Topic
BC government's five provisos include weak no-brainers and faulty revenue claims.
Premier Christy Clark: After months of 'will she or won't she,' her government lists five weak demands.
Heiltsuk leaders say BC government's announcement today changes nothing.
After much attention last week as to what Premier Christy Clark might or might not say about the government's position on Northern Gateway, she doesn't say anything at all. Instead her conditions for crude oil pipelines in our province were delivered by the Environment Minister Terry Lake and Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister Mary Polak.
It should have been a "no" to the transport of heavy oil through B.C.'s land and West Coast waters because it's not in the interest of B.C.'s, or Canada's, long term economic growth, environmental protection or energy security. Instead we are presented with a list of weak conditions that telegraph "yes-for-a-price."
Five requirements for heavy oil pipelines have been established including a recommendation that the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel (JRP) must first come to the conclusion that the project be approved. Well, duh... that's why the Liberal government signed the Equivalency Agreement in 2010 -- to agree to accept the NEB's findings.
The next two conditions relate to the establishment of "world-leading" pipeline, marine terminal, and marine waterborne oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems. Even a cursory reading of Enbridge's documents filed in May 2010, and its General Oil Spill Response Plan in March 2011, reveal the company plans to create world-leading systems -- even if their plans are vague, their understanding of the risks underestimated, and their corporate organizational ability to actually deliver on the promise highly questionable.
Noticeable by its absence from the government's discussion for heavy oil pipeline operating conditions is a statement that promises the immediate application of these conditions to the existing TransMountain pipeline. Premier Clark's government should address the obvious gap in oil pipeline standards immediately if we are to believe environmental protection -- and not re-election -- is her government's primary concern.
Maybe the premier is not aware, but Kinder Morgan is quietly increasing the amount of heavy oil it transports on its existing 300,000-barrel-per-day, aged pipeline, while conveniently avoiding any and all environmental assessment inland, at the marine terminal, or when the oil is waterborne in tankers.
Granted the oil tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet is about 75 tankers a year, but none of the environmental threat posed by this heavy oil, whether by land or in our marine waters, has ever undergone an environmental review.
The fourth condition refers to the "duty to consult and accommodate First Nations." If Premier Clark and her officials had been following the evidence put forward to the JRP at the hearings, then they would know First Nations have strongly criticized the federal government for not consulting adequately as required under constitutional responsibility. The B.C. government has skirted being asked any questions on these matters because it deliberately chose intervenor status so it could avoid being questioned on any matters, including those important to B.C. First Nations.
The final condition -- that "B.C. receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and the taxpayers" really gets me. At first the nice sounding rhetoric reads well, but pause for a minute. What it says is British Columbia should risk its long-term economic and environmental future for, at best, a zero-sum game.
First of all, it is impossible to compensate for all environmental damage when it occurs because so much is left out of financial estimates of what constitutes clean up and compensation. What the premier seems to be suggesting is the introduction of some groundbreaking revenue sharing to ensure that after we are harmed, at least some of the hurt will be paid for. That's like saying you can beat me as long as you promise to pay the hospital bills.
$17 billion on the table
The identification of economic benefits in the province's discussion paper makes it clear the B.C. government doesn't understand how the project's benefits are developed, and that vast government revenues have very little to do with resource development and everything to do with consumers and businesses paying more for petroleum products -- at the pumps and in their homes.
The revenue claims, developed by Calgary-based consulting firm Wright Mansell Research, are in my view significantly exaggerated and were developed utilizing a self-serving methodology. But even if these exaggerated projections are to be believed, the provincial government has just left $17 billion on the table.
The estimates the Clark government refers to in its heavy oil policy paper were filed as part of the Enbridge application in May 2010. The numbers are untrustworthy for several reasons. They were derived using unrealistic assumptions such as holding the Canadian dollar at 85 cents U.S. for 30 years while the price of oil almost doubles. They were arrived at with no sensitivity analysis, meaning no indication was provided as to how sensitive the results are to changes in variables such as prices, supply or exchange rates. They flow from one rosy long-term forecast of oil supply and the inappropriate use of an Input-Output model. An input-output model responds to changes in supply or demand, but in this case the authors plugged it with an additional price increase attributable to Northern Gateway of $2 to $3 per barrel on every barrel produced, every year for 30 years.
Not only are the estimates of government revenues developed in a fantasy world, Enbridge filed an equally unbelievable updated Wright Mansell analysis last week. This new, improved benefits case predicts not $81 billion in government revenues, but $98 billion in government revenues. This new prediction claims $54 billion identified for provincial and territorial governments.
It's hard to talk about leaving imaginary money on the table, but if the economic case prepared by Wright Mansell could be believed -- that's just what's happened. I hope someone in the provincial government asks the next obvious question with even a little resolve to get to the bottom of it. That is, how did the provincial share just go up by 20 per cent and nobody noticed?
