Thanks or taking a stand, Jack! - Page 3 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 5Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 12:25 AM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Lythe just so ya know my bias jab was for Kelly.
Candy Sack is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 11:58 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lythe View Post
Found it.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...0-million-year
Determined by Kinder Morgan themselves.

No, this is Robyn Allan's opinion of what the impact on BC motorist could be. What her opinion fails to account for is the existing crude by rail that is coming into Vancouver for both export and to supply local refineries. Per barrel rail costs are in the $10 ber barrel range (its a big reason why Western Canadian Select sells at such a discount, because of the high shipping costs). So while costs for oil going through the pipeline may go up, the cost for oil currently being shipped by rail that will move to the new pipleline will come down. The analysis also doesn't factor in the cost of the feedstock itself (looking only at pipeline toll charges), what impact increased supply will have on the price of the crude at the Burnaby terminal depends on who you ask.


Again this is nothing by a biased op-ed from someone opposed to the pipeline. Just as others are predicting the complete opposite http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...es-says-expert

Last edited by kellymcdonald78; 05-04-2018 at 04:09 PM. Reason: correction
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #33 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 12:27 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
^^Haha... Maybe you should read sources with less bias.

Seriously though, Kelly and others, lay out the benefits for British Columbians? Recent polls are showing a small majority of Canadians supporting, but what arguments are most convincing to these people? I'm genuinely interested in hearing non-partisan arguments based on economics and environment from supporters.

I suspect people are buying into the "national interest" bit. That could use explaining too.

Shadow, a few posts ago you admitted the oil companies "gouge" us. Why then would you want Canada to continue to do business with them when there's other options for investment. I'm a slave to fuel like everyone else, but as much as possible if I think a business is screwing me I'll go elsewhere.

Maybe you should actually read the articles mentioned and understand who's writing them before commenting. As I discussed this is just an op-ed piece from someone who is actively opposed to the pipeline, it's no surprise that their conclusion is that its going to be all bad. Just as I'd expect an op-ed from someone actively supporting the pipeline is going to tell you its all good.


You may also be aware that we are part of a confederation of provinces called Canada. That is individual provinces working together for mutual prosperity. If your measuring stick for Canada is "what's in it for me", then we're at an impasse. I could ask, what benefit does Alberta get from allowing trains and trucks carrying goods from BC ports to markets in the east? or what benefit does Alberta get from paying out more in transfer payments than it receives. Specifically in BC there will be the creation of jobs (how many depends on who you read and their leanings), from harbor pilots for the tankers, to people in the terminal, to pump station maintenance crews. Demonstrating to sources of foreign capital that Canada is a reliable partner also benefits us all. For BC this will have a significant impact on the appetite for companies to proceed with LNG projects worth billions to the BC economy


I'd also point out it's not just a small majority of Canadian's that support the pipeline, its a majority of BC residents as well (55% support vs. 37% opposed based on the lastest Ipsos poll)).
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 01:04 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lythe View Post
One can't always pick, but as far as facts go, it is rated pretty high. This article is at least more informative than the common news sources, which seem to have gotten stuck on the BC vs Alberta loop and aren't actually contributing anything useful.

In short, Alberta wants the pipeline for the oil exports, BC is concerned about the environment, and I'm yet to be convinced Kinder Morgan is all that concerned about the environment and is happy to let Alberta do their work for them and BC take the fall for Kinder's mismanagement. Seriously, I feel the smarter move for Alberta would have been to assist and/or push Kinder Morgan to take the environmental factor more seriously, but everyone seems happy to stick to their hill to die on. Maybe no pipeline isn't the way to go, but forcing it through isn't either, and as long as Alberta/Trudeau keep to that stance they'll find no sympathy here.

The problem is that in most cases this ask is disingenuous as the goal posts keep moving. For many on the opposing side, there is absolutely nothing that will be sufficient. There will never be enough stakeholder engagement, never enough indigenous consultations, never enough environmental protections, never enough design improvements. No matter how many hoops, conditions, or recommendations are met, it will never be good enough. The goal isn't to improve the outcome, it's to run out the clock, or make the project so expensive it's no longer viable. If I were in Kinder Morgan's shoes, why would I bother to invest to meet an even higher set of standards (the proposed Trans Mountain expansion already exceeds just about any measurable pipeline standard) if it won't shift the perspectives or views of those opposed. They could spend years and billions of dollars with no effect.


An additional phase of reviews at the NEB, nope insufficient and corrupt. Meet Clark's 5 conditions, nope not sufficient. $1.5B federal investment in spill response, nope not enough. Alberta putting a price on carbon, phase-out of coal fired generation and signing on to Canada's plan to meet our Paris Accord agreements, nope, no social license for you. Even Horgan and Weaver have been evasive if they would even respect a Supreme Court ruling in favor of federal powers.


There are also many that seem to find BC's protestations about protecting the environment to be hypocritical considering that coal is BCs largest single export, followed by copper concentrates and forestry products.
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #35 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 07:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
Ya you didn't answer the question. What I hear you saying is "keep screwing me because there's nothing I can do." Is that the best argument KM supporters have?
For the record, I am not a "KM supporter"....what I am, is a realist.
My vehicles NEED fuel...so yeah, they can (and will) keep screwing me, as long as I depend on these vehicles for work, sport or entertainment, because THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. When the price goes too high, I will undoubtedly be forced to give something up....tough call which one....but something would go.
Don't you think the oil companies know this? They've been screwing the public for decades....jacking up prices on fuel (that is already in the tanks at the station) giving bogus explanations in the process...and people grumble and complain, but they keep buying it.
What a PERFECT business! It's like crack for vehicles and we are ALL addicted....and we all know it, but few do anything about it.....because THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
THAT is something the tree-huggers and protesters need to understand....and until there is a viable alternative, there is ZERO incentive for the oil companies to be "competitive" (in the true sense of the word) or to cut their profits.

....and of all the protesters, I have to wonder how many of them have investments...mutual funds...etc...and how much of those investments are in oil.
Petroleum is in EVERY aspect of our lives...
TheShadow is offline  
post #36 of (permalink) Old 05-04-2018, 08:35 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Kelly I made the bias remark because you commented on reading articles that all had a leaning, one way or another. It's definitely hard to find facts with so much conflicting data floating around.

On the jobs question I just don't see it as a major contributor to long term job creation. There will be jobs while it's built, but those are temporary. The sample jobs you noted might be created, but we're not talking big numbers-- possibly not even hundreds, and certainly not thousands. As you say, the numbers and opinions are conflicting, which simply makes me skeptical. I'm not ready to support a pipeline that only MIGHT create jobs.

I get the idea about attracting investment to Canada, but are these the companies we really want to attract? They continue to be a necessary evil for now, but why not work towards attracting investment in cleaner energy? Our oil supplies are being met through a mix of import and domestic and will be for a while yet, so in the meantime I think the national (and global) interest is to transition toward alternatives. Because we are a wealