Alberta, B.C., And Pipelines
JaredMilne @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:59 am
Things are ugly in Western Canada right now between Alberta and B.C. over the latter's opposition to the twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. There's issues on both sides of the debate, as there so often is in Canada.
From Alberta's point of view, the oil and gas industry does a lot of the heavy lifting in Confederation. The jobs generated from it make Alberta a huge contributor to equalization, and many of the people who work in it come from other parts of Canada and send money home where it's spent in local economies. Right now a supply glut is drastically cutting the price of Alberta oil so that American refineries get a big discount on it. This frustrates a lot of Albertans not just for its effect on employment, but also on the fact that we're constantly attacked as "blue-eyed sheiks" who don't give a damn about the environment or any other part of Canada besides ourselves. Never mind that we've tried to put in place new environmental safeguards, carbon pricing and new safety technology, we're still painted as real-life Captain Planet villains.
From B.C.'s point of view, they are concerned about their own livelihoods and the potential impact from pipeline spills and tanker crashes. They've seen what happens when spills happen in the United States and other parts of Canada. Many British Columbians depend on tourism, farming, fishing, or traditional hunting practices for their livelihoods, and in the case of Indigenous people, it's also tied directly into their spiritual beliefs. Not to mention that, with both Alberta and Ottawa pressuring them, they likely feel like they're expected to take all the risks while Alberta reaps all the profits-a situation much like Alberta was in 35 years ago with the National Energy Program, when Alberta's energy industry was hammered to benefit Eastern Canadian consumers. Note that it isn't just the far-left Vancouverites who feel this way-even conservatives like our own Gunnair have been opposed to pipeline development in B.C.
So I'm stuck in the classic Canadian dilemma of seeing both sides of the issue and the very real frustrations and concerns they both have.
What are your guys' takes on it?
Caelon @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:37 pm
We are not supposed to have provincial restictions on trade placing a strangle hold on another province. Each province does have the right to protect their environment.
The problem with BC argument is they are being hypocritical. The oil is going to go as the economic incentive is to move it. It will go by rail as the next cheapest alternative. Not the safest just the next cheapest. So by blocking the pipeline BC is increasing the risk to their environment.
Some vocal people in BC are saying no oil at all should travel through their province as they are anti oil industry. They are the worst hypocrits as their actions every day of their lives support the oil industry.
1. They drive vehicles which require fuel
2. They live in houses where every single item was delivered by a vehicle requiring fuel.
3. They buy groceries that got to the store by truck and home by a private vehicle
4.They wear clothes they were able to purchase courtesy of the petroleum industry
5.Any plastic or synthetic item was created from petroleum products including the buttons on their clothes, their cell phones, TVs, etc, etc
6. Any metal product in their possession required energy from petroleum to produce.
7. They heat their homes with petroleum products.
In short their is no product in their possession or use that is not dependent on the petroleum industry. If they want to truly stand on principal and not support the petroleum industry in any manner then they better stand naked in the wilderness.
Thanos @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:17 pm
I thought Notley did what she could, with the temporary wine ban sending a good message that this fight can get much worse if it continues. Personally I would have gone with a salmon ban myself. Instead of hurting wine-makers in the BC interior a salmon ban would have impacted the coast far more, and it's not like the fisheries out there aren't part and parcel of the community of hysterics freaking out about a pipeline leak that never happened. I'd also start looking at withdrawing Alberta out of any existing Western Canadian trade pacts in which BC is included. Not sure what the point is in maintaining an economic relationship with a BC government that's clearly trying to destroy our economy.
But it's not over even if Horgan kinda/sorta backed off and the wine bad ended. Personally I still expect the eco-terrorists to win. At a court level Alberta loses far more than it ever wins. This is a country that has rules-of-the-moment by which we operate. A project that got easy approval thirty years ago would probably get denied today.
herbie @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:35 pm
Oh you stupid fuck with the same half wit arguments.
You think oil for export will go by rail instead? Just fucking try it.
And ooh they drive cars, only people in sandals and hair shirts have the right to protest. Look at that Suzuki guy, he can't even walk on water!
It's either OR
It's black or white
You're either for us or against us
You'd think you actually believe you'd see so much as a penny in your own pocket? Buying into the "Canada's oil" and "Alberta's oil" bullshit? It's the OIL COMPANY'S OIL. They'll take that $5 and you can pay them 15c more for gas.
Thanos @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:42 pm
"Stupid fuck"? ![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
Thanos @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:34 pm
Anyway, here's the boots-on-the-ground national fiscal reality of a jammed-up export pipeline system:
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energ ... ys-mckenna
$1:
The B.C. government talks a lot these days about the possibility of a catastrophic oil spill tied to pipeline expansion.
The very idea evokes emotion on both sides of the Rocky Mountain divide.
Fear is a great motivator.
So is patriotism.
Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to the United States, wants to bring another card to the pipeline debating table: the country’s economic self-interest.
“As a Canadian, I feel passionate about this,” McKenna, who also served as premier of New Brunswick for a decade, said in an interview.
“This dissipation of resources, this waste of a great national resource — and this vaporization of so much Canadian wealth — is offensive to me.”
Such forceful talk isn’t a surprise.
Last week, McKenna joined Premier Rachel Notley’s new task force to find ways to improve market access for Alberta’s oil and gas.
It’s also coming up with options to respond to British Columbia’s proposed regulations that would limit bitumen shipments moving through that province.
If successful, B.C.’s measures would delay and possibly derail the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that Alberta is heavily promoting.
McKenna presents the economic case for the $7.4-billion development, which will triple the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain line that moves oil from the Edmonton area to Burnaby.
He said it makes no sense for Canada to continue to sell its oil at huge discounts to U.S. and world prices because it lacks the ability to get new energy infrastructure built.
McKenna, who now serves as deputy chairman of the TD Bank, said work done by the financial institution indicates the price differential has cost Canada about $117 billion in the past seven years.
“That is a colossal amount of money for Canadians to lose, simply because they don’t have access to competitive markets,” he said.
“That’s money coming right out of Canadians’ pockets.”
The discount he refers to is the differential between benchmark U.S. prices and Western Canadian Select heavy crude. The gap expanded to almost US$40 a barrel back in December 2013 but shrank to $11 last fall.
With oilsands production continuing to grow and pipelines constrained in recent weeks, the discount sat at $28.15 a barrel on Friday.
McKenna isn’t the only one making the economic argument.
On Thursday, Cenovus Energy CEO Alex Pourbaix told the Canadian Press that if the differential narrowed by US$10 a barrel, Alberta would see another $50 million a day pumped into the economy.
Instead, the price gap amounts to a “transfer of wealth from Alberta and Canada to U.S. refiners and U.S. consumers,” he said.
In other words, we’re chumps to leave money on the table while others are benefiting.
The very idea evokes emotion on both sides of the Rocky Mountain divide.
Fear is a great motivator.
So is patriotism.
Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to the United States, wants to bring another card to the pipeline debating table: the country’s economic self-interest.
“As a Canadian, I feel passionate about this,” McKenna, who also served as premier of New Brunswick for a decade, said in an interview.
“This dissipation of resources, this waste of a great national resource — and this vaporization of so much Canadian wealth — is offensive to me.”
Such forceful talk isn’t a surprise.
Last week, McKenna joined Premier Rachel Notley’s new task force to find ways to improve market access for Alberta’s oil and gas.
It’s also coming up with options to respond to British Columbia’s proposed regulations that would limit bitumen shipments moving through that province.
If successful, B.C.’s measures would delay and possibly derail the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that Alberta is heavily promoting.
McKenna presents the economic case for the $7.4-billion development, which will triple the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain line that moves oil from the Edmonton area to Burnaby.
He said it makes no sense for Canada to continue to sell its oil at huge discounts to U.S. and world prices because it lacks the ability to get new energy infrastructure built.
McKenna, who now serves as deputy chairman of the TD Bank, said work done by the financial institution indicates the price differential has cost Canada about $117 billion in the past seven years.
“That is a colossal amount of money for Canadians to lose, simply because they don’t have access to competitive markets,” he said.
“That’s money coming right out of Canadians’ pockets.”
The discount he refers to is the differential between benchmark U.S. prices and Western Canadian Select heavy crude. The gap expanded to almost US$40 a barrel back in December 2013 but shrank to $11 last fall.
With oilsands production continuing to grow and pipelines constrained in recent weeks, the discount sat at $28.15 a barrel on Friday.