I am sure the answer will have the word "bogus" in there somewhere. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
55
Login or register to post comments
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
"power without responsibility,
the prerogative of the harlot"
Fritz
42 weeks ago
Absence of Accountability
In September 2007, the Alberta Royalty Review Panel concluded there was “an absence of accountability” from the government to Albertans, the owners of the resource.
http://parklandinstitute.ca/downloads/reports/MisplacedGenerosity2012-WEB_1.pdf
More than a billion dollars of government-funded research unlocked 80 per cent of the tar sands.
All told in 2009, Albertans traded $65.5-billion worth of their natural wealth for $6.9 billion in royalties and land sales, leaving industry with between $18.5 and $30.4 billion in excess, unearned profit.
http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/misplaced_generosity_update_2012/
March 19, 2012:
"Alberta government will forego some $55 billion in potential revenue over the next three years as a result of overly generous royalty cuts..."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/parklandinstitute/2012/03/alberta-government-set-forego-55-billion-royalties-over-nex
Enbridge estimates that total BC tar pipe tax revenues over the lifespan of the project will be approximately $1.2B.
http://www.northerngateway.ca/economic-opportunity/benefits-for-british-columbians/
This is likely not enough to cover the cost of even one major spill. It could never account for the cultural, social and environmental losses borne by the people of the coast for years to come.
When people say nuclear is safe I know this is BS because there are no insurance providers willing to insure fully the consequences and this holds no less true for Enbridge which doesn't have adequate insurance coverage either.
Under current arrangements the company's Limited Partnership limits the exposure to the multi-billion project. Should a pollution claim exceed the ability of Northern Gateway to pay, the partners could elect to shut the project down, particularly if the pipeline capacity is not being utilized fully.
Thanks to a system of ship registration called “flags of convenience,” it is all too easy to evade prosecution for oil spills, and Enbridge will deny ship spill liability. Panama and Liberia for a fee register; North Korea has a thriving registry, as does landlocked Mongolia.
Exxon still hasn't paid for its 1989 spill.
In 1999, a oil tanker called the Erika sank off Brittany and polluted 250 miles of French coastline. The French government could not penetrate a chain of shell companies in seven countries that stood between the ship and its owner.
If Christy Crunch and her Environment Minister Terry Lake don't understand or care about this they are not fit to "negotiate" with the oil slick corporations, much less to govern.
seth
42 weeks ago
bull
The best insurance against Big Oil accidents is to stop using the filthy produce. Kills up to a million annually from air pollution.
What is this insurance on nukes business?
Even the worst possible accident caused by corruption in an ancient 50's designed reactor at Fuku and impossible in a modern nuke, killed nobody and long term damage was restricted to the plant itself. Nobody has ever been killed by nuke power.
Contrast that to Hydro which has killed hundreds of thousands worldwide. Imagine the corpse's by the hundreds of thousands washed out to sea if the Big One takes out the Cleveland dam.
frank2
42 weeks ago
Enbridge -- comedy central
1. Enbridge said its proposed state of the art pipeline would be extremely safe.
2. U.S. NTSB chair then said Enbridge's actual spill response was worthy of the Keystone Cops
3. Enbridge now says it'll spend $500,000,000 more (10% of project cost) on Northern Gateway safety.
Sorry, wasn't the first proposal state-of-the-art?
(never mind that REAL safety would be free; Enbridge can drop the proposal.)
Enbridge has offered First Nations the right to take out 10% equity in the project, to yield $280 million over 30 years. This "generous" offer of $280 million over 30 years in return for an initial investment of $??? looks less generous when Enbridge decides to spend another $500,000,000 (mostly up front) to overcome safety concerns.
But to be fair, Enbridge must be congratulated on its consistency. Its Keystone Kops approach applies even before projects start, as well as after the environmental damage takes place. In the same vein, consider the very honest official statement at http://www.northerngateway.ca/environmental-responsibility/environmental-faqs/
"Enbridge is committed to using the most modern technologies to ensure the pipeline is protected from the natural environment."
Don't they understand that most BC residents want to protect the natural environment?
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
"Don't they understand that
"Don't they understand that most BC residents want to protect the natural environment?"
Oh yes, they do. So?
Fritz
42 weeks ago
"What is this insurance on nukes business"
Are Canadians insured against damage from nuclear plant accidents?
The Act requires nuclear power plant operators such as Ontario Power Generation to obtain liability insurance for damages up to a maximum of $75 million.
If an accident occurs in which it becomes evident that damages are likely to exceed $75 million, the federal government must appoint an independent tribunal that will receive claims, assess damages and recommend the level of compensation that should be paid. The responsibility to pay claims exceeding $75 million then rests with the federal government. The Act does not set a limit on what the government would pay.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28/
The nuclear industry is the only one that requires a federal law to protect it from civil liability for off-site damages in the event of an accident.
Moreover, no insurance company anywhere in the world will insure private property against the consequences of a nuclear accident. If you will take the trouble to check your own insurance policy with a magnifying glass, you will see that it has a "nuclear exclusion clause" in it, saying in effect that your coverage is void in the event of a nuclear accident.
http://www.ccnr.org/insurance.html
The Brookhaven Report, found that property damages could run as high as $7 billion (in 1957 dollars)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASH-740
Years of industry lobbying their paid for politicians have resulted in this good news report:
State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/research/soar/overview.html
♫♫♫♫♫
"...long term damage was restricted to the plant itself..."
