Jump to content

      













Photo

Alberta and BC politics


  • Please log in to reply
556 replies to this topic

#21 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,985 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 07:47 PM

https://www.theglobe...impression=true


"Someone needs to remind British Columbia – and all Canadians – of that. And that someone needs to be the federal government. The Prime Minister was recently quoted as saying, "I'm not going to opine on disagreements between the provinces." This is not – and must not be portrayed as – a battle between two provinces. This is about Canada. It is unfair, inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent to have one province, in this case Alberta, defend what is in the national interest."

#22 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 07:58 PM

Do you know what wine does to a carpet?

49e7a6dba12fc6c5aa729ad395d8e077.gif



#23 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:18 PM

 

I think you need to add back all the federal transfer payments Alberta has made over the years at approx $2Billion per year....so say the last 15 years can add another $30Billion to  their bottom line

 

The $7.4 billion* pipeline Project will increase the value of Canadian oil by unlocking access to world markets. A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes that can be used for public services such as health care and education.

  • British Columbia receives $5.7 billion
  • Alberta receives $19.4 billion
  • The rest of Canada shares $21.6 billion
  • Municipal tax payments (not adjusted for inflation) total $922 million to BC and $124 million to Alberta over the first 20 years of expanded pipeline operations.

 

 

Triple that for BC and we can start to talk.


  • On the Level and tjv like this

#24 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,857 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:21 PM

Triple that for BC and we can start to talk.

 

Hehe wouldnt that be lovely!

 

I think smarter folks than you and me figured out the formula for this. 

 

I was listening to Dan McTeague on Adler this evening and he was indicating that the nuclear option would be for Notley to turn off the tap to the current pipe. That would strangle the lower mainland of 80% of its petrol....  :muching_out:   



#25 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:36 PM

^Is that a BC wine?


  • rjag likes this

#26 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:40 PM

The reaction from both 

 

I was listening to Dan McTeague on Adler this evening and he was indicating that the nuclear option would be for Notley to turn off the tap to the current pipe. That would strangle the lower mainland of 80% of its petrol....  :muching_out:   

Except this isn't Petro Canada from the 1980s.  TMPL is not owned by Albertains or Canadians from a government perspective.  Much of the funding is foreign.

 

TMPL is about to cap out it's investor source on the increased pipeline (BC's strategy)...which is why both Notley and Trudeau have come out swinging.  TMPL will kill this when it goes to court over first nations objections and everyone knows it.  There is a mountain (no pun intended) of evidence of corporate interference from the NEB process to feed the courts.  TMPL does not have private investment to sustain this.

 

Notley declaring government control over private corporations would be the nuclear option on the Alberta economy.  Investors are on the verge of losing on the expanded pipeline to then be hit with a total collapse of pipeline profits by shutting it down because the Government of Alberta is having a hissy fit?  Get serious.


Edited by On the Level, 07 February 2018 - 09:41 PM.

  • rjag and Cassidy like this

#27 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,857 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:02 PM

The reaction from both 

 

Except this isn't Petro Canada from the 1980s.  TMPL is not owned by Albertains or Canadians from a government perspective.  Much of the funding is foreign.

 

TMPL is about to cap out it's investor source on the increased pipeline (BC's strategy)...which is why both Notley and Trudeau have come out swinging.  TMPL will kill this when it goes to court over first nations objections and everyone knows it.  There is a mountain (no pun intended) of evidence of corporate interference from the NEB process to feed the courts.  TMPL does not have private investment to sustain this.

 

Notley declaring government control over private corporations would be the nuclear option on the Alberta economy.  Investors are on the verge of losing on the expanded pipeline to then be hit with a total collapse of pipeline profits by shutting it down because the Government of Alberta is having a hissy fit?  Get serious.

 

Which first nations?

 

http://www.jwnenergy...-kinder-morgan/

 

 

There are now 51 Aboriginal communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements with the project valued at more than $400 million.

This includes all of the First Nations whose reserves the pipeline crosses and about 80 percent of communities within proximity to the pipeline right-of-way, the company says. The 51 agreements include 10 in Alberta and 41 in B.C.



#28 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:07 PM

Which first nations?

 

http://www.jwnenergy...-kinder-morgan/

The ones whose fisheries would be impacted by a spill.



#29 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:30 PM

The real risk is introducing evidence into courts of previous industry and government capabilities for a spill on the BC coast including Vancouver.  For all of the rhetoric, there is very little real capability.  Show the 2016 impact evidence from the Exxon Valdez then add Bitumen realities makes the TMPL proposal damaging from an investor perspective beyond BC.  

 

Oil-spill-West-Vancouver-1973.jpg



#30 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,985 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:37 PM

The real risk is introducing evidence into courts of previous industry and government capabilities for a spill on the BC coast including Vancouver. For all of the rhetoric, there is very little real capability. Show the 2016 impact evidence from the Exxon Valdez then add Bitumen realities makes the TMPL proposal damaging from an investor perspective beyond BC.

Oil-spill-West-Vancouver-1973.jpg

There has been oil piped through BC and sailed up and down our coast for many decades and never a serious problem. Thats fear mongering. Trudeau should show is capable of actual leadership and put an end to horgans politicking.

Let me guess, you prefer transporting by rail? Truck? Because that is so safe right?
Or do you think we are all going to stop using oil and everyone in fort mac is going to move to BC and get a job in the craft breweries

Edited by RFS, 07 February 2018 - 10:39 PM.

  • jonny likes this

#31 vortoozo

vortoozo
  • Member
  • 421 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:52 PM

Luckily Horgan did not announce a retaliation. So far, all he's done is announce a study. It was Alberta that started the trade ban. First they said the study would cause them to stop talking electricity... But they had already stopped. Now, it's wine. It seems, though, that a number of BC residents have pledged to drink more BC wine if it means keeping the pipeline from being twinned.



#32 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,985 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:59 PM

Luckily Horgan did not announce a retaliation. So far, all he's done is announce a study. It was Alberta that started the trade ban. First they said the study would cause them to stop talking electricity... But they had already stopped. Now, it's wine. It seems, though, that a number of BC residents have pledged to drink more BC wine if it means keeping the pipeline from being twinned.


Drinking more wine to stop a vital national energy infrastructure project is Such a perfect sad ironic metaphor for Canadian society today
  • rjag likes this

#33 vortoozo

vortoozo
  • Member
  • 421 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 11:04 PM

Drinking more wine to stop a vital national energy infrastructure project is Such a perfect sad ironic metaphor for Canadian society today

 

Exporting oil is "vital"? With all the risks that come with it? Hardly.



#34 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 11:59 PM

There has been oil piped through BC and sailed up and down our coast for many decades and never a serious problem. ..........

 

 

time + potential disaster = disaster

 

We will be speeding up the clock.



#35 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,857 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 08 February 2018 - 05:39 AM

Exporting oil is "vital"? With all the risks that come with it? Hardly.


As long as our oil is landlocked with only 1 customer it means we only sell it for $30 a barrel compared to $60+ in the rest of the world. We then buy it back at full price hence why we pay some of the highest prices anywhere.

Opening a new market allows our asset to be sold at world prices which improves the bottom line for government revenues in the billions.

It’s in the US interest to not have that pipeline while they build thousands of miles of new pipe in the last decade.

If it’s as bad as the chicken little folks say it is then turn it all off anything more than zero is risk

That includes all the fuel barges serving remote communities, container ships holding hundreds of tons of bunker C which is highly toxic
  • jonny likes this

#36 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,512 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:35 AM

What BC is doing is illegal. Horgan has no grounds to make the sorts of determinations via his study that he says he does. What this all boils down to is the unknown effect of bitumen on the environment, and it's because of this that the BC NDP alleges that pipeline cannot proceed. To impose a blockade over an unknown or a hypothetical scenario is against the law in this country.

 

The Prime Minister's lack of action speaks volumes about him as a leader. Here we have a stranglehold imposed by a province and Trudeau walks into the room, turns around and walks out. What the heck is that all about?

 

25% of BC wine is sold to Alberta and BC wine accounts for 30% of wine sold in the province so the effect will be felt in both provinces. Island wineries are not impacted so much as all but two ship to Alberta. This info is via CFAX.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#37 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:38 AM

As long as our oil is landlocked with only 1 customer it means we only sell it for $30 a barrel compared to $60+ in the rest of the world. We then buy it back at full price hence why we pay some of the highest prices anywhere.

Opening a new market allows our asset to be sold at world prices which improves the bottom line for government revenues in the billions.

It’s in the US interest to not have that pipeline while they build thousands of miles of new pipe in the last decade.

If it’s as bad as the chicken little folks say it is then turn it all off anything more than zero is risk

That includes all the fuel barges serving remote communities, container ships holding hundreds of tons of bunker C which is highly toxic

.

And BC Ferries. Those thing are powder kegs waiting to go off.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#38 Cats4Hire

Cats4Hire
  • Member
  • 667 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:14 AM

You guys know all of this is probably staged right? It's election year in Alberta and Rachel Notley is hated. What does Alberta really want that they might be willing to vote for someone who they hated because she brought it in?

John Horgan can only govern with Weaver's support and one of the things Horgan agreed to to get Weaver's support is to do everything in his power to try and stop the pipeline (try is a key word). Plus a lot of voters on the coast and that oppose the pipeline will see him fighting it as hard as he can and might vote NDP next election.

Both leaders know Horgan can't do anything about stopping the pipe but what's happening right now is literally in both their best interest.
  • Mike K., rjag, jonny and 1 other like this

#39 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,857 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:18 AM

^ Yup, my thoughts exactly. Especially as he isnt going to counter boycott...more to this than meets the eye. It plays well to their audience of anti-capitalist anti-everything zealots as well

 

Trudeau has to figure how many Liberal seats in BC compared to Alberta and calculate the damage if he pushes too hard. Its a 3 way play.


  • jonny likes this

#40 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,512 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:29 AM

Oh for sure there's some posturing here, but the chance of Notley winning an election is slimmer than Harper making a comeback. The NDP in Alberta are done.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users