Jump to content

      













Photo

Alberta and BC politics


  • Please log in to reply
556 replies to this topic

#41 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:40 AM

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.

 

Horgan and Weaver pledged all out war on the Trans Mountain pipeline extension years ago - well before the project was ever approved. 


  • rjag likes this

#42 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:51 AM

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.

 

Except this issue strikes the very core of our confederation. Trudeau not doing everything in his power to get this project going full speed ahead severely damages Canada in many ways. 

 

First of all, he needs to protect our constitution to safeguard this place we call Canada. If we start ignoring core values of the constitution, well, we might as well throw the whole thing in the garbage. 

 

Second, investors are watching. This project is legally approved. Kinder Morgan Canada, in good faith, jumped through all the necessary hoops. They crossed all their t's and dotted all their i's - at tremendous risk and expense to themselves. The Government of Canada now must put the full weight of their powers protecting the rule of law; otherwise, we are a tin pot banana republic whose laws are worthless. Who would want to invest here?

 

This is a critical battle, IMO. The environmental extremists desperately want to  make Canada an unattractive place for natural resource industries. Make no mistake - their end game is no logging, no fishing, no mining and no oil and gas. They are on the verge of a massive victory. If the TM expansion does not move ahead, the damage will reverberate throughout the Canadian economy for years. 


  • rjag likes this

#43 rjag

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

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:53 AM

^ And then they'll whine when theres no money for affordable housing, health, social services etc....maybe they should be planting money trees


  • jonny likes this

#44 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,504 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:54 AM

Not to mention a lawsuit that will cost taxpayers billions.


  • jonny likes this

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


#45 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:57 AM

Some kind of announcement is coming this morning from the Feds.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 08 February 2018 - 08:57 AM.

  • jonny likes this
<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>

#46 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:02 AM

The cynic in me half believes they're just going to announce more studies to study the studies that have already been studied to death along with further rounds of consultation to consult with the constituents who are demanding further consultation on this consultative matter.



#47 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:11 AM

OK, this is some really eye roll inducing stuff. This is all via David Akin. 

 

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to be replaced by the Impact Assessment Act. 

 

National Energy board to be replaced by the Canadian Energy Regulator. 

 

Resource project proponents must consider more than environmental impact; must also consider social, economic, health impacts, impacts on indigenous communities. Proponents must provide a gender analysis

 

Good gravy. Jordan Peterson was right. 



#48 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:31 AM

To be fair trans people were always gonna be welcome to work on the Trans Mountian. It just makes sense.

Similarly the LGBTQ community can work on the Brokeback Mountain pipeline. They can lay pipe as hard as the next guy.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 08 February 2018 - 09:33 AM.

  • Matt R. likes this
<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>

#49 rjag

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

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:45 AM

https://www.ctvnews....egime-1.3795075

 

Anyone notice the irony of these statements?

 

 

"Approvals were based on politics, rather than robust science," McKenna said. "There were concerns that changes were putting our fish, our waterways and our communities at risk, and were not taking into account the climate impacts of projects."

 

 

 

 

All projects will be assessed not just for environmental impacts, but also for impacts on health, the economy, social issues, gender and Indigenous rights.

 

Apparently approvals will still be based on politics....identity politics


  • VicHockeyFan and jonny like this

#50 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,383 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:07 AM

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:   

Most gasoline for BC comes from WA state so that will have little to no effect.  Plus as someone else pointed out that pipeline is privately owned and Alberta has no legal rights to shut off the tap

 

BC has ONE gasoline refinery that produces 30% of the gasoline needs of Vancouver.  Its an empty threat because WA state can easily replace the supply

 

http://www.oilsandsm...ew-oil-refinery


Edited by tjv, 08 February 2018 - 10:10 AM.


#51 rjag

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

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:17 AM

Most gasoline for BC comes from WA state so that will have little to no effect.  Plus as someone else pointed out that pipeline is privately owned and Alberta has no legal rights to shut off the tap

 

BC has ONE gasoline refinery that produces 30% of the gasoline needs of Vancouver.  Its an empty threat because WA state can easily replace the supply

 

http://www.oilsandsm...ew-oil-refinery

 

Yup, Cherry Point is massive and is a major supplier as well, but where do they get the oil to process the gas? A chunk of it is through the KM pipeline.

 

Heres an interesting article, it discusses the fact that the oil company requires permits to move the product and how Alberta can cancel the permit.

 

http://business.fina...against-ontario

 

Its a few months out of date but 

 

 

The B.C. NDP and Greens show no respect for the new Canadian Free Trade Agreement. They invite retaliation against shipments of wine, lumber and scores of other products.

 

 

 

 

Currently, the export permit system is handled by the Alberta Energy Regulator and applies to natural gas. The Notley government, never reluctant to change laws and regulations, could easily broaden that power and take it back into the energy minister’s office.


#52 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:24 AM

Most gasoline for BC comes from WA state so that will have little to no effect.  Plus as someone else pointed out that pipeline is privately owned and Alberta has no legal rights to shut off the tap

 

BC has ONE gasoline refinery that produces 30% of the gasoline needs of Vancouver.  Its an empty threat because WA state can easily replace the supply

 

http://www.oilsandsm...ew-oil-refinery

 

We actually have two refineries in BC. The other one is the Husky refinery in Prince George. 

 

Any idea where those refineries in Washington State get the crude they refine? I wonder if the oil just bubbles up from under the ground at Cherry Point...it couldn't possibly process crude that's delivered via ocean tanker from Alaska, pipeline from Alberta and rail from Alberta and North Dakota...


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#53 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 11:48 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.

 

 

It's the consensus that it will be extremely bad how bad is the question. It will happen   time + potential disaster = disaster   how long are we planning on operating the pipeline?   increase in tanker traffic = increase in potential collision

 

 

 

 

The scariest thing is they've even let me behind the controls and inner workings of the large ships out there :). 


  • rjag likes this

#54 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:17 PM

Makes no sense to ban oil traffic on the northern end, let's put all the tankers in the population/economic center… great idea



#55 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:20 PM

Makes no sense to ban oil traffic on the northern end, let's put all the tankers in the population/economic center… great idea

 

Do you think the Port of Vancouver should be moved elsewhere?


Edited by jonny, 08 February 2018 - 01:21 PM.

  • VicHockeyFan and Daveyboy like this

#56 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

Do you think the Port of Vancouver should be moved elsewhere?

 

Makes no sense to ban oil traffic on the northern end, let's put all the tankers in the population/economic center… great idea


Edited by todd, 08 February 2018 - 01:49 PM.


#57 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:30 PM

Do you think the Port of Vancouver should be moved elsewhere?

 

It might make sense just to run the pipeline to a Washington State terminal.  Point Roberts could use an economic boost.

 

b89e385a-d3fc-4582-9921-2c9ca8c8f0cc.c10


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 08 February 2018 - 01:31 PM.

<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>

#58 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:42 PM

 

 

Well where else would it go, in BC? We don't exactly have a plethora of deep water ports, and we have all but banned oil from northern BC. Like, we're working here in the context that Northern Gateway was nixed. Maybe it makes no sense that it was banned in the north, but it was banned. That's reality, and Kinder Morgan's problem. 

 

Having ports near population centers seems to work well for the rest of the world. Most coastal cities do have large ports, after all. 



#59 todd

todd
  • Member
  • 5,898 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:47 PM

Well where else would it go, in BC? We don't exactly have a plethora of deep water ports, and we have all but banned oil from northern BC. Like, we're working here in the context that Northern Gateway was nixed. Maybe it makes no sense that it was banned in the north, but it was banned. That's reality, and Kinder Morgan's problem. 

 

Having ports near population centers seems to work well for the rest of the world. Most coastal cities do have large ports, after all. 

 

Kitimat.



#60 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,082 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:48 PM

Kitimat.

 

Northern Gateway was rejected. Not going to happen. 


Edited by jonny, 08 February 2018 - 01:48 PM.


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

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Love the rock