High levels of radiation continue to be found in rice, meat, vegetables, seafood, milk and tea in the region. And thousands of people have been displaced by the nuclear disaster and continue to live in evacuation shelters. They will receive a small amount in compensation – but it will be payed out of the pockets of Japanese tax payers and not out of Tepco’s.
The airlines used to use smooth statistical falsification to say airplanes were safer than the train by talking about "passenger miles". But "time" is an element of travel and when time is a factored in even the bus is safer.
A nuclear expert has warned it could be a 100 YEARS before fuel rods at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are safe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371793/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Fukushima-plant-entombed-concrete-radiation-leak.html
I made/make no argument in favour of coal or oil safety because it isn't, but let me guess... this makes nuke perfectly safe and the only way to go eh??? {>_<}
Fritz
42 weeks ago
I did a seth Search
seth is to nuke like Kred is to right wing -it's a religion. NOTHING we point out to them about the flaws of their respective religions will modify their devotion.
I did notice seth is more rowdy about his religion than Kred is, requiring the services of the moderator.
('_')
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/05/EnergySlaves/
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2011/03/11/Japan-quake-exposes-risky-nuclear-decisions/#article_comments
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/06/25/No-Soul-Corporations/
pwlg
42 weeks ago
"They were arrived at with no sensitivity analysis"
A good analysis of another failed attempt by the BC government to make us believe there are only benefits derived from accepting the proposed Enbridge pipeline and no risks.
It seems John Furlong from the 2010 Games fame may have helped in juicing the numbers here as he had some very good experience from his duties with VANOC and the fantasy games budget. The revenues were well under forecasts due to an assessment that was more for selling the games than determining the real economic risks.
Furlong's VANOC found themselves hundreds of millions of dollars below projections for their operating revenue due to the Great Recession and due to their failure to conduct a realistic sensitivity analysis. This led to rosy revenue projections and sets of rose coloured glasses for the government and VANOC's high priced help. It left the public once again holding the bag and bailing out yet another poorly conceived government project.
It all reminds me of the Talking Heads song Once in a Lifetime, "same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."
Christy, call the election, you have no mandate with less than 25% of BC resident support and we can't afford more April Fools jokes.
Starla
42 weeks ago
Bitumen is a colossal
Bitumen is a colossal behemoth of greed fueled wars and life tainting diseases. It's uses are transferable to renewable resources with today's technology and it's bi-product BPA has been found in minute traces in every EVERY human being tested on this planet.
The people who support this are reckless death cult zombies lacking the intellect to construct a rational argument for their actions.
Money can't heal every square inch of the earth... It can't even heal the oil-coated Amazon!!!!
Maybe the libertarians/or anarcho-capitalists are building their island out of garbage...
pwlg
42 weeks ago
Enbridge is not Shell or Exxon or BP
Enbridge does not have the resources to guarantee the level of safety and security for the risks involved with a tar sands crude pipeline through more than a thousand creeks and rivers in BC.
They are not Shell, Exxon or BP nor do they have the billions of dollars needed to not only clean up a spill in one of BC's important salmon bearing watersheds but also to mitigate the impacts of a spill. A spill from a tanker run aground along the Central Coast narrow channels would bankrupt the company if it had any responsibility for the crude once it left their pipe in Kitimat. But Enbridge doesn't have any responsibility for any oil spilled along the coastline of the Central Coast. So asking Enbridge to provide state-of-the art world class guarantees for spill recovery from a spill along the coastline is bogus indeed.
One has to ask just how much insurance coverage Enbridge is able to obtain from insurers after costing the insurers $650 million from the Kalamazoo spill in 2010?
The clean-up of the spill in the Kalamazoo River is still ongoing as they continue to find submerged tar sands crude buried up to 6" within the sediments of the river.
Despite shipping tar sands crude into the US for the last decade the pipeline companies had no effective clean-up plan in place to handle a spill like the Kalamazoo River one. Is this responsible care?
Before you believe what the government and Enbridge are spinning about some "state-of-the-art" and "world-class" oil recovery system plan have a look at some photos of the recovery of the sunken tar in the Kalamazoo River. Hardly world class. This is basic hard work with construction equipment. The Kalamazoo in most places provided easy access for recovery teams. In BC it will not be so easy.
Enbridge told officials in Michigan early this month that in the future its world-class response to secure its pipeline will entail having a team of people whose only duty will be to monitor the pipeline. That's funny because I thought something like this was already in place or at least should have been given the various regulations requiring pipeline companies to be responsible for their pipeline and that means maintaining them so no spills occur.
Given the lax public oversight why would the pipeline companies take this responsibility serious.
If I were the insurers I would not pay a cent for Enbridge's expenses cleaning up the spill on the Kalamazoo and make them pay the full $800 million.
pwlg
42 weeks ago
production values trump safety and environment
Edmonton Journal, July 4, 2012
Disorganized control room to blame for Enbridge U.S. pipeline spill
"...employees from the control room suggested inexperience was a factor for employees under pressure to keep lines running and discouraged from initiating any stoppages."
"Jonathan Vaters, another control centre operator with about four years of experience at Enbridge, suggested supervisors also influenced the decision of one of his co-workers on the floor during the drama.
"I think he was almost bullied into starting the line back up," said Vaters..."
"Allan Baumgartner, the director of Enbridge control centre operations in Edmonton, told investigators on Feb. 2, that it could be years before the energy company achieves its goal of becoming the best and safest in the industry.
"Are we there today?" said Baumgartner, a 29-year veteran employee of Enbridge. "I don't think so. Have we made progress or taken steps towards getting there? I think we have. Will we be there in the next year or so? Probably not. We'll be in the middle of the pack someplace and it's probably multiple years before we become, you know, best in class or world class. That's our timelines, right."
Seems one of Christy's conditions will not be met by Enbridge given the comment made by Enbridge's Baumgartner. Along with more money, that's two down of the five conditions. Does she need any more to do the right thing?
But alas, her hands are tied by the Harper minions running the Premier's Office these days.
Fiat lux
42 weeks ago
Yet the whole problem with
Yet the whole problem with today's fantasy economy boils down to the simple fact that its controllers manage to fool people and overrule physical laws, facts and realities with imaginary monetary figures, created from the air.
What is the reality of the present imaginary monetary system? The same as we had in Europe after WW2 when we were paid in money and could buy our starvation rations with money, but all other values were expressed in cigarettes on the black markets, where monetary values didn't exist.
Just because certain speculators, gamblers and criminal elements decide monetary values on the so called "markets", in reality gambling casinos, it doesn't mean that humanity must sacrifice itself and the lives of future generations for imaginary figures.
Why do we have an over 1,000% inflation of our living costs, what does it mean and how does it represent realities any more than colonizing armies of the past enslaved continents in the name of "spreading the faith".
Yes, we must have money , but it has to represent realities and controlled by democratic decision making processes, and not by criminals and gamblers.
Ed Deak
OhCanada
42 weeks ago
No amount of money ....
... would help to bring back what we could lose in an event of an oil spill. Ever! The damage from this mass madness is irrevocable and permanent!
I just don't get it why people can't understand that?
Perhaps dipping these idiots into a barrel of oil and then hang them on a cloth line to dry would bring that message through?
Clark thinks she is very smart and her 5 points will make people change their minds. Ha ha... she is delusional, trying to play politics with our environment and jeopardizing the future generations' livelihood.
Absolutely reckless and irresponsible. And that isn't going to win her more votes.
No amount of money will EVER make me change my mind about this pipeline. What this has done is that I am even more furious than before and will fight as long as it takes to block this mad idea of a pipeline.
In the 21st century where we should be looking into more environment friendly ways of creating/using energy - we are still stuck in the 18th century of oil fever.
Absolutely STUPID.
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
Wonder if this will help
http://www.onlineparty.ca/
DenisB
42 weeks ago
one more condition needed
they're forgetting one of the most important conditions.
Since the pipeline being built is a foregone conclusion there needs to be one more condition. "Any and all components of fluids travelling through a pipeline in BC must have a specific gravity less than or equal to 0.9" This would mean that all oil would have to be lighter than water so that in the event of a spill at least it would stay above the surface where we could clean it up. This won't be a hinderance to building the pipeline - only to putting bitumen through it. It would require that all bitumen be processed into light crude in Alberta before being pumped across our province. Just ot protect the enviroment don't you know;)
freebear
42 weeks ago
The Bilderburg attendees of the world
plan on leaving; that is why 'we' keep spending money on space exploration!
The will abandon Earth if they can, and their actions indicate they are assuming they will be able to leave to liquidate another planet!
cyberclark
42 weeks ago
Clarke playing getting even with Alberta.
Her partnership with Alberta over these past several years is going to cost her the election and she knows it. A little stirring is good for the soul.
Alberta collects nothing for Royalty leaving billions on the table for any other jurisdiction to try to pick up. Redford would like you to believe it is Alberta's revenue but, that is simply not the case.
http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-politics-and-finance-of-alberta-and.html
Ed Seedhouse
42 weeks ago
Seth:"Nobody has ever been
Seth:"Nobody has ever been killed by nuke power."
Well, power from nuclear reactors is generally electricity and if you think electricity has never killed anyone you must think you live in a different universe with different laws of physics.
Ever hear of the "electric chair" for instance? Try wetting your finger and sticking it in a live light-socket if you think electricity is "safe". Or talk to the relatives of all the linesmen over the years who've been knocked into the next world by a bad bit of wiring.
Now if you think that no one has been killed from the results of a nuclear accident there is only one word needed for a reply: "Chernobyl",
Nuclear energy production in some form may be reasonably safe and do-able, but let's try to stay away from the blatantly obvious lies, eh?
Granville
42 weeks ago
Refine this stuff in Alberta. Then pipe it across my province!
This bitumen should be refined at source.
That would take out most of the nasty stuff and leave a relatively harmless product to be piped across 1,000 rivers and streams, not to mention the Pacific Ocean.
The bitumen is one thing, but the diluent or solvent that will be used is more toxic yet. That diluent will have to be piped back and forth across northen BC fore s long as the pipeline is operating.
Why should the people of Northern BC have to put up with this crap? So Alison Redford can look good on TV? Screw her and screw Albertans who think they are driving a 1960's style land deal across some farmer's field.
Politicians are famous for the pap they spout and this is no exception. There has to be a multi-billon dollars fund set up so local British Columbians are trained and ready to deal with any spill that occurs along the entire length of this route through our territory.
Every community has to be fully eqipped to deal with any spill in any weather, or it doesn't happen at all.
We are only talking about money here, and there are more important things in this world, such as fish, for example. We don't need a Fort MacKay-style cancer erpidemic in BC, thank you very much Ms. Redford.
I want Dr. David Schindler to give his opinion and on our side before anything gets approved. He is worth 1000 Alison Redfords because he has integrity. She doesn't and neither does any "oil expert" who has vested interests.
Granville
42 weeks ago
P.S. the financial benefits, if any should stay in the the north
The folks that bear the burden of risk should reap the benefits of prosperity for a change.
Fiat lux
42 weeks ago
Nuclear power is radiation
Nuclear power is radiation and literally millions have been killed by some forms of it.
Nobody has questioned the nazi death camps for 10 years after the war, but now there's a cult formed around the denial, as there's now another cult by the faithful denying the millions killed by communist gulags.
The same for any major disasters caused by the misuse of any form of energy. There have been all kinds of articles, I still have a number, on how the 3 Mile Island disaster spread NE, killing and deforming animals and most likely humans it its way. Denied by the fanatic and profit making supporters of it.
Nuclear power has been strictly controlled since it became a reality and the damage has been relatively minimal. But we can just imagine what would happen if it became openly available to any outfit "creating wealth".
Every action causes equal reaction and there's no escape from it.
Ed Deak.
rantnic
42 weeks ago
today's fantasy economy
Today's fantasy economy will provide little if nothing to the protection of our environment. Once the disaster happens the company will just go broke, the shareholders will walk away with all of the profits made prior to the disaster and we the people will be on the hook for all recovery and clean up.
To properly address the problem in advance is to demand that Enbridge be insured for at least $100 billion dollars by multiple insurers so that we the people of this province, can be confident that the insurance companies will not use the same trick, leaving their favored shareholders with the profits as they bankrupt themselves.
The responsibility of a good government, any government, is to serve and protect the people and the environmental heritage that the people have granted them custody of.
When the cost of doing business is to great, then the return on the invested dollar is not great enough and thus there is no point to business.
Only when the government is willing to grant, at public cost, concessions to insure profitability, can many of these projects be done. These concessions include the government, on behalf of the people, taking on the liabilities that a corporation could and would not be able to profitably afford to absorb.
The decision making processes our government is using do not seem to include the will of the people to any great degree as the peoples opinions and interests are being overshadowed by corporate interests.
miguel
42 weeks ago
Bargaining
Five stipulations that can be traded away.
Has Clarke been taking lessons from Harper on how to disconnect with the public?
Lawrence
42 weeks ago
It's a setup
Crispy and enbridge set this up years ago.
Crispy will ask for better pipelines and tankers and enbridge will reluctantly agree.
Crispy will ask for more money and will get it.
Then we will be stuck with tankers full of the world's dirtiest gunk in Vancouver's harbor and down our coast.
Call an election NOW Crispy.
JefKeighley
42 weeks ago
Intelligent Leadership Needed
The position of Christy Clark's Liberals willing to do Enbridge if the price is right sounds more like curbside haggling than intelligent leadership.
There is no price large enough to balance the short and long term risk of piping dilbit through BC to the Pacific, and there is no need to do so.
Enbridge and others shouldn’t be shipping out unprocessed oil for refining elsewhere. We should employ Canadians to build Canadian refineries and refined product pipelines to supply Canadian and foreign markets. That approach would produce far more jobs in Alberta and elsewhere across the country and produce much larger tax revenues for both Edmonton and Ottawa.
Shipping refined product is not without its own risks, but it is far safer than shipping unrefined product because the refined products are more fluid and therefore require lower pipeline pressures. It’s higher value creates an economic incentive to be more guarded against the risk of loss. BC already gets most of our refined petroleum products via pipeline from Alberta, so why not extend the distribution system east to provide Central and Eastern Canada with a domestic product and displace imported oil.
Done right, such an approach could moderate the rate of development of the tar sands and force developers to account for the full life cycle costs of resource development. Combined with significant investment in green technologies it would allow us to wean ourselves away from dependence on carbon based energy and expand our reliance on renewable energies for our immediate and long-term future. It would move us away from being simple 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' and towards a more diversified and more stable economy.
All in all it would do wonders for our environment and our import-export balance, enhance the Canadian market, boost Canadian manufacturing, securing good paying, long term jobs for Canadians, lay the basis for solid pension funds and a stronger tax base to pay for and expand the social programs Canadians want and need.
Such and approach would require provincial and federal leadership to tell the petrocorps exactly who owns the resource and effectively and fairly regulate its extraction and development for the benefit of Canadians first.
That's what intelligent leadership would advocate rather than waste time and political capital haggling over the price of our virtue and put our people and environment at risk!
John How
42 weeks ago
the Clause Six Fix
Ms Clark has rubbed her two synapses together and predictably produced more heat than light. Mr. Dix [in yesterday's Surrey Leader report on the provinces' latest tactical feint] is quoted as retorting "We remain serene and determined to take steps..."
Ms Allan has previously [in her open letter to Chrissy http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/04/23/Protect-BC-Premier/ ] cited canny Gordon Campbell's escape clause...Clause 6 of the Joint agreement.
Seems all someone in Victoria need do is tell Mr. Harper that we're taking our environmental review mandate back.
With a provincial election coming in the Spring, there's no better time to make ourselves heard, and no better way of inserting some sanity into the Gateway debate than to INVOKE THE CLAUSE SIX FIX.
realdemocrat
42 weeks ago
Liberals and the NDP are peas in a pod
The BC Liberals and the BC NDP are now saying exactly the same thing. "Christy Clark is warning that the environmental risks associated with .... the Northern Gateway pipeline outweigh the economic benefits" writes the Globe and Mail, and Adrian Dix writes: "we have concluded that the environmental, economic and social risks associated with the NGP simply outweigh the benefits."
What they both suggest is that it is would be just fine to build this environmental abomination, if only there was enough money in it (Clark) or if it created enough union jobs (Dix).
As with fracking, the 2 dominant parties are on the same side, and BC voters have no say. Does BC need a few Green MLAs perhaps?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gateway-pipeline-risks-exceed-rewards-bc-premier-says/article4435145/
http://www.bcndp.ca/enbridge/letter
Jim Rosgen
42 weeks ago
BC's Enbridge position
Ms. Clark refuses to close the door on Enbridge. Her non-conditions are meaningless. She depends on Enbridge to guarantee the safety of the pipeline. Their response is to not improve safety, but just promise to improve safety. We have all seen just what their promises are worth. We believe anything they promise at our own risk.
We must be careful that the Harper government does not pull a "bait and switch" on us, and come up with an alternate company to build the pipeline. Enbridge is just one of many pipelinc companies, all of which suffer from the same problems. Its not Enbridge, its the entire industry that is flawed.
Skywalker
42 weeks ago
Hold on here. This is about integrity and..
...Christy Clark has none. Any revenue she would get to offset the risk would be to the benefit of - you guessed it - the business interests. We still pay the HST and we still pay more for all kinds of services because ever since Gordon the focus has been on reducing taxes and regulations for business interests. Where do you think this gang would spend any money they got for accepting all the risk. I wouldn't trust this bunch of lieberals father than I could throw Rich Coleman.
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
and then there is the long term price
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada
Skywalker
42 weeks ago
Oh contrare realdemocrat.
Christy says here is how you get a yes from us and it is all about more money. Dix says the answer is "no" and here is why. Christy has not said "no", she is still negotiating and the risks are on the table. Dix is giving reasons and if he didn't, he would be criticized.
crh
42 weeks ago
realdemocrat...did you even read the letter?
In closing, we would like to reiterate that as the Official Opposition, we have carefully weighed the risks and benefits of the NGP to British Columbia, and to Canada. After much consideration and consultation, we have come to the conclusion that the risks of this project far outweigh its benefits. We believe that the NGP will cause significant adverse economic and environmental effects and is not in the public interest. Therefore the NGP should not be permitted to proceed.' ... so says the BCNDP.
Yet somehow realdemocrat above takes this as the BCNDP having the same position on Northern Gateway as the BC Liberals. How much clearer could this be spelled out for a hopeless partisan? No means no.
RickW
42 weeks ago
TILMA?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Alison+Redford+turns+heat+Northern+Gateway+royalty+words/6981692/story.html
Alberta Premier Alison Redford turned the heat up on British Columbia Tuesday over its demands for a share of Alberta’s oilsands royalties, accusing B.C. Premier Christy Clark of attempting to change Confederation.
Gee! Whatever happened to T.I.L.M.A.?
RickW
42 weeks ago
How Many Things Did Campbell Promise......
.....when he was running for election or re-election, that were either "forgotten" or reversed? And is Christy's Liberals just Campbell's?
Fiat lux
42 weeks ago
Nuclear power is radiation
Nuclear power is radiation and literally millions have been killed by some forms of it.
Nobody has questioned the nazi death camps for 10 years after the war, but now there's a cult formed around the denial, as there's now another cult by the faithful denying the millions killed by communist gulags.
The same for any major disasters caused by the misuse of any form of energy. There have been all kinds of articles, I still have a number, on how the 3 Mile Island disaster spread NE, killing and deforming animals and most likely humans it its way. Denied by the fanatic and profit making supporters of it.
Nuclear power has been strictly controlled since it became a reality and the damage has been relatively minimal. But we can just imagine what would happen if it became openly available to any outfit "creating wealth".
Every action causes equal reaction and there's no escape from it.
Ed Deak.
editingfool
42 weeks ago
the "W" word
at the risk of sounding sexist, the word whore springs to mind
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
pass it on
http://www.avaaz.org/en/24_hours_to_landlock_the_tar_sands/?blDHBbb&v=16522
Cloudcroft
42 weeks ago
Next time you're near a microphone, Christy--resign
At last British Columbians have a clear choice: Christy Clark would sell off our environmental integrity and economic self-determination--the only detail left to decide is the price; Adrian Dix would welcome industrial projects, but not bad ones like Northern Gateway, which endangers thousands more jobs, businesses, and revenue than it could ever create. I'm with Dix.
And all Christy's talk about "world class cleanup response" is nonsense. There is no way to clean up toxic bitumen, and most of the areas the pipeline and tankers would traverse is too remote to get crews into in a timely and adequate manner to protect permanent damage to wildlife and habitat.
Harper, Redford, and their Big Oil cronies are about to show the world how completely inadequate Christy Clark is as premier. The trouble is, all British Columbians might wind up paying for her incompetence unless we can block her dying government from committing the province to a terrible deal.
sands73
42 weeks ago
There's something I find
There's something I find quite strange with all of this also. Why the secret meeting with Alberta's premier? I mean - I can't imagine anyone being worried about some kind of wire-tap device when negotiating/planning major deals worth so much money over the phone or around others who may hear, and having what you say on record. I'm not saying there should be any reason to believe this at all, but I mean, if there's nothing to be worried about, ashamed about or anything else in the position the gov't is taking, I should think the BC premier would be more than happy to share with BC'ers that she's going to Alberta for discussions regarding the pipeline, regardless of the outcome, she will come back and share their different positions. But the way this was done causes one to raise an eyebrow and make a face to be honest. It's also kind of funny that after all the BC Liberals' stalling and fence sitting, then suddenly and magically the government has this big "get tough with Alberta approach with conditions" - as others have said, it makes you wonder if this is all part of a set up/staged (I know, don't believe in conspiracies, blah blah) and however it plays out, they're thinking about the next steps just to be one ahead of everyone else. Both the federal and provincial governments refuse to listen to the public on this, but maybe this appears to us to be a compassionate approach. Come hell or high water they want this deal, it's just a matter of negotiating a price and meeting a few conditions.
Next thing - what about some sort of large petition drive similar to the NO-HST that happened before? I mean a large petition drive that the government can't ignore; something like what happened with stopping the HST, and with enough signatures, it is taken to a provincial referendum.
Bar Barrique
42 weeks ago
Gateway
Folks, Christy Clarks latest position on the Gateway pipeline is "scripted" (IMO). The apparent controversy in the media is a distraction intended to divert the debate to compensation to BC for an unacceptable risk.
British Columbians who oppose Gateway should prepare a response to this new tactic. IMO Clark intends to sign an agreement with the Harper Government that clears the way for Gateway by agreeing to provide the necessary permits in exchange for a sum of money.
Bar Barrique
42 weeks ago
Clark's Gateway ruse
Christy Clark's recent proposal which lists conditions for BC's acceptance of the Gateway pipeline appears to be a "scripted" action which will lead to an agreement with the Harper Government to accept the pipeline through BC.
This proposal seeks to shift the debate from refusing the pipeline for valid environmental reasons to one of providing compensation.
IMO the Clark Liberals appear to be planning on signing an agreement with the Harper Government which will provide the necessary permits in exchange for a sum of money.
Granville
42 weeks ago
Let's face it, the pipeline WILL be built
The issue for me is "What should it carry? Bitumen or upgraded oil?"
We will not stop the movement of oil to China, but we should control the damage done by the inevitable spills. If bitumen is piped, there will be some kind of diluent or solvent, to reduce the viscosity. It will also increase the toxicity and that is why BC should demand local upgrading.
There is a big difference between upgraded oil and raw bitumen. Shipping bitumen may make economic sense, but otherwise it is a crime against the environment and common sense.
Cool Hand
42 weeks ago
Granville
Condensate is already sent by tanker into Kitimat and then forwarded by CN tanker train to the oil sands region. Encana (well now Cenovus) utliizes the former Methanex tanker farm/terminal in Kitimat.
A bitumen refinery - one that upgrades the product to synthetic crude (syncrude) would cost about $10 billion+ and would have a negative economic return on capital investment. That's why they are essentially not being constructed.
Yet, according to Alberta Oil Magazine, the Alberta cabinet has internally mused about financially supporting the construction of one in Kitimat. (and yes they have also internally mused about revenue-sharing with BC).
A bitumen refinery built along the BC/AB border, inside BC, would be preferable over Kitimat.
North of Hope
42 weeks ago
to Bar Barrique
I think you hit the nail on its head.
2010 Surrey
42 weeks ago
This email keeps playing in my head
Dear Allison
Nice talking to you last week. As discussed I will have to hold your feet to the fire about sharing oil revenue or risk losing the election next year. Please remember I can be your friend next year after I win. We can reverse anything then just like with the HST.
Your bestie
Christie (Calgary Stampede Parade Marshall 2013)
Fiat lux
42 weeks ago
This site is going nuts. I
This site is going nuts. I have to log in just about every time I open the page and now got the message "You're not permitted to enter this page"
Yet the page opened?
