah it is glorious.

    Top_Dawg loves it.

    And the federal NDP paralyzed in the background, clutching their idiotic LEAP manifesto, not having a clue what to do in this situation.

    Can't make this ***** up.


  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,940

    Default

    Albertans. Those renegades.

  71. #71

    Default

    ^Look before you LEAP manifesto.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    the problem with the pie chart and your mistaken use of it in this context is that those pie slices are not discrete...

    yes, "oil & gas & mining" might only make up 18.3% of the overall economy but the 61 billion dollars that slice represents contributes to a large portion of of the activity represented by every other one of those slices from construction to manufacturing and everything in between.

    because they are not discrete slices, one you reduce or slow down one of them, you reduce or slow down all of them two-fold. one, you reduce the direct expenditures between them and two, you eliminate completely the velocity of that reduced money flow through the rest of the economy.

    you are conflating diversity with independence and those are two very different things.
    It is you who is mistaken about how that chart was used and it is you who has failed to appreciate its context. To say that I am part of oil and gas--when I am not--is deceitful because it implies direct involvement. I was using the chart to demonstrate that most Albertans, myself included, are in fact only indirectly involved in oil and gas at most. I was not attempting to diminish the contribution of oil and gas to our economy.

    Is oil and gas important to the Alberta economy? Of course it is. Is its importance limited to the 18.3% shown in the chart? No, its importance is likely far greater for the reasons you mention.

    Does any of the above support the case for doubling the Trans Mountain capacity? Absolutely not. Doubling Trans Mountain is not needed for the economic viability of the oil companies; they were highly profitable in 2017 despite the current economic environment and distribution system. Doubling Trans Mountain is not needed for Canada's energy security either. Its sole purpose is to get energy out of Canada. Its propronents vastly overstate its importance while simultaneously completely ignoring its downsides.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.
    Oil is useful. How useful is millions of gallons of raw human sewage. Maybe you would like some of it in your yard and if that is the case there is plenty at the Edmonton sewage plant you could maybe beg them for.
    Last edited by Gemini; 07-02-2018 at 12:09 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  74. #74
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    the problem with the pie chart and your mistaken use of it in this context is that those pie slices are not discrete...

    yes, "oil & gas & mining" might only make up 18.3% of the overall economy but the 61 billion dollars that slice represents contributes to a large portion of of the activity represented by every other one of those slices from construction to manufacturing and everything in between.

    because they are not discrete slices, one you reduce or slow down one of them, you reduce or slow down all of them two-fold. one, you reduce the direct expenditures between them and two, you eliminate completely the velocity of that reduced money flow through the rest of the economy.

    you are conflating diversity with independence and those are two very different things.
    It is you who is mistaken about how that chart was used and it is you who has failed to appreciate its context. To say that I am part of oil and gas--when I am not--is deceitful because it implies direct involvement.
    i think you're mistakenly attributing Drumbones statement in the post you edited out to me.

    I was using the chart to demonstrate that most Albertans, myself included, are in fact only indirectly involved in oil and gas at most. I was not attempting to diminish the contribution of oil and gas to our economy.

    Is oil and gas important to the Alberta economy? Of course it is. Is its importance limited to the 18.3% shown in the chart? No, its importance is likely far greater for the reasons you mention.
    i'm glad you agree, although that certainly wasn't derivable from your comment on the chart when you posted it (Believe it or not there's more to Alberta than oil and gas) that seems to imply independence and not diversity and which is the extent to which i was responding.

    Does any of the above support the case for doubling the Trans Mountain capacity? Absolutely not. Doubling Trans Mountain is not needed for the economic viability of the oil companies; they were highly profitable in 2017 despite the current economic environment and distribution system. Doubling Trans Mountain is not needed for Canada's energy security either. Its sole purpose is to get energy out of Canada. Its propronents vastly overstate its importance while simultaneously completely ignoring its downsides.
    again, you're responding to something i neither said nor implied.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  75. #75

    Default

    Next step should be to stop all lumber trucks at the border. I'm sick of this clear-cutting of our great Canadian forests. How dare those BC greenies not include conifers in their pro-enviro lovefest.

