Castanet

We can't lose sight of the fact that finding outlets for Alberta oil production has to be a priority. The new production out of the Bakken formation is killing the current market for Alberta crude.

In that context, I have to agree with Mr. Harper. Like it or not, Alberta crude probably keeps Quebec afloat.

The arguments are really about achieving the best balance for Canada. Unfortunately, that balance may run counter to some corporate interests, and they will squeal loudly. Tough cookies.

What makes sense for Canada is to upgrade the bitumen, and ship synthetic crude to eastern refineries and ports. The infrastructure is already there. The risks are lower. The eastern provinces will gain economic activity that will reduce the need for transfer payments.

My suggestion would be to provide government guaranteed low interest loans to build more upgraders to maximize shipments east. That would likely swing a lot of corporate support, and would resolve a lot of environmental and marketing issues in one fell swoop. I hate "corporate welfare", but that may be the best way to achieve the best balance for Canadians. Oil pipelines (not dilbit) across flatlands should be relatively cheap/mile versus trying to ship dilbit over the mountains etc. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

theyeti wrote:easier to go across the prairies than over the mountains

Its cheaper and the prairie provinces in May won't be controlled by communists either. The Iron Curtain goes up on any economic development in this province as soon as Comrade Dix takes over.

logicalview wrote:Its cheaper and the prairie provinces in May won't be controlled by communists either. The Iron Curtain goes up on any economic development in this province as soon as Comrade Dix takes over.

In the event of a tanker spill B.C. stand to lose over 45,000 jobs in Tourism and Fisheries.
Compare that to a few hundred jobs maintaining the pipeline.
Which way would you go ?

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:In the event of a tanker spill B.C. ...

Yeah, but it never happens - except for that one time!

hobbyguy wrote:The eastern provinces will gain economic activity that will reduce the need for transfer payments.

You mean equalization payments, right ?
All provinces receives transfer payments from Ottawa. B.C. and Alberta included.

In the event of a tanker spill B.C. stand to lose over 45,000 jobs in Tourism and Fisheries.
Compare that to a few hundred jobs maintaining the pipeline.
Which way would you go ?

45, 000? Why not say 450, 000 or 3 million if you are just pulling numbers out of your butt.

communists or not the ndp are playing to there voters . being against the pipeline is the status quo in bc .
i would venture to guess 70 percent of the ppl in our province r against the pipeline

Rwede wrote:Since Adrian Dix stupidly took a position on the BC pipeline well before any environmental impact studies were done

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:The environmental impact studies are a waste of time. Thanks to the Omnibus Bill C-38 the NEB is now obsolete.
Cabinet can override and approve any projects. Cabinet has final word regardless of what NEB decides.
Harper wants that pipeline. The ads were non stop, ad nauseam.
NEB might as well pack up and go home.

So why has Dix promised to do another EIA at many millions of dollars of expense to BC taxpayers if he gets the chance, even when he said he's opposed to it? Makes no sense, does it?

EIAs are a waste of time, Dix says no to the pipeline, but if he gets in, he will blow millions (probably billions, if his past performance is any indicator) doing another EIA in addition to all the ones already done. Must be some NDP friend that will do one for him that says what he wants it to say...

logicalview wrote:45, 000? Why not say 450, 000 or 3 million if you are just pulling numbers out of your butt.

Is this your way of asking me for a link ? Nice !!!
http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/SocialJustice/Issues/EnvJustice/StatisticsFactsheetWWSTL.pdf

BCTF? You believe anything they say? Wow. I'm rather shocked.

Rwede wrote:BCTF? You believe anything they say? Wow. I'm rather shocked.

It doesn't matter where the information comes from when you believe in the pipeline, does it ?

http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/gbr/spotlights/oil-spill-in-great-bear-would-cause-irreparable-harm-study


For those who won't read that far ...

Right now, there are more than 45,000 sustainable jobs on the coast of B.C. that depend on a healthy ocean and unspoiled rivers. They include jobs on fishing vessels, in fish processing and shellfish aquaculture, jobs in fishing lodges, bear viewing and ecotourism. Why should we risk 45,000 jobs for the sake of 268 long-term jobs that Enbridge promises for B.C.?

Explain to me how every single job (45,000 according to the UNION that is supporting the NDP ) would be lost.

Rwede wrote:Explain to me how every single job (45,000 according to the UNION that is supporting the NDP ) would be lost.

There you go ...
Pipeline = tankers
I don't expect you to watch the whole thing ( it's not SunNews after all ) but go to the 28 minute mark ..
http://youtu.be/S3bKmz4od3g

We don't need any more stinkin pipe lines or to ship oil.We already have plenty we just need to improve the old crap make it more efficient and keep it from bloody well leaking!

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:
There you go ...
Pipeline = tankers
I don't expect you to watch the whole thing ( it's not SunNews after all ) but go to the 28 minute mark ..
http://youtu.be/S3bKmz4od3g

You prefer to listen to politically partisan unions and lay-people who make a living off of fearmongering for donations, I prefer to read the enironmental impact studies done by professional engineers and professional biologists and think for myself about the professionally-derived conclusions.

Whatever floats your boat.