McKenna isn’t the only one making the economic argument.
On Thursday, Cenovus Energy CEO Alex Pourbaix told the Canadian Press that if the differential narrowed by US$10 a barrel, Alberta would see another $50 million a day pumped into the economy.
Instead, the price gap amounts to a “transfer of wealth from Alberta and Canada to U.S. refiners and U.S. consumers,” he said.
In other words, we’re chumps to leave money on the table while others are benefiting.
BRAH @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:21 pm
_______________
Screw Pipelines! Rail is the safest way to transport oil B.C. hypocrites could support, what's the worst that could happen? 
herbie @ Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:35 pm
Not pointing to you Thanos.
To the usuals who can't debate past the depth of an internet meme.
Thanos @ Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:54 pm
Notley taking Burnaby to court over illegal work permit denials, and Kenney threatens to go nuclear almost immediately if elected:
http://calgarysun.com/pmn/news-pmn/cana ... e102137adf
$1:
VANCOUVER — Jason Kenney, Alberta’s Opposition leader and candidate for premier, says his government would ensure “serious consequences” for British Columbia if it blocks the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
Kenney said Monday he would be prepared to stop permits for the shipment of Alberta oil to B.C. through the existing Trans Mountain line, which pumps 300,000 barrels a day of oil, gasoline and other petroleum products to Metro Vancouver.
“If British Columbia is unwilling to help us export Canadian energy, then I would ask: Why should the NDP government benefit from shipments from Alberta?” he asked during a media availability in Vancouver.
“People are already paying $1.50 a litre for their gas here. Thousands of British Columbia drivers are going down to Bellingham and Washington state to fill up their gas tanks. That situation, unfortunately, would get a whole lot worse without Alberta oil.”
The United Conservative Party leader acknowledged that some oil companies in Alberta oppose the idea, but he said the province has to use the tools at its disposal to pressure B.C. Premier John Horgan’s NDP government to “come to its senses.”
“I don’t suggest this as a beginning measure. This would be a last resort,” he said in an interview later Monday.
Asked about the economic impacts to his province of turning off the taps to B.C., Kenney said he wasn’t necessarily talking about a permanent measure. He added he’s optimistic the Keystone XL pipeline will be built and provide a new outlet for Alberta oil.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced his approval of the TransCanada Corp. project last year.
Kenney also said he would consider slapping a toll on B.C.’s natural gas shipments through Alberta.
He said some Calgary-based companies that develop natural gas would not be happy with a toll, but added the job of an Alberta premier is to defend the province’s economic future.
“I don’t want a trade war. Albertans want free trade. But if the NDP in Victoria breaks the law, and blocks the export of our major product, we have to respond,” he said.
He compared his stance to that of former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, who in the early 1980s cut his province’s oil production to punish Eastern Canada over the federal government’s unpopular National Energy Program.
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley banned B.C. wines in response to the province’s proposal to limit diluted bitumen shipments. But she lifted the ban after Horgan said he would ask the courts to decide whether it can bring in the restrictions.
Kenney said his party stands a good chance of forming a government in an election next year.
“My message to John Horgan is: I may very well be sitting across the table from you in 14 months. And if you’re unable to come to an understanding with your fellow New Democrat Rachel Notley, just wait until you’re sitting across the table from me.”
In Edmonton, Notley met Monday with the members of her task force charged with coming up with strategies should B.C. or another jurisdiction take illegal or unwarranted actions against the oil industry.
Notley reiterated Alberta is keeping a close eye on Horgan’s government and won’t hesitate to bring back the wine boycott or take other more punitive measures if B.C. “starts playing more games.”
Alberta officials will head to Ottawa this week to work with their federal counterparts on ways to get the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion moving, she said. The province will also intervene in Burnaby’s appeal of a National Energy Board ruling on permits.
She said if B.C. gets court approval to dictate what goes into pipelines, “B.C. would trigger an internal Canadian trade war that would make what’s going on with the United States today look like a tea party.”
Kenney said Monday he would be prepared to stop permits for the shipment of Alberta oil to B.C. through the existing Trans Mountain line, which pumps 300,000 barrels a day of oil, gasoline and other petroleum products to Metro Vancouver.
