Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Alberta minister apologizes for calling B.C. government 'a bunch of shitheads'
#81
(2018-05-16, 12:09 PM)Odin Wrote: How about, Alberta turns off the taps, BC imports.... that resolves the conflict in one fell swoop.
But BC then cuts off any and all current pipelines.... boom... Alberta loses..

I thought you were against having tankers on the coast? That seems to be why you are so in favour of C-48?

You just completely removed any doubt about this being an environmental issue. It’s an Alberta issue for you.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#82
(2018-05-16, 05:26 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2018-05-16, 12:09 PM)Odin Wrote: How about, Alberta turns off the taps, BC imports.... that resolves the conflict in one fell swoop.
But BC then cuts off any and all current pipelines.... boom... Alberta loses..

I thought you were against having tankers on the coast? That seems to be why you are so in favour of C-48?

You just completely removed any doubt about this being an environmental issue. It’s an Alberta issue for you.

Ummm... the scenario has "taps turned off"
Desperate times=desperate measures.

Let's just wait to see if what BC did was unconstitutional first *through court* . If so, the pipeline will go through.

Alberta only gets a thought from me on these threads... oh, and my grade 3/4 social studies class. Looks like a nice place to visit... good tourism campaign.
The truth may be puzzling.  It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. Sagan
Reply
Thanks given by:
#83
(2018-05-16, 12:20 PM)HockeyHippy Wrote:
(2018-05-16, 12:09 PM)Odin Wrote: How about, Alberta turns off the taps, BC imports.... that resolves the conflict in one fell swoop.
But BC then cuts off any and all current pipelines.... boom... Alberta loses..

So, let's get this straight. The NDP opposes TMX because they don't want an increase in Oil tanker traffic in the port of Vancouver. 

Your position is that BC should cut off Alberta oil and import foreign oil. Wouldn't that oil have to be imported by tanker?

It is funny when people have absolutely no knowledge of what will go down HH ( Not you, but Odin)

If Alberta were to turn off the taps it would seriously hurt BC for a long time with increased prices of course but a huge hit to the Airport. Huge! As well as the Shipping Industry.  

Some think Oh we will import our Oil from the states.  Sure in time you could bring fuel up,   But any fuel brought up from the states would be brought up by barge or Rail or truck, Barge is an archaic method that is used when the tanker farms are being maintained and Fuel is brought up.  

Weaver said yesterday that no biggie we will bring Oil, and Fuel up from Ferndale, problem is they cannot supply BC, with the amount of Fuel  they would need W/O ramping up production.  No idea where they would get Aviation fuel as they get that from guess who.  Kinder Morgan,  and once the taps are shut off to The Peugeot Sound refinery Ouch.  The Cherry Point and the Ferndale refineries in Wash St are also supplied from the KM pipeline.

So if Alta shuts off the tap, it will be a very long time before BC can import enough fuel period.  When they do maintenance on the tank farms it is well planned for in advance, this won’t be.

Even if they take Alta to court over this it could disrupt BC,s fuel flow for a long time.  Expect prices to jump 30-40 cents a litre within a few weeks for sure.   The Vancouver Airport and Shipping will really get stung.  That will affect everything from Tourism to pricing on everything brought into BC from Sea.

It will be interesting this next few weeks.   I am hearing from a lot of people I know in the industry that Kinder Morgan is going to dump this whole thing.  If they do, Moreau hinted others could step up.  I doubt that very much and this will really hurt future investment period in Canada, especially BC.

BIG SHIT SHOW is just going to go full on here pretty quick.   

This could crumble Horgan for sure

Note 67 % of BC in a poll the other day want this pipeline.   Who knows how accurate these polls are ?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#84
Not only that the Burnaby Tank farms today gravity feed ships. If BC imports fuel or oil they will need to build off loading facilities robust enough to pump the product up the side of a mountain.
I have a speed bump phobia, but I'm slowly getting over it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#85
(2018-05-17, 01:45 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Not only that the Burnaby Tank farms today gravity feed ships. If BC imports fuel or oil they will need to build off loading facilities robust enough to pump the product up the side of a mountain.

Which would be great for jobs in BC..... I'm almost thinking that this is the line of thinking that the NDP/Green are pushing.
"if we're to have oil, might as well have our workers at work" type attitude...
The truth may be puzzling.  It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. Sagan
Reply
Thanks given by:
#86
(2018-05-17, 02:24 PM)Odin Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 01:45 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Not only that the Burnaby Tank farms today gravity feed ships. If BC imports fuel or oil they will need to build off loading facilities robust enough to pump the product up the side of a mountain.

Which would be great for jobs in BC..... I'm almost thinking that this is the line of thinking that the NDP/Green are pushing.
"if we're to have oil, might as well have our workers at work" type attitude...

Now I know you're just trolling.
First you don't want a pipeline that will increase tanker traffic off the coast and your solution is to import oil instead... by tanker.
Then is was all in the name of protecting the ecosystem, now it is to create jobs... which would be there if there was pipeline construction going on in the first place.
Reply
Thanks given by: Nanuuk , maclintock
#87
Yes Odin is very uniformed and chooses not to get informed and just basically trolls on a subject he knows nothing about.
I have a speed bump phobia, but I'm slowly getting over it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#88
(2018-05-17, 01:45 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Not only that the Burnaby Tank farms today gravity feed ships. If BC imports fuel or oil they will need to build off loading facilities robust enough to pump the product up the side of a mountain.

Yup
Reply
Thanks given by:
#89
(2018-05-17, 03:12 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Yes Odin is very uniformed and chooses not to get informed and just basically trolls on a subject he knows nothing about.

Lol
Reply
Thanks given by:
#90
(2018-05-17, 03:12 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Yes Odin is very uniformed and chooses not to get informed and just basically trolls on a subject he knows nothing about.

I wouldn't give him the honour of calling him a troll. Trolling requires the awareness one is a troll.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#91
(2018-05-17, 02:40 PM)Beerisfood Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 02:24 PM)Odin Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 01:45 PM)Nanuuk Wrote: Not only that the Burnaby Tank farms today gravity feed ships. If BC imports fuel or oil they will need to build off loading facilities robust enough to pump the product up the side of a mountain.

Which would be great for jobs in BC..... I'm almost thinking that this is the line of thinking that the NDP/Green are pushing.
"if we're to have oil, might as well have our workers at work" type attitude...

Now I know you're just trolling.
First you don't want a pipeline that will increase tanker traffic off the coast and your solution is to import oil instead... by tanker.
Then is was all in the name of protecting the ecosystem, now it is to create jobs... which would be there if there was pipeline construction going on in the first place.

Again... you guys said taps closed... you guys put up that variable.
If it reaches that point, how else do they get oil?
It's environment first, profit in BC second, profit in Alberta third and corporate profits as a way, way fourth spot.

And no... BC doesn't get any meaningful jobs out of KM situation.

This is all hypothetical 

Best case is status quo.
The truth may be puzzling.  It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. Sagan
Reply
Thanks given by:
#92
If you bothered to read, taps closed refers to refined finished products, oil and dilbit would still ship via pipeline. Or could still be shipped if they choose. Also, refined finished products to the rest of the province that normally is shipped via railcar or tanker truck could also be stopped. The underlying legislation, Bill 12 Preserving Canada's Economic Prosperity Act, gives the Minister flexibility to choose what, when, and where to stop shipments.

https://www.alberta.ca/preserving-econom...erity.aspx

I don't think Alberta would do that as there is widespread support throughout B.C. for the pipeline except for the lower mainland wing nuts. And even in the lower mainland there is growing support for the pipeline.

Other tools that they could bring to bear against B.C. is to stop allowing their natural gas to transit the province or to be processed in the province before being sent back to B.C. Or taxing the natural gas. After all we're taking all the risk.
I have a speed bump phobia, but I'm slowly getting over it.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)