BC lays out 5 "conditions for approval" of Northern Gateway

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by switch

Perhaps BC should let the pipeline through since Alberta let the railroad through to BC.

We've already paid them back by being so kind as to allow rail, road and air traffic to and from the Far East through BC.

[go-t]

Originally Posted by Duncan

We have more than enough. We take and take and rarely give back (hey, I'm as guilty as anyone). Once in a while, maybe just break that temptation to take. Nobody is asking anyone to give anything back. All this for what? A few decades of people being able to drive around on the cheap. And then what? Anyway, just pretend posturing from the high ground here. Some things are worth more than just money.



The forest grows back ... but yeah, valid point.

All this for...

1) a higher price for oil
2) a market (that doesn't currently exist) for the production potential of bitumen reserves
3) a staggering increase in jobs in manufacturing, shipping, and resource sectors
4) an important diversification in BCs economy
5) an influx of foreign investment

[switch]

Originally Posted by Duncan

We've already paid them back by being so kind as to allow rail, road and air traffic to and from the Far East through BC.

And a hundred years of paying more to ship east from BC than to ship west to BC.

Doesn't Alberta import natural gas from B.C. for usage in tar sands extraction? I seem to recall they have a pipe than can run both ways so each province could supply the other if necessary.

[KenN]

Originally Posted by go-t

All this for...

1) a higher price for oil
2) a market (that doesn't currently exist) for the production potential of bitumen reserves
3) a staggering increase in jobs in manufacturing, shipping, and resource sectors
4) an important diversification in BCs economy
5) an influx of foreign investment

1) ... which would be reflected locally at the pumps.
2) ... which is not really needed as Canadians can consume more than they produce (thought consuming less would be a good thing)
3) ... if, by "staggering" you mean a maximum of 1,000 LONG TERM careers, then I guess so.
4) We already have shipping, refining and oil pipelines so how does more of the same = diversification?
5) Got already, do we really need to sell more of our national interests to foreign investors?


Kn.

[go-t]

Originally Posted by KenN

1) ... which would be reflected locally at the pumps.
2) ... which is not really needed as Canadians can consume more than they produce (thought consuming less would be a good thing)
3) ... if, by "staggering" you mean a maximum of 1,000 LONG TERM careers, then I guess so.
4) We already have shipping, refining and oil pipelines so how does more of the same = diversification?
5) Got already, do we really need to sell more of our national interests to foreign investors?


Kn.

1) Yes. Inflation is a pretty normal state of affairs.... lumber and food have also gone up in price recently due to the global economy, and people on this continent have the misguided impression that "tar sands" oil is unfit for consumption. That opens it to the global market for the operation to continue, or it goes bust.
2) The reserves exceed Canadian consumption rates; well heeled investors that have extensive history in the market find building refineries to be an untenable investment - too many problems finding labor, costs have already been driven up on materials, land and our (very good) environmental regulations are more expensive and harder to meet than foreign areas, making the production of enough usable product to supply Canada within it's own borders difficult. Don't point to the newspaper billionaire, that's why I left my qualification in bold.
3)Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. There are plenty of projects that are in stasis right now because there isn't enough of a market for the product; the construction of those alone will employ a full generation of laborers and skilled trades people. The materials need to come from factories someplace, we just happen to have a bunch of assembly line workers who have SFA to do in Ontario. The pipelines need to be built and maintained, equipment operators go to work. It takes 7000 people per shift at each new facility to operate a mining/production facility. You're not taking spinoffs into account.
4)You have one internationally bound pipeline for oil. Pardon my poor investors terminology. You would be strengthening your position as a province on oil, which might not be a horrible idea since your forestry industry has been taking a long, slow, nose dive... and nobody is stopping you from taxing flow rates for internationally bound hydrocarbons, not sure why your illustrious bimbo of a premier hasn't come up with that all on her very own yet.
5)see points one and two; global economy, protectionism won't work.

[HIBuLlitT]

Originally Posted by go-t

1) Yes. Inflation is a pretty normal state of affairs.... lumber and food have also gone up in price recently due to the global economy, and people on this continent have the misguided impression that "tar sands" oil is unfit for consumption. That opens it to the global market for the operation to continue, or it goes bust.
2) The reserves exceed Canadian consumption rates; well heeled investors that have extensive history in the market find building refineries to be an untenable investment - too many problems finding labor, costs have already been driven up on materials, land and our (very good) environmental regulations are more expensive and harder to meet than foreign areas, making the production of enough usable product to supply Canada within it's own borders difficult. Don't point to the newspaper billionaire, that's why I left my qualification in bold.
3)Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. There are plenty of projects that are in stasis right now because there isn't enough of a market for the product; the construction of those alone will employ a full generation of laborers and skilled trades people. The materials need to come from factories someplace, we just happen to have a bunch of assembly line workers who have SFA to do in Ontario. The pipelines need to be built and maintained, equipment operators go to work. It takes 7000 people per shift at each new facility to operate a mining/production facility. You're not taking spinoffs into account.
4)You have one internationally bound pipeline for oil. Pardon my poor investors terminology. You would be strengthening your position as a province on oil, which might not be a horrible idea since your forestry industry has been taking a long, slow, nose dive... and nobody is stopping you from taxing flow rates for internationally bound hydrocarbons, not sure why your illustrious bimbo of a premier hasn't come up with that all on her very own yet.
5)see points one and two; global economy, protectionism won't work.

Point #1, these "people" of which you speak are oil people not people that don't know
shit. The people that don't know shit (like me) aren't making the decisions on what oil
our gas comes from, we just go to the pump put our CC in the slot and fill'er up.

#4, the forestry business is doing just fine, it's the paper and saw mills that are suffering. At least that's what all the loggers and forestry people on this board keep
pointing at when we complain about raw log exports.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by go-t

All this for...

1) a higher price for oil
2) a market (that doesn't currently exist) for the production potential of bitumen reserves
3) a staggering increase in jobs in manufacturing, shipping, and resource sectors
4) an important diversification in BCs economy
5) an influx of foreign investment

OK I'm willing to hear you out, but I don't get your points here:

1) How does increased oil production make for higher prices? The law is typically more product, lower prices (unless consumption increases in lockstep or above the rate of production). Also, as Kenn pointed out higher prices benefit producers but burn consumers. Is this something to look forward to?
2) Isn't bitumen the lowest grade of petroleum? Its like exporting raw logs where we lose out on any kind of value-added processing, nevermind the supposed hazards of shipping bitumen, which is heavier than water.
3) Again, the benefits for BC here are reported to be minimal. All the action is in Alberta. The money comes from China, and the cost labour for manufacturing, shipping and shipbuilding is not competitive in Canada. You can bet the Chinese will try to keep as much of that business at home. Even the proposed refinery in Kitimat (probably a pipe dream) will be built in China. The cost of refining is probably much cheaper in China too with environmental standards, manufacturing and labour costs much lower than in Canada. The consensus, even among so-called experts, seems to be that the NG will NOT provide BC with any significant job creation.
4) Again, I don't think a pipeline and a shitload of tanker traffic is a diversification that is worth the downside risk. I don't think either that filling foreign-crewed tankers with crude will result in mass hirings in Canada. If it did, something is very wrong with the shipping business. If BC receives royalties for the oil, then maybe yes. But Alberta isn't biting, and quite frankly, I don't blame them.
5) Maybe in Alberta ... not so much in BC, which is bearing a lot of the risks.

[Gran Torino]

Mine it in Alberta, pipe it to Ontario, refine it, sell it to Canadians.
A pipeline east would create a great deal of employment. It would ensure
jobs in Alberta and in the East. Our oil imports would go down, and so would
our trade imbalances.