How about some of the Tyee`s computer guys look into what is going on ?
----------------------------------
By the way, that pipeline will not be built. It may have been built a few years ago, but now it is too late.
Also, as Harper is going crazier by the day, he`ll be forced out of office sometime next year.
Capitalism is on the same way out of its idiot twin, communism, because the leaders of both are the same people, with the same dictatorial plans and actions.
Ed Deak.
wiley
42 weeks ago
Ostrich Disease
It's lamentable that we're even having a debate about pipeline or not. We've already overshot the limits of how much CO2 we can pump into the sky and survive. The climate disaster is only just beginning. Any sane person would agree that fossil fuels are driving overshoot in both population and in pollution, and that if we want our grandchildren to enjoy a somewhat liveable planet we have to leave the rest of the fossil fuels in the ground. But there are remarkably few sane people running either fossil corporations or fossil governments these days.
http://phys.org/news196489543.html
Fiat lux
42 weeks ago
This, again is a typical case
This, again is a typical case of imaginary monetary values, controlled by a criminal, special interest sector, changing physical realities and legal measurements, used as weapons of colonization.
Very "conservative", in the interest of
"individualism", of course.
Ed Deak.
Kulshan
42 weeks ago
Nukes are ok
Some comments by the anti-nuclear lobby are short on truth and only seek to limit debate and economic opportunity.
Why would the insurance industry limit insurance or industry not have finance for accident contingency?
Why would insurance issue for Hydro-electric or Hydro-carbon when mass death and destruction occurs over limited nuclear accident and destruction?
ENERGY by POWER (TWh terrawatt/hour - %)
Oil:48,204-33.5%|Coal:38,497-26.8%|Gas: 30,134-20.9%|Nuclear:8,283-5.8%| Hydro:3,208-2.2%|OtherRE*: 15,284-10.6%| Others: 241-0.2% | Total :143,851-100% (Wikipedia)
Top 3 energies are HYDROCARBON they generate most accident deaths & pollution generating energy.
Some comments here R delusional!
How would U generate energy 4 people to live?
Nothing is 100% safe in life. THe best is to properly manage risks.
NukePower is 4 peaceful use.
THE POLITICS OF CONFLICT OIL/GAS MAKE WARS & POLLUTE I don't want to promote this. I want to be pro-human.
FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE BEACH OPENS
http://bit.ly/OCPkxU
FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE PEACHES
http://bit.ly/OpfDaS
I sorry, I don't share Green Party politics of "human are a blight on the planet" and OVERPOPULATION needs to be reduced by any means necessary(eugenics). No, I don't support discrimination based on the ANTI-NUKE fear mongering media. Humans need to advance.
I don't point finger to say Ukrainians or Russians or Japanese are somehow subhuman because they happen to live in an area close to a nuclear power plant accident who might not have received enough radioactivity to effect GENOTOXICITY. And NO not in favor of moving population when there's no proof of low level radiation as GENOTOXIC.
Deaths did occure from evacuation efforts @ fukushima.
I purchase Wasabi Soy and Borscht soups from these areas. I still respect all people. I don't make it my policy to discriminate or limit human potential.
Promote human beings.
Lorne
42 weeks ago
Diversion
While most of us are concerned with Ms. Clark's dilbit manoeuvre, it has served the BC Liberals quite well. It seems like the heat is now off of the upcoming Liquor distribution sale whereby friends of the BC Liberals get to pocket millions now flowing to our government from that operation. Shades of the HST and BC Rail. Is no one paying attention to another theft of our public assets by the powerful insiders?
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
think of it as a pageant
and now she's "letting" Harpolini be the heavy. Poor BC, soon to "forced" into it. Again.
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
Got kids kulshan?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9410702/Nearly-36pc-of-Fukushima-children-diagnosed-with-abnormal-thyroid-growths.html
Kulshan
42 weeks ago
Hakuin, do U have kids ??
Sorry, as I've said media fear mongering about nukes will not solve energy crisis by not allowing advancement you put children in economic/enviro peril. Explain This summer electrical Blackout in N. Alberta?
Canadian policy has been to expand Hydro-electric. This has placed many native communities under Methyl-Mercury poison and put huge areas under water.
The developing world like China India Vietnam Finland Sweden etc. R moving to nukes for independent energy source N. Am is going to left behind WAKE-UP.
Hakuin
42 weeks ago
I'd rather my kids
do without America's Next Top Model than glow.
The only power we have is to make choices. Most of what we choose to spend our energy supply on is crap.
Kulshan
42 weeks ago
I wish kids have more opportunity-not less.
I prefer not to promote placing limits on human activity like a return to the ye old days of horse-&-buggy mentality or the empty corporate sales pitch that 'Green' increases margins. They R simply a pretext to limit human innovation, advancement and opportunity.
I hope children have better future one that involves fair open trade a growth economy where access to education is open to everyone and employment opportunities are available to reduce income disparity in Canada so anyone willing to make the choice to put in the time and energy to obtain prosperity.