  76. #76
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    387

    Default

    JT should immediately set up a meeting with the two Premier’s in Ottawa and telling them to stop this before it escalates into a situation that neither can back away from. He could agree to be seen as the bullying by telling BC to get into line, he could also be seen as a bully by telling RN to lift the wine ban.
    This would allow both provincial leaders to save some face.

  77. #77

    Default

    I would rather see the politicians sort this out as boycotts in the long run just hurt the working population. Trudeau will sit on the fence for as long as he can. He’ll make a couple of comments but I don’t expect anything concrete from him until he is backed into a corner about it.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    JT should immediately set up a meeting with the two Premier’s in Ottawa and telling them to stop this before it escalates into a situation that neither can back away from. He could agree to be seen as the bullying by telling BC to get into line, he could also be seen as a bully by telling RN to lift the wine ban.
    This would allow both provincial leaders to save some face.
    This isn't a matter of mutual moderation or mitigation. Its the need for the feds to come in and take control of a project that has already been approved by the feds and which BC is trying to unilaterally back out of. So that Trudeau should be ensuring at this point that the pipeline is getting through, and to stop the BC obfuscation.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    Next step should be to stop all lumber trucks at the border. I'm sick of this clear-cutting of our great Canadian forests. How dare those BC greenies not include conifers in their pro-enviro lovefest.
    I guess you forgot about Clayoquot Sound? The largest civil disobedience movement in Canadian history and it forever changed how old growth forests are managed in BC.

    People keep going on about BC hypocrisy. If there's anyone being hypocritical here it's Notley with the delusional stance that suggests you can both expand pipelines and reduce emissions.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.
    Oil is useful. How useful is millions of gallons of raw human sewage. Maybe you would like some of it in your yard and if that is the case there is plenty at the Edmonton sewage plant you could maybe beg them for.
    The oil that will flow through this pipeline is for export. Not very useful for BC. You want them to take all the risks for the pipeline and be stuck with the bill for the clean up that the pipeline companies will do half assed. Remember the spill in the Kalamazoo River a few years ago?

    Kalamazoo River oil spill

    On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot (12 m) pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 miles (1.0 km) downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[2] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a spill of diluted bitumen or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later estimated the spill to be in excess of 1 million US gallons (3,800 m3).[3] On 29 July 2010, the Calhoun County Health Department asked 30 to 50 households to evacuate, and twice as many were advised not to drink their water.[4]


    Though alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were possibly caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
    And that was in fairly flat terrain and easily accessible. Not something you can say about large parts of BC.

    Or what about the spill in the new, state of the art pipeline in Fort Mac which was discovered by someone walking through the area. None of the alarms had gone off. There was no idea that it was happening or how long it had been spilling.

    At least sewage can be broken down biologically in a relatively short period of time. You can still find oil on the beaches of Price William Sound from the Exxon Valdez.

    But yeah, BC should just accept the pipeline companies word that everything will be tickety-boo.

    And as far as boycotting BC, I hope that everyone that's suggesting it has cancelled all their services through Telus.

  81. #81
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.
    Oil is useful. How useful is millions of gallons of raw human sewage. Maybe you would like some of it in your yard and if that is the case there is plenty at the Edmonton sewage plant you could maybe beg them for.
    The oil that will flow through this pipeline is for export. Not very useful for BC. You want them to take all the risks for the pipeline and be stuck with the bill for the clean up that the pipeline companies will do half assed. Remember the spill in the Kalamazoo River a few years ago?

    ...
    the argument you're making and the comparable you're using don't describe the kinder morgan circumstances...

    this isn't a case of oil tankers that need emergency response measures in place or no oil tankers and no required emergency response measures.

    there have been oil tankers potentially requiring emergency response moving through those waters from the end of the pipe line since 1953 (with not a single serious incident in all that time for what that's worth). will there be more tankers with the pipeline expansion? yes there will. but the emergency response required to deal with an oil tanker incident is exactly the same if it's dealing with one tanker out of forty two or one tanker out of eighty four.

    unless the logic is that the emergency response has to be capable of dealing with all forty two additional oil tankers simultaneously - which makes absolutely no sense - the emergency response capability that is there now for a single oil tanker should still be adequate or that capacity needs to be upgraded to handle a single oil tanker completely independent of twinning the existing pipeline. it's a complete red herring to delay the pipeline based on emergency response capabilities that need to be the same either way.
    Last edited by kcantor; 07-02-2018 at 05:56 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  82. #82
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    Let's build a pipeline to Churchill Manitoba, screw BC and screw Quebec. They have no problem screwing us.

  83. #83

    Default

    Maybe we should ask Trump for input on a wall.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  84. #84
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    I would like to see "enhanced" inspections of BC Lumber trucks. A safety blitz with zero tolerance for infractions would put a huge damper on BC's forest industry and the fines levied would pay for the program.
    This issue isn't about pipelines, the greenies want to shut down Ft Mac., the pipeline restriction is just a tool for their ultimate goal. I think we may have to make the rest of BC scream until the pinkos in the lower mainland give in.

  85. #85
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Let's build a pipeline to Churchill Manitoba, screw BC and screw Quebec. They have no problem screwing us.
    While we are at it, how about a year round ice breaker for that port?

  86. #86
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    Great idea, make it nuclear powered and watch the greenies heads explode.

  87. #87
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    408

    Default

    I'm been on Vancouver Harbour / Burrard Inlet and there are spill response barges and tug boats everywhere. Existing tankers taking on oil at Kinder Morgan's terminal get surrounded by booms to contain any spill.

  88. #88

    Default

    ^At least the case since 2015 when they had the tanker spill in the area. It was limited and contained in that instance, but a harbinger and reminder of much bigger disasters that could occur.

    Things did not go as smoothly as desired with that one;

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle23989939/
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  89. #89
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Let's build a pipeline to Churchill Manitoba, screw BC and screw Quebec. They have no problem screwing us.

    ...but that's really the crux of the issue, and why whining with wine won't work...

    Alberta doesn't have a friendly seaport.

    Until that happens, we're at other's mercy.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  90. #90
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^At least the case since 2015 when they had the tanker spill in the area. It was limited and contained in that instance, but a harbinger and reminder of much bigger disasters that could occur.

    Things did not go as smoothly as desired with that one;

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle23989939/
    that spill was bunker fuel from a bulk grain carrier.

    perhaps we should shut down all of our grain exports as well as our pipelines to protect bc’s coastal waters?

    thanks for illustrating my previous point.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.
    Oil is useful. How useful is millions of gallons of raw human sewage. Maybe you would like some of it in your yard and if that is the case there is plenty at the Edmonton sewage plant you could maybe beg them for.
    The oil that will flow through this pipeline is for export. Not very useful for BC. You want them to take all the risks for the pipeline and be stuck with the bill for the clean up that the pipeline companies will do half assed. Remember the spill in the Kalamazoo River a few years ago?

    ...
    the argument you're making and the comparable you're using don't describe the kinder morgan circumstances...

    this isn't a case of oil tankers that need emergency response measures in place or no oil tankers and no required emergency response measures.

    there have been oil tankers potentially requiring emergency response moving through those waters from the end of the pipe line since 1953 (with not a single serious incident in all that time for what that's worth). will there be more tankers with the pipeline expansion? yes there will. but the emergency response required to deal with an oil tanker incident is exactly the same if it's dealing with one tanker out of forty two or one tanker out of eighty four.

    unless the logic is that the emergency response has to be capable of dealing with all forty two additional oil tankers simultaneously - which makes absolutely no sense - the emergency response capability that is there now for a single oil tanker should still be adequate or that capacity needs to be upgraded to handle a single oil tanker completely independent of twinning the existing pipeline. it's a complete red herring to delay the pipeline based on emergency response capabilities that need to be the same either way.
    There are a number of factual errors in this post that I feel compelled to correct.

    1. Between 1961 and 2013 there were in fact 81 reported Trans Mountain oil spill incidents. These are numbers reported by Trans Mountain/Kinder Morgan themselves to the National Energy Board (source).
    2. These spills totaled 5,799,700 uncontained liters including a couple recent ones at the waterfront: July 24, 2007, when 234,000 liters of crude oil spilled from the Westridge Dock; this spill drained into Burrard Inlet through storm sewers. On May 6, 2009, about 277,000 litres of light sweet crude oil spilled from one of the tanks at the Burnaby Terminal.
    3. The number of tankers is going up seven-fold, not two-fold, from about 5 Aframax tankers per month to 34 Aframax tankers per month. So it's not 83 tankers, it's about 400 (four hundred) tankers per year. This number is directly from Kinder Morgan themselves (source).
    4. The response to the M/V Marathassa spill of just 2,700 liters of fuel oil into English Bay indicated the emergency response is, alas, not adequately prepared; this was concluded by the Canadian Coast Guard's independent review (source). Only about 50% (1400 liters) of the spilled fuel was recovered under what were average sea conditions.
    5. A spill from an Aframax tanker could release up to 16,500,000 liters of heavy oil--almost six thousand times more than came from M/V Marathassa (source).


    Those are the facts.

    Do you still believe then that the emergency response capability needs to be the same either way? Do you still think it's a red herring to talk about it? The emergency response capabilities are likely inadequate for what we already have. Surely it's worth spending some time to at least double-check how prepared we are before increasing the volume exported seven-fold?

  92. #92
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,545

    Default

    I rarely drink wine but when I do it is never B.C. wine.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  93. #93

    Default

    ^^Even taking your facts into consideration the pipeline was approved and signed off on. Contracts signed etc. Now I don't know how that is with contracts but it seems to me like a breach of contract even though that might not be what the government is calling it. Alberta should go after BC for the money it has spend on just the preliminaries and paperwork alone. I should imagine it amounts to millions.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    I rarely drink wine but when I do it is never B.C. wine.
    Not a big wine drinker but I like their wines. Some nice Ontario wines out there to. I'm more of a Bailey's person.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  95. #95
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Offer BC a solution to one of their environmental problems in return for taking the pipeline. Simply double the pipeline as proposed and let Alberta take BC's sewage that they're dumping in the ocean. Problems solved.
    Yeah, maybe let them dump B.C's sewage in your back yard the rest of us don't want it.
    And BC doesn't want an oil pipeline. What's your point? We take something they don't want, they do the same.
    Oil is useful. How useful is millions of gallons of raw human sewage. Maybe you would like some of it in your yard and if that is the case there is plenty at the Edmonton sewage plant you could maybe beg them for.
    The oil that will flow through this pipeline is for export. Not very useful for BC. You want them to take all the risks for the pipeline and be stuck with the bill for the clean up that the pipeline companies will do half assed. Remember the spill in the Kalamazoo River a few years ago?

    ...
    the argument you're making and the comparable you're using don't describe the kinder morgan circumstances...

    this isn't a case of oil tankers that need emergency response measures in place or no oil tankers and no required emergency response measures.

    there have been oil tankers potentially requiring emergency response moving through those waters from the end of the pipe line since 1953 (with not a single serious incident in all that time for what that's worth). will there be more tankers with the pipeline expansion? yes there will. but the emergency response required to deal with an oil tanker incident is exactly the same if it's dealing with one tanker out of forty two or one tanker out of eighty four.

    unless the logic is that the emergency response has to be capable of dealing with all forty two additional oil tankers simultaneously - which makes absolutely no sense - the emergency response capability that is there now for a single oil tanker should still be adequate or that capacity needs to be upgraded to handle a single oil tanker completely independent of twinning the existing pipeline. it's a complete red herring to delay the pipeline based on emergency response capabilities that need to be the same either way.
    There are a number of factual errors in this post that I feel compelled to correct.

    1. Between 1961 and 2013 there were in fact 81 reported Trans Mountain oil spill incidents. These are numbers reported by Trans Mountain/Kinder Morgan themselves to the National Energy Board (source).
    2. These spills totaled 5,799,700 uncontained liters including a couple recent ones at the waterfront: July 24, 2007, when 234,000 liters of crude oil spilled from the Westridge Dock; this spill drained into Burrard Inlet through storm sewers. On May 6, 2009, about 277,000 litres of light sweet crude oil spilled from one of the tanks at the Burnaby Terminal.
    3. The number of tankers is going up seven-fold, not two-fold, from about 5 Aframax tankers per month to 34 Aframax tankers per month. So it's not 83 tankers, it's about 400 (four hundred) tankers per year. This number is directly from Kinder Morgan themselves (source).
    4. The response to the M/V Marathassa spill of just 2,700 liters of fuel oil into English Bay indicated the emergency response is, alas, not adequately prepared; this was concluded by the Canadian Coast Guard's independent review (source). Only about 50% (1400 liters) of the spilled fuel was recovered under what were average sea conditions.
    5. A spill from an Aframax tanker could release up to 16,500,000 liters of heavy oil--almost six thousand times more than came from M/V Marathassa (source).


    Those are the facts.

    Do you still believe then that the emergency response capability needs to be the same either way? Do you still think it's a red herring to talk about it? The emergency response capabilities are likely inadequate for what we already have. Surely it's worth spending some time to at least double-check how prepared we are before increasing the volume exported seven-fold?
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^At least the case since 2015 when they had the tanker spill in the area. It was limited and contained in that instance, but a harbinger and reminder of much bigger disasters that could occur.

    Things did not go as smoothly as desired with that one;

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle23989939/
    that spill was bunker fuel from a bulk grain carrier.

    perhaps we should shut down all of our grain exports as well as our pipelines to protect bc’s coastal waters?

    thanks for illustrating my previous point.
    I wasn't disputing your point, I wasn't responding to your post, I'm not opposed to the pipeline at all. I was just mentioning why the Vancouver preparedness for Oil spills has been beefed up since the 2015 spill. Not sure where you got anything else from my post.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.


    Source: https://www.transmountain.com/westridge-marine-terminal

  98. #98
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.
    ...
    as it stands now, there is either the capacity to deal with a spill or there isn't which is the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter in the least whether it's a "one in a hundred year spill" or a "one in a fifteen year spill" - in either case that spill could take place tomorrow and the emergency management necessary to deal with it exists or doesn't and in either case it should. i'm not sure why you consider that "off the mark". is there now a "worst case scenario" which might involve two tankers instead of one? perhaps, but even then the risk of the spill completely emptying both isn't twice the risk of a single tanker emptying completely. i'm also not sure that your "worst case scenario" is any more likely than an earthquake that would see that entire hillslide and tank farm slide into the water. and again, that risk is also already there today...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.
    ...
    as it stands now, there is either the capacity to deal with a spill or there isn't which is the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter in the least whether it's a "one in a hundred year spill" or a "one in a fifteen year spill" - in either case that spill could take place tomorrow and the emergency management necessary to deal with it exists or doesn't and in either case it should. i'm not sure why you consider that "off the mark". is there now a "worst case scenario" which might involve two tankers instead of one? perhaps, but even then the risk of the spill completely emptying both isn't twice the risk of a single tanker emptying completely. i'm also not sure that your "worst case scenario" is any more likely than an earthquake that would see that entire hillslide and tank farm slide into the water. and again, that risk is also already there today...
    Again, you are focusing only on the response and recovery phases of emergency management and have not considered the prevention and preparedness phases.

    Considering all phases of emergency management, the reality of limited resources means it actually does matter whether a given event is expected to happen one in a hundred years or one in fifteen years. For a hundred year event resources would be relatively more focused on response and recovery since the event is actually quite unlikely to occur during a single planning cycle. Conversely, for a fifteen year event resources would be relatively more focused on prevention and preparedness: because you know such an event is likely to happen it makes sense to spend money to prevent it. The implication of this is that if what used to be a hundred year event suddenly becomes a fifteen year event the original plan would not be resource effective. The plan needs to be redone even though the actual disaster is the same (only its probability of occurrence has changed).

    Given that twinning Trans Mountain necessarily increases the probability of a disaster it only makes sense to make sure that the currently deployed emergency management resources are re-evaluated so that we know they are properly balanced among the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery phases.

    Better yet would be to cancel the whole project--but that's another story.

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,633

    Default

    Interesting, I'll be on the coast as of tomorrow for a long weekend. If I hear anything - at all - from the general public, will let you know.

    More than likely, I'll hearing griping about $1.50 gas because their remaining refinary is down for maintenence, vs. any pipeline talk!

    As for merits of the pipeline twinning, that's a much longer and complex story, possibly better suited to its own thread?
    ... gobsmacked

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •