[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

But you can't ask for a cut of our royalties. And that's what Clark is trying to do.

I agree. She's made a big mistake there. But, if we do manage to hold Enbridge's feet to the fire, make that damn project very very expensive because of environmental safeguards, the Alberta may have to evaluate its royalty position if it wants the project to go ahead. The way apparently is done with the oil sands in the first place.

[Freakinoldguy]

Unsound Unsound:

But you can't ask for a cut of our royalties. And that's what Clark is trying to do.

Exactly. If she wanted more money she should have gone to the organ grinder and not the monkey. Of course Alberta isn't going to give up their royalties, but the crux of the matter is that even Ontario and I don't mean the Federal Gov't is going to get more revenues from this project than BC, which is disgusting considering BC is taking all the risk.

$1:

Report says B.C. will profit least from pipeline revenues
Ontario, Alberta will receive many times as much income from planned project


Read more: http://www.canada.com/Report+says+will+ ... z22OMBM9US

So considering that a province with zero risk is going to reap more rewards than a province with 100% risk, it's a long shot to say that BC should stop asking for more money.

And no it isn't sour grapes or grandstanding it's an economic reality that when you're province is about to be raped like NFLD was by Quebec over the hydro issue, somebody has to standup and say no fekin way.

The only issue here is who is going to pay and as far as I'm concerned it should be Enbridge. If they want to ship their bitumen through BC they should be paying us as much in royalties as Alberta is getting for letting them take it out of their ground and if they and their lackies in Alberta don't like that they can send their bitumen to China via the United States , yeah like that'll happen with the safety record Enbridge has down there .

[Unsound]

FOG, I think you got it. About the only place I gisagree is that I think if BC doesn't let the pipeline go through, someone else definatly will.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Wow. For a second there I thougt some pouty separatist from Quebec showed up.

Oh noez! Petty Officer Knobb, and chief ship's bully, is back on deck! Hide before he notices you, scrubbers!

Bully? Ezra, if you think that's bulling, then you're yet another hypersensitive milksop rocking back in forth in the corner sucking his thumb and pulling his ear.

Wow, man up for once and take a bit of the shit you love to fling with such reckless abandon.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

FOG, I think you got it. About the only place I gisagree is that I think if BC doesn't let the pipeline go through, someone else definatly will.

That would be fine.

[andyt]

Even Herb Grubel gets it:

$1:

B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s demand for payments in return for permission to ship oil across B.C. lands is ill advised. Regardless whether these payments are to take the form of a claim on Alberta’s royalties or based on the amount of oil flowing through the pipe, they are equivalent to taxes on trade which, like tariffs on imports from abroad, raise consumer prices and lower living standards of all Canadians. Such domestic tariffs are rightly prohibited by federal legislation.

One way to extract money from the proposed pipeline that current federal legislation cannot prevent involves the use of provincial regulatory powers to delay indefinitely the construction of the pipeline until payments are agreed to. If the B.C. government were to adopt this policy, it would almost certainly invite retaliation from other provinces on the same grounds used by B.C. All shipments using roads, rail and air, like pipelines, carry the risk of accidental environmental damage, justifying the issuance of use permits in return for fees.

However, the most important objection to the B.C. demands is that it would do nothing to address the public’s real concerns over the potentially high costs of oil spills on the environment and taxpayers. Tolls would not create incentives that induce pipeline operators to adopt optimal techniques to reduce the frequency and severity of accidental spills from their presently feared levels.

It has to be remembered that the operators of pipelines are already legally required to pay for all cleanup operations according to standards set by provincial authorities. To reassure British Columbians that such cleanup costs will be met, the government has the right to insist on setting minimum levels of insurance coverage, much as it does for private automobile insurance. It could also insist on the establishment of a trust fund that would be available in the case of cleanup costs in excess of what is covered by the insurance.

For some vocal British Columbians, the cleanup of the environment and coverage of economic costs is not enough. They also experience a psychological loss from the knowledge that after an oil spill, it always takes some — possibly a long — time for nature to return to its original state. To compensate the public for these psychological costs, the B.C. government could impose on the pipeline operator a fine equal to a specific percentage of the cleanup costs for each spill.

All of these provincial policies would raise the costs of pipeline operators, but they are fair since they reflect society’s real economic and social costs. Importantly, they create incentives that lead to the adoption of costly and presently unprofitable measures to reduce the likely number and severity of oil spills. There will be the use of thicker or double-walled pipes, the instalment of pressure gauges with automatic shut-off valves at closer intervals, the maintenance of facilities to allow quicker and easier access to accident sites and repair tools and materials.

The incidence and severity of oil spills along the coast could be reduced similarly by the mandated use of several powerful tugboats to push the tankers through treacherous waters at low and safe maximum speeds only under favourable weather conditions. Eventually, other measures will be developed and applied to the prevention of oil spills on land and sea.

No measures, however expensive, can prevent all oil spills, as the small minority of self-appointed guardians of the environment and their allies in the media are fond of pointing out. Only the outright prohibition of all oil transports will end all risks.

However, the majority of British Columbians are sensible on this issue, realizing that stopping all future and possibly the existing systems for the delivery of oil products would be disastrous for the economy and the well-being of all Canadians. This majority will surely vote for politicians who support policies ensuring they will continue to be able to keep their homes warm, their cars running and shelves in their stores stocked while they enact and enforce policies that induce pipeline operators to adopt the best methods for minimizing oil spills and maximizing the protection of the environment.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinio ... z22PBigxh2

[Strutz]

Good article.

Thanks for posting it Andy.

[Unsound]

I'm starting to wonder how we've managed to argue for 14 pages since it seems like common sense is winning the day here.

[Gunnair]

Strutz Strutz:

Good article.

Thanks for posting it Andy.

It is. The demand for more money would be more meaningful if she said what it was for. For example, a thoroughly beefed up spill response centre or two in the North Coast, additional pilots and boats, additional tugs, as well as vastly improved provincial monitoring of the whole pipeline. Tally that up ensuring ut's thoroughly robust and allow for overrun then present the bill to Enbridge along with the detailed expectations of what the company will be responsible for.

Not much point in handing that to Alberta.

If Endbridge isn't happy with that, they may ship it east, south or north.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

I'm starting to wonder how we've managed to argue for 14 pages since it seems like common sense is winning the day here.

Well, for my part it's when I hear "it's happening if you want it or not," that gets my back up. And what seems to me to be a lack of concern about the environmental aspects. Maybe they just seem obvious to people, but as Grubel points out, they may in fact make the project uneconomic at the present time. That's no reason to lower our standards.

Any project is always a balance between risk and profit. So there's always an element of selling out the environment for the sake of profit. Chrispie Clark just stated that a little too clearly for what we're used to, I think. I don't doubt that there are people who think that if we could just get enough money out of the deal (so we can buy more Chinese crap) the hell with environmental concerns. And to some degree we all do it unless we live in that proverbial cave.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

I'm starting to wonder how we've managed to argue for 14 pages since it seems like common sense is winning the day here.

Wait for it, sport.

[Xort]

As I said before I don't see BC ripping up it's current pipelines, or knocking down it's hydro electric dams, or leaving the natural gas in BC in the ground.

So realy the only question is about money, and how much it's going to cost.

bootlegga bootlegga:

It makes sense to upgrade it - why ship unrefined goods elsewhere so that someone else can turn them into finished products?

It's not an unrefined product, it's a processed semi product. Why isn't it converted into it's final product before shipment? Cost, ability, desirability, safety. That's why Alberta doesn't aim for a large amount of finished oil end products for export.

It's not viable to try and export gasoline from Alberta for China. So we sell a semi refined product that is viable.

[andyt]

Xort Xort:

As I said before I don't see BC ripping up it's current pipelines, or knocking down it's hydro electric dams, or leaving the natural gas in BC in the ground.

So realy the only question is about money, and how much it's going to cost.

Maybe more than the project's worth.

[Thanos]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bully? Ezra, if you think that's bulling, then you're yet another hypersensitive milksop rocking back in forth in the corner sucking his thumb and pulling his ear.

Wow, man up for once and take a bit of the shit you love to fling with such reckless abandon.

Spending four months or so on a tin can with you in charge must be as pleasant for the scrubs on board as the Roman fleet scene from Ben-Hur was for the guys chained to the oars. If the only recorded mutiny in Canadian naval history ever occurs, I'm sure that your name will be at the centre of of if, Mr. Bligh.

[Freakinoldguy]

Thanos Thanos:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bully? Ezra, if you think that's bulling, then you're yet another hypersensitive milksop rocking back in forth in the corner sucking his thumb and pulling his ear.

Wow, man up for once and take a bit of the shit you love to fling with such reckless abandon.

Spending four months or so on a tin can with you in charge must be as pleasant for the scrubs on board as the Roman fleet scene from Ben-Hur was for the guys chained to the oars. If the only recorded mutiny in Canadian naval history ever occurs, I'm sure that your name will be at the centre of of if, Mr. Bligh.

Check your history. The RCN already had mutinies and acts of disobedience which could be construed as mutiny long before Gunnair came on the scene.

Here's the most famous one.

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/r ... ainguy.pdf