“If British Columbia is unwilling to help us export Canadian energy, then I would ask: Why should the NDP government benefit from shipments from Alberta?” he asked during a media availability in Vancouver.
“People are already paying $1.50 a litre for their gas here. Thousands of British Columbia drivers are going down to Bellingham and Washington state to fill up their gas tanks. That situation, unfortunately, would get a whole lot worse without Alberta oil.”
The United Conservative Party leader acknowledged that some oil companies in Alberta oppose the idea, but he said the province has to use the tools at its disposal to pressure B.C. Premier John Horgan’s NDP government to “come to its senses.”
“I don’t suggest this as a beginning measure. This would be a last resort,” he said in an interview later Monday.
Asked about the economic impacts to his province of turning off the taps to B.C., Kenney said he wasn’t necessarily talking about a permanent measure. He added he’s optimistic the Keystone XL pipeline will be built and provide a new outlet for Alberta oil.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced his approval of the TransCanada Corp. project last year.
Kenney also said he would consider slapping a toll on B.C.’s natural gas shipments through Alberta.
He said some Calgary-based companies that develop natural gas would not be happy with a toll, but added the job of an Alberta premier is to defend the province’s economic future.
“I don’t want a trade war. Albertans want free trade. But if the NDP in Victoria breaks the law, and blocks the export of our major product, we have to respond,” he said.
He compared his stance to that of former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, who in the early 1980s cut his province’s oil production to punish Eastern Canada over the federal government’s unpopular National Energy Program.
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley banned B.C. wines in response to the province’s proposal to limit diluted bitumen shipments. But she lifted the ban after Horgan said he would ask the courts to decide whether it can bring in the restrictions.
Kenney said his party stands a good chance of forming a government in an election next year.
“My message to John Horgan is: I may very well be sitting across the table from you in 14 months. And if you’re unable to come to an understanding with your fellow New Democrat Rachel Notley, just wait until you’re sitting across the table from me.”
In Edmonton, Notley met Monday with the members of her task force charged with coming up with strategies should B.C. or another jurisdiction take illegal or unwarranted actions against the oil industry.
Notley reiterated Alberta is keeping a close eye on Horgan’s government and won’t hesitate to bring back the wine boycott or take other more punitive measures if B.C. “starts playing more games.”
Alberta officials will head to Ottawa this week to work with their federal counterparts on ways to get the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion moving, she said. The province will also intervene in Burnaby’s appeal of a National Energy Board ruling on permits.
She said if B.C. gets court approval to dictate what goes into pipelines, “B.C. would trigger an internal Canadian trade war that would make what’s going on with the United States today look like a tea party.”
This is far from over, at least on the eastern side of the mountains. The wine ban was just the first in a series of ever increasing escalations.
bootlegga @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:03 am
My thoughts are that many coastal BCers are a bunch of hypocrites and zealots. While Gunnair might not fall into either category, it seems as if he has been brainwashed by the neverending stream of propaganda eco groups have spewed over the past decade.
They complain about the environment, yet are oblivious that they use shit tons of energy in their daily life, even those who ride bikes or use transit. How do they think their tofu and coffee get to BC - magic? Or how does most of the food in the grocery store get there? How do they heat their homes? What fuels all the planes at Vancouver International Airport and the transit buses in the province? And so on.
At the same time, they hysterically whine about Kinder Morgan and oil spills, but refuse to accept that in the 60+ years of its operation, there has never been an oil spill from the facility or any tanker using it. They try and compare a gas leak from a freighter to an oil spill from a tanker, when they are apples and oranges.
Frankly, I'm at wits end and while I do not advocate separating or joining the US, I am getting to the point that I do support retaliatory measures by Alberta against governments which try to circumvent the rule of law and jurisdictional limits.
I generally think Jason Kenney is a lout and boor and a terrible possible premier, but I did agree when he said, 'BC wants a carbon-free future, why not give it to them right away.' - by which he means he'll stop allowing the export of fuel and low grade oil permits to the Burnaby refinery and only send dilbit (the refinery cannot refine it and it would have to be exported).
On a personal note, I have also decided to boycott BC products and visiting the province anytime in the near future until TMX goes ahead - I know it's not much, but every little bit helps. 
herbie @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:44 am
And you're assuming a Premier can tell private companies what to do. It may be that Jason Kenney really is such a lout and a boor he'd cut off his own nose to spite his face, it will be another if he actually thinks Kinder Morgan or any other company would forgo revenue to further a politician's agenda.
Are you gonna compensate them for lost revenue Mr Kenny? You going to tell Standard Oil they don't get to run their refineries, customers in the USA they go without? Threatening to disrupt trade on a level like Trump?
Sticking to the usual babyish "If we don't get 100% our way we'll do this and we'll do that"?
Stick fingers in your ears and cry that THEY are all anti-oil, anti-carbon and anti-development flakes. Play up the typical conservative line "If we'd had this done 20 years back we would've made X billion more dollars, so therefore those people have already cost us $X billion".
Grow up and cooperate. You want to SELL something, you don't make the sale by calling your customer an asshole and threatening them if they don't buy.
Quit acting like spills don't happen, because they DO.
Don't tell us current safety precautions are good, most people here don't believe that so make them better. And more assurances that the companies will pay in the event of problems, not the taxpayers.
So boycott Okanagan peaches, fresh salmon and crabs and decent wine if you really want to pretend you're a martyr. You aren't doing anything constructive anyway. You've already decided when you see pics of the construction work with your own eyes that they're fake and it's all stalled, right?
I mean Jesus Christ, the tattooed vegan in a kayak with pins in his face and a man bun that you imagine is every BC NDPer or Green is already whining on the other side of a sea fence, followed by security and filmed 24/7, but it's the same old song from the other side of the Rockies.
Zipperfish @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:45 am
I don't really have a dog in this race. This is the twinning of an existing pipeline, which mitigates environmental impacts and we're all still driving, last I checked. Vancouver is a busy port that already ships oil, and it's a hell of a lot better than driving tankers up the Kitimat Arm. On the other hand Alberta is acting like Harvey Weinstein who won't take no for an answer and keeps trying to shove his pipeline up our ass.
If I were in charge I would just tell Alberta to build a refinery and ship oil.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:50 am
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
bootlegga @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:49 am
herbie herbie:
And you're assuming a Premier can tell private companies what to do. It may be that Jason Kenney really is such a lout and a boor he'd cut off his own nose to spite his face, it will be another if he actually thinks Kinder Morgan or any other company would forgo revenue to further a politician's agenda.
All any Alberta Premier needs to do is stop allowing export permits for fuel, and only allow export permits for dilbit, and voila, BC gets the shaft. Lougheed did it back in the 80s and was pretty successful.
herbie herbie:
Are you gonna compensate them for lost revenue Mr Kenny? You going to tell Standard Oil they don't get to run their refineries, customers in the USA they go without? Threatening to disrupt trade on a level like Trump?
There is no need to compensate industry, because it wouldn’t make much of a difference financially:
$1:
One way to hurt B.C. consumers without simultaneously shooting Alberta in the foot would be to stop shipping gasoline and diesel through Trans Mountain and use the pipeline exclusively to pump diluted bitumen. This would have the same effect on prices at B.C. gas stations, since it would effectively cut off the province’s supply of Albertan refined products. Diluted bitumen is purely an export product; the Burnaby Refinery can’t process it. Meanwhile, with thousands of barrels more diluted bitumen flowing out of Alberta, it would mean more profitability for the oil sector. Western Canadian Select, the primary variety of oil produced in Alberta, is sold at a significant discount for the simple reason that there are very few ways to get it to global consumers. Thus, the more diluted bitumen that can be pumped onto Port Metro Vancouver tankers bound for China, the more that discount slims.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cou ... ff-the-oil
The irony of this is that this action would mean more oil by rail and by truck, all of which increases the likelihood of an oil spill.
herbie herbie:
Sticking to the usual babyish "If we don't get 100% our way we'll do this and we'll do that"?
Kinder Morgan jumped through all the proper hoops, and the Alberta government brought in one of the toughest environmental action plans on the continent during a recession, to get the federal government and NEB to approve this project, and yet somehow we're the whiners?
The whiners in all of this is your government (and its far left supporters), which is trying to stop the pipeline from getting built through all sorts of BS that they don't have the legal authority to do.
herbie herbie:
Stick fingers in your ears and cry that THEY are all anti-oil, anti-carbon and anti-development flakes. Play up the typical conservative line "If we'd had this done 20 years back we would've made X billion more dollars, so therefore those people have already cost us $X billion".
It wasn’t until a decade ago that expansion on the oilsands ramped up enough to justify an export pipeline to Asian markets. Until then, existing pipelines to US markets were enough, but with the massive growth of fracking south of the border, they no longer need as much of our production as they used to.
herbie herbie:
Grow up and cooperate. You want to SELL something, you don't make the sale by calling your customer an asshole and threatening them if they don't buy.
Alberta IS cooperating. We are abiding the federal decision on Energy East. We are taking all the steps necessary to get the pipeline approved properly.
It is your government (and their supporters) who is acting like a little baby.
herbie herbie:
Quit acting like spills don't happen, because they DO.
Don't tell us current safety precautions are good, most people here don't believe that so make them better. And more assurances that the companies will pay in the event of problems, not the taxpayers.
Don't tell us current safety precautions are good, most people here don't believe that so make them better. And more assurances that the companies will pay in the event of problems, not the taxpayers.
I'll leave this little gem right here:
$1:
Since 1956, vessels from our Westridge Marine Terminal have been transporting petroleum products safely through Port Metro Vancouver without a single spill from a tanker.
https://www.transmountain.com/spill-history
Kinder Morgan has also compiled with the 156 conditions the NEB imposed as part of its approval of the project.
To top it off, the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of additional dollars on maritime protection:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/canada-oceans- ... -plan.html
The sad fact is that no matter how much Kinder Morgan and the feds spend, it will never be enough to placate the hysterical left from believing that something that has NEVER happened before will suddenly occur all the time.
herbie herbie:
So boycott Okanagan peaches, fresh salmon and crabs and decent wine if you really want to pretend you're a martyr. You aren't doing anything constructive anyway. You've already decided when you see pics of the construction work with your own eyes that they're fake and it's all stalled, right?
You’re correct, by myself, it’s not that big a deal, but I know other Albertans who agree. I know people who have sold their timeshares in BC, have made holiday plans for destinations other than BC and are drinking California wine and eating California fruit instead.
The BC wine ban cost your province $1 million dollars in the short time it was in place – expect longer term losses as more and more Albertans finally come to the realization that BC is not our friend and consider spending their dollars elsewhere.
herbie herbie:
I mean Jesus Christ, the tattooed vegan in a kayak with pins in his face and a man bun that you imagine is every BC NDPer or Green is already whining on the other side of a sea fence, followed by security and filmed 24/7, but it's the same old song from the other side of the Rockies.
A number of polls have showed that while large numbers (if not a majority) of BCers support the pipeline expansion, it is a small minority who are vehemently opposed to it.
$1:
… Angus Reid Institute since John Horgan’s NDP government took power in B.C., 47 per cent of people said Kinder Morgan’s $7.4-billion project should go ahead as planned, compared to the 33 per cent who believe it should be scrapped.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/ ... n-b-c.html
That groups includes hippies like Tzeporah Berman & David Suzuki (eco activists), Mike Hudema (Greenpeace Canada), Elizabeth May (Green party MP), and your current government, which is composed of NDP and Green Party MLAs.
So yeah, it kind of is the hippies that are the problem.
herbie @ Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:19 pm
$1:
Since 1956, vessels from our Westridge Marine Terminal have been transporting petroleum products safely through Port Metro Vancouver without a single spill from a tanker.
I know. I lived at the end of the pipe and even worked at a refinery fueled by it once. My Dad's career and my immediate family benefited due to that line. The only incident was when some dipshit dug up the line and my gf's street got flooded with oil. Not a drop reached the ocean.
$1:
To top it off, the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of additional dollars on maritime protection:
And looking like liars over minor spills when ship owners are allowed to just run away and years later claim some numbered company is the one to blame. Or when there's an accident and the closest Indian Band responds faster than the gutted remains of the Coast Guard.
I just pointed out how to go about solving the problem and you've responded with pointing fingers back and spouting the same old shit. AFAIC KM expansion is the least disruptive and risky solution, but it's up to the interested parties to sell it to the people in the Lower Mainland and along the Island coast. They aren't buying that they're obligated and the current rhetoric is only pissing them off.
Just like Enbridge pissed everyone off and doomed themselves. And I helped to do my best and make that happen.