.02

[go-t]

Originally Posted by Duncan

OK I'm willing to hear you out, but I don't get your points here:

1) How does increased oil production make for higher prices? The law is typically more product, lower prices (unless consumption increases in lockstep or above the rate of production). Also, as Kenn pointed out higher prices benefit producers but burn consumers. Is this something to look forward to?
2) Isn't bitumen the lowest grade of petroleum? Its like exporting raw logs where we lose out on any kind of value-added processing, nevermind the supposed hazards of shipping bitumen, which is heavier than water.
3) Again, the benefits for BC here are reported to be minimal. All the action is in Alberta. The money comes from China, and the cost labour for manufacturing, shipping and shipbuilding is not competitive in Canada. You can bet the Chinese will try to keep as much of that business at home. Even the proposed refinery in Kitimat (probably a pipe dream) will be built in China. The cost of refining is probably much cheaper in China too with environmental standards, manufacturing and labour costs much lower than in Canada. The consensus, even among so-called experts, seems to be that the NG will NOT provide BC with any significant job creation.
4) Again, I don't think a pipeline and a shitload of tanker traffic is a diversification that is worth the downside risk. I don't think either that filling foreign-crewed tankers with crude will result in mass hirings in Canada. If it did, something is very wrong with the shipping business. If BC receives royalties for the oil, then maybe yes. But Alberta isn't biting, and quite frankly, I don't blame them.
5) Maybe in Alberta ... not so much in BC, which is bearing a lot of the risks.

1) The price per bbl of crude is determined on multiple markets. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was the global benchmark price. The different crude's are determined by a multitude of factors, most importantly the sulfur content. More sulfur, harder to refine. WTI is easier to refine; however it is only readily available in select markets - ours is one, so the price for all oil in our region is determined by the WTI benchmark trading price day to day.

Brent is available in close to two thirds of the world market and is used as a benchmark for the rest of the globe. Tapping into the Chinese market will allow oil companies to up the price (along with our tariffs, if Harper weren't so bloody retarded) but more importantly give market to our oil (of which there is currently very little).

The oil we purchase is still determined by WTI because it is bought in this geographic region; our prices don't go up, the Chinese continue to pay Brent prices. Today Brent closed at 114.64 and WTI closed at 96.80. The difference is not minimal, and it is very important for the continuation of growth in Ft. Mac (especially the more expensive AND environmentally friendly SAG-D projects).

I'll get to the rest later. I'm sick.

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by Gran Torino

Mine it in Alberta, pipe it to Ontario, refine it, sell it to Canadians.

Then watch Ontario fuck it up.

[switch]

Originally Posted by Gran Torino

Mine it in Alberta, pipe it to Ontario, refine it, sell it to Canadians.
A pipeline east would create a great deal of employment. It would ensure
jobs in Alberta and in the East. Our oil imports would go down, and so would
our trade imbalances.

.02

That would make too much sense, so there would be nothing to argue over.

[Adam West]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/22/Rolf-Wiborg/

good read

[tungsten]

Originally Posted by go-t

5)see points one and two; global economy, protectionism won't work.

Ha. Loser..........
1.) America in the industrial era

2.) China in the modern era

Duh.

[Fast Orange]

Originally Posted by Adam West

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/22/Rolf-Wiborg/

good read

Very good.

I especially like the point about how if Albertans weren't such dicks about keeping everything for themselves, maybe just maybe, the rest of us Canadians might be a little more supportive about these kind of projects.

Don't want to share? Then you can fuck off and fly that bitumen to Asia in helicopters

[tacklebox]

Originally Posted by Fast Orange

Very good.

I especially like the point about how if Albertans weren't such dicks about keeping everything for themselves, maybe just maybe, the rest of us Canadians might be a little more supportive about these kind of projects.

Don't want to share? Then you can fuck off and fly that bitumen to Asia in helicopters

Oh, so it's not about the environment after all?


If certain provinces and federal offices didn't come after alberta's oil revenues like dirty crackwhore panhandlers,maybe they wouldnt be dicks about it.