Castanet

B.C. pipeline protests a harbinger of things to come

— January 14, 2019


Such protests can only exacerbate tensions over the building of what should be—in a saner world—common oil and gas infrastructure. Already, B.C. ranks last among Canadian provinces in how investors perceive its policy environment. According to the Fraser Institute Global Petroleum Survey in 2018, B.C. was the lowest-ranked Canadian province at (58th out of 80) on the policy perception index, a comprehensive measure of the extent policy deters oil and gas investment. Crucially, 80 per cent of respondents cited the high costs of regulatory compliance in B.C., and 81 per cent cited political instability in the province as deterrents to investment.

Alberta, desperate for a pipeline to either the east or west coasts of Canada, does not fare much better, ranked 43rd this year—a significant drop from its 2014 ranking of 14th worldwide. And the province continues to decline in investment attractiveness. More than 70 per cent of survey respondents cited Alberta’s high costs of regulatory compliance as deterrents to investment.

Last minute protests, which drag out regulatory processes interminably, are increasingly a barrier to investment in oil and gas in Canada. Governments and petroleum producers must do more to ensure Canadians understand how critical energy production is to the Canadian economy, trade, employment and funding of critical services Canadians cherish such as good schools, health care and sound public infrastructure.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/b ... gs-to-come

Oh but it's the Fraser Institute so therefore it can't be believed. Now the NDP propaganda organs the Tyee and the CCPC will generate fake stats and show how much BC is loved by everyone - book it.

No surprise, just more predicted outcome of an NDP government manifesting itself.

Welcome back to the 1990's.

Urban Cowboy wrote:No surprise, just more predicted outcome of an NDP government manifesting itself.

Welcome back to the 1990's.

Yep the ole Dave Barret and Clark,Harcourt and the whole socialist commie lot of them

People please stop reiterating these Phantom polls. They don't tell you under what circumstances they had polled the people, how many people they polled, what kind of demographic they polled, so their results are actually completely meaningless. Did they ask investors in Canada? Did you ask investors in just BC? Did they ask investors in a certain country? Did they ask the people that live in the old age home down the road for example? The bottom line is they can get the results they want if they carefully pick who they ask and what they ask. And other factors such as that. Stop believing everything you read in taking it as gospel. And for goodness sakes it's a poll on perception? That leaves a lot to interpretation by individuals doesn't it. Completely meaningless poll.

There is some other evidence that BC has become very unattractive to investors in the resource field. Not all of it has to do with the provincial government of the day, although it certainly doesn't help - the BC NDP have a terrible reputation and their tax dump on business has many recalculating.

The Petronas pullout certainly had the smell of not wanting to deal with the BC NDP.

Quite often we see the BC NDP wielding the cudgel of ideological imbalance against business, and discriminating against whole classes of workers. That does NOT go unnoticed with investors. The "select" unions nonsense for government projects sends chills up the spine of more than the construction industry. Many key specialized workers required for projects are NOT in those "select favored unions", and even if they applied and got cards, those unions would not allow them to do the work they are needed for as they would have the seniority. That drives up lead times and costs.

Markets that run to thin and variable margins are the most likely to be affected by such uncertainties. Did the BC NDP using Mt. Polley as a political (and disingenuous) whipping boy influence the decision to close? Did the big time tax grab by the BC NDP tip the economics in favor of closure? Perhaps Mt. Polley would have closed anyway, but the current market price of copper is not horrible. Mt. Polley had been operating at similar copper prices in the past. So what changed? It would appear that those BC NDP factors are the primary changes. We will never know, but from the outside, those are the only conditions I see that have changed.

In terms of new investments, investors in the resource sector must be scratching their heads. FN politics in BC have fractured to the point of being ludicrous. Sign a deal with body A, and body B says no deal, sign with body A + B, and body C or D or some other "oral tradition" gets in the way. Suspicions of foreign interest money get thrown in. Even the BC NDP are unable to deal with this (after ginning it up for snollygoster political reasons) and the federal government is stuck with it as well. Now we have some obscure bunch of bureaucrats at the UN poking their noses in.

Right, wrong, or indifferent in terms of those issues, how can any investor proceed with any major investment under those circumstances? You can't make a deal, or consult or whatever you want to call it when that apparent deal is then scuttled by an unknown body or breakaway group from a FN?

Add in the far left that do not believe in representative democracy, and don't kid yourself - they don't, who exist in a fair number in BC (leftovers from the old draft dodger days) and who protest absolutely everything right down to whether 2+2=4 and it looks much more attractive to find another place to put investment $$.

Then in terms of non resource industries, the costs of doing business in BC are much higher. Much of that has to do with BC NDP, and their junior varsity (some of whom are now on the main squad) who totally fluffed the housing cost issue.

So it would not seem unreasonable that BC falls down the list of potential places in which to invest. Some of those issues exist in other places in Canada, but not to the same degree.

As Jody Wilson-Raybould said, there should be about 20 or fewer FNs in BC, not the 100+ we see. Now we have "clans", "houses", and hereditary chiefs claiming that they have decision making powers that supersede the elected councils. Yikes!

Part of all of this goes right back to the BC NDP and their continual pandering to every little group regardless of whether it is tin foil hats that want free fast ferries or whomever. "The party of protest" as John Horgan described the BC NDP, has legitimized and encouraged the "rights" of People of all stripes to think that they have the right to override democratic decisions that they choose not to agree with - even though such a "right" does not exist. Cabinet Minister Eby has been at the forefront of that, and the "you get to pay for me" movement overall.

All of that just makes BC a lousy place to invest.

In fairness hobbyguy this BS with breakaway First Nations groups has been a problem since long before the current Government came to power.

The Government needs to pass Legislation making it clear which First Nations Groups will be recognized as having the authority to represent their people, and then stick with that. Invoking the notwithstanding clause if it becomes necessary to do so. Because it is impossible to negotiate with an endless number of splinter groups. It simply can’t be done.

The fact that foreign direct investment into Canada has declined since Trudeau has been in power says it all.

Already, B.C. ranks last among Canadian provinces in how investors perceive its policy environment. According to the Fraser Institute Global Petroleum Survey in 2018, B.C. was the lowest-ranked Canadian province at (58th out of 80) on the policy perception index, a comprehensive measure of the extent policy deters oil and gas investment. Crucially, 80 per cent of respondents cited the high costs of regulatory compliance in B.C., and 81 per cent cited political instability in the province as deterrents to investment.[/b]

This just happened 2 weeks ago to some associates of mine who are selling some commercial land. The deal was basically done - months of work as it is a complex project. The head of the company who was purchasing the property was ready to close the deal, but had a meeting with Carol James the week before signing. He left the meeting with Carol James and promptly cancelled the deal. No idea what happened in the meeting, but something scared him away.

ckil wrote:The fact that foreign direct investment into Canada has declined since Trudeau has been in power says it all.

but we all know that it's Harper's fault.

Muzza wrote:
This just happened 2 weeks ago to some associates of mine who are selling some commercial land. The deal was basically done - months of work as it is a complex project. The head of the company who was purchasing the property was ready to close the deal, but had a meeting with Carol James the week before signing. He left the meeting with Carol James and promptly cancelled the deal. No idea what happened in the meeting, but something scared him away.

Just think if he had met with John Horgan and George Heyman. Not only would have he pulled out of the deal, he would have shot himself out of severe depression.

Would be interesting to see if the deal goes back on the table as soon as this crappy unelected bunch of usurpers are finally swept out of power.

hobbyguy wrote:Did the BC NDP using Mt. Polley as a political (and disingenuous) whipping boy influence the decision to close? Did the big time tax grab by the BC NDP tip the economics in favor of closure? Perhaps Mt. Polley would have closed anyway, but the current market price of copper is not horrible. Mt. Polley had been operating at similar copper prices in the past.

I suspect they will spool up again next year after the MSP premium double dipping has ended. ( or a change in government...hope Harris wins in Nanaimo)

common_sense_guy wrote:They don't tell you under what circumstances they had polled the people, how many people they polled, what kind of demographic they polled, so their results are actually completely meaningless

Full report: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/d ... y-2018.pdf
Page 3: Survey Methodology.

There's 3 1/2 pages explaining the how and who of the survey.

Your questions:
What circumstances: "The survey was distributed to managers and executives in the “upstream” petroleum industry"
...
The names of potential respondents were taken from publicly available
membership lists of trade associations and other sources. In addition, some
industry associations and non-profit think tanks provided contact information and helped to advertise the survey to their members.
How many people: "The survey was conducted from May 22, 2018, until August 10, 2018. A total
of 256 individuals responded to the survey compared with 333 in 2017."

Demographic:See page 4-5 for graphs.

As figure 1 illustrates, over half of the respondents (54 percent) identified
themselves as either a manager or holding a higher level position. Figure 2
shows that 57 percent of the firms participating in the survey are engaged
in the exploration and development of oil, 40 percent are engaged in the
exploration and development of natural gas, 36 percent are engaged in the
production of oil and/or natural gas, and 31 percent provide expert advice
and/or drilling services.

ckil wrote:The fact that foreign direct investment into Canada has declined since Trudeau has been in power says it all.

Globalism is bad though right? Isn’t this what people want?

Merry wrote:In fairness hobbyguy this BS with breakaway First Nations groups has been a problem since long before the current Government came to power.

The Government needs to pass Legislation making it clear which First Nations Groups will be recognized as having the authority to represent their people, and then stick with that. Invoking the notwithstanding clause if it becomes necessary to do so. Because it is impossible to negotiate with an endless number of splinter groups. It simply can’t be done.

Such government legislation already exists, and has done so for a very long time.

From the outside, it would appear to me that FN traditions and hereditary chiefs can be accommodated quite nicely within the elected councils. It would seem to me that within the traditions of hereditary chiefs, that would give them a natural advantage that would place them at the top of the possibility of getting elected (similar to the advantages the say, George W Bush or JT took into their elections).

That begs the question: if the FNs people are so supportive of hereditary chiefs then why do the hereditary chiefs not control the councils by getting elected (almost by default)????

I can't answer that question, not knowing enough about those internal FN politics. But it sure looks weird from the outside.

And yes, I am just pondering and speculating from a position of relative ignorance about FN politics. Perhaps a FN poster on these forums could explain it to us.