Does BC pay AB for lumber than crosses through AB?
What about all the Nat gas that goes via the Fort Chicago line from Ft St John? How much does Ab charge for that?
Posted 01 September 2018 - 07:28 PM
Does BC pay AB for lumber than crosses through AB?
What about all the Nat gas that goes via the Fort Chicago line from Ft St John? How much does Ab charge for that?
Posted 01 September 2018 - 07:31 PM
Does BC pay AB for lumber than crosses through AB?
go for it! Did Trump's tariff stop demand for our lumber? Nope and US housing just costs more to build
they should tax it at the same rate the US does
Posted 01 September 2018 - 08:00 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 01 September 2018 - 08:09 PM
June 2018 saw an all-time high for rail export of oil breaking 200,000 barrels per day for the first time ever.
Yes it's record breaking, see my post 917 this thread.
more here https://www.cbc.ca/n...ts-up-1.4795429
Posted 02 September 2018 - 10:21 AM
What if Alberta charges us more for the oil we use? Such fees and levies could get real ugly really fast.
Hmmm good question. My thought would be Alberta doesn't own the oil, private companies like Suncor and Shell extract, process and ship it currently thru 100% private infrastructure. Suncor and Shell pay royalties to Alberta to extract it from public lands, the same way our forestry companies pay a stumpage fee to log public lands. The BC Government doesn't have any say in what happens to the logs after they have been cut and trucked.
Posted 02 September 2018 - 11:40 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 02 September 2018 - 11:53 AM
the bc government still has some control over cut timber as to where it goes.
Posted 02 September 2018 - 12:44 PM
Couldn’t they tax resources destined for use in BC?
No there was a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on a similar issue earlier this year
Posted 23 September 2018 - 09:25 PM
Oil pipelines to the BC coast will impact the survival of the orcas.
So not only is there a shortage of Chinook for the orcas, there is too much underwater noise from the shipping that is already sailing in local waters.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the NEB made a “critical error” by not considering the impact of tanker traffic on the marine environment when it reviewed the expansion of the pipeline.
In quashing the federal government’s approval of the project, the court directed the NEB to consider the project’s environmental impacts and the impacts of tankers and oil spills on southern resident killer whales.
The NEB concluded that the orcas would suffer “adverse effects,” but did not consider that in its final decision and so failed in its legal obligation to protect endangered orcas under the Species at Risk Act.
A Vancouver Fraser Port Authority voluntary trial found that ships that reduce their speed generate less underwater noise of the kind that interferes with the ability of orcas to hunt and communicate.
“The trial demonstrated that reducing vessel speeds is an effective way of reducing the underwater noise … which may in turn benefit the behaviour and feeding success of the southern resident killer whale,” the port authority reported.
Edited by Bingo, 03 October 2018 - 08:24 AM.
Posted 23 September 2018 - 09:31 PM
So perhaps the orcas have been in a decline ever since the increase in cruise ships to BC waters, but I'm also thinking those noisy Growlers flying out of Whidbey Island are scaring the orcas.
Posted 25 September 2018 - 07:24 PM
Heres an outfit called Clear Seas, lots of good research etc on Canada's oil shipping industry One of their folks was on CKNW this afternoon and gave some great data to counter the emotional statements from Weaver. https://clearseas.org/en/tankers/
Edited by rjag, 25 September 2018 - 07:25 PM.
Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:36 AM
CALGARY — Cenovus Energy Inc. shares increased nearly seven per cent after the oilsands producer said it signed three-year deals with Canada’s major rail companies to move 100,000 barrels per day of heavy crude oil by rail.
The Calgary-based company’s shares gained 80.5 cents or 6.7 per cent at $12.815 in late-morning trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Cenovus says it has struck a deal with Canadian National Railway to move oil from Cenovus’s terminal northeast of Edmonton and with Canadian Pacific Railway through USD Partners’ terminal in Hardisty, Alta.
“While we remain confident new pipeline capacity will be constructed, these rail agreements will help get our oil to higher-price markets.”
https://business.fin...de-rail-deals-2
Gibson Energy's Hardisty Terminal.Photograph by: GIBSON ENERGY
Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:39 AM
Awesome, more sketchy, dangerous rail transportation. Great job anti pipeline activists. Ya blew it
Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:46 AM
Awesome, more sketchy, dangerous rail transportation. Great job anti pipeline activists. Ya blew it
Hurrah, less capacity to move everything else we produce, like grain. You think the activists would be cool with a soy bean pipeline?
Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:53 AM
The DOT-117 (TC-117 in Canada) is a type of unpressurized tank car in use on North American railroads. The DOT-117 design was developed in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster of 2013 in an effort to upgrade the specifications of the then-common DOT-111 and CPC-1232 designs.[1] It was announced on May 1, 2015 by the United States Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Canada's Transport Canada (TC).[1] The specifications require that the tank shells be constructed out of 9/16" steel, with 11-gauge sheet metal jackets, 1/2" thick head shields on the ends of the tanks, and improved valves over previous designs.[2]
In order to implement the DOT-117 standard, the FRA and TC required that all new tank cars constructed after October 1, 2015 be built to the specification.[2] The agencies also imposed a retrofit schedule to bring in-service cars up to DOT-117 standards.[1] Depending on the volatility of the cargo carried, DOT-111 and CPC-1232 cars would be banned in certain services in a series of cut-off dates, with all such cars out of service or rebuilt by May 1, 2025.[1]
Posted 02 October 2018 - 10:55 AM
So the $40-billion LNG pipeline and export terminal in Kitimat has been officially revealed, but you never would have known that this project was making its way through the regulatory and approval processes. I guess it really pays to avoid the lower mainland!
Construction is going ahead on a massive, $40-billion liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C., hours after five primary investors from five different countries granted their approval for the joint venture.
The LNG Canada project will see a pipeline carrying natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a new processing plant on the coast in Kitimat. There, the gas would be liquified for overseas export.
Posted 02 October 2018 - 11:40 AM
^ that didn't work out for Pacific Gateway. Nice to see the NDP keeping Liberal campaign promises
Posted 02 October 2018 - 07:28 PM
Good old CBC moved Jackerbie's link so here it is again: https://www.cbc.ca/n...anada-1.4845831
This will be interesting; I know people in the environmental planning and auditing arena who've worked off and on with the BCG and most if not all of the partners in this consortium. Not one believes there will be anywhere near 900-1000 local jobs when all is said and done. The more likely figure I've seen bandied about is somewhere south of 200 FTE positions "maybe".
Also...yeah Petronas. Infamous for ducking out on markets and potential markets the world over wherever "too stringent" environmental standards exist. Wonder what nuggets ("concessions") were tossed their way in order to convince them to step up here?
Posted 02 October 2018 - 10:57 PM
So the $40-billion LNG pipeline and export terminal in Kitimat has been officially revealed, but you never would have known that this project was making its way through the regulatory and approval processes. I guess it really pays to avoid the lower mainland!
NG so much less controversial than bitumen derived oil
^ that didn't work out for Pacific Gateway. Nice to see the NDP keeping Liberal campaign promises
Northern Gateway - yes - bitumen vs NG
Posted 02 October 2018 - 11:00 PM
Good old CBC moved Jackerbie's link so here it is again: https://www.cbc.ca/n...anada-1.4845831
This will be interesting; I know people in the environmental planning and auditing arena who've worked off and on with the BCG and most if not all of the partners in this consortium. Not one believes there will be anywhere near 900-1000 local jobs when all is said and done. The more likely figure I've seen bandied about is somewhere south of 200 FTE positions "maybe".
Recently northern BC has had the lowest NG prices in North America due to oversupply. IF BC NG prices move part ways towards world prices there will be a lot of money coming to BC coffers and a lot more exploration and production work in the NE.
Youy are correct that the direct project jobs will be quite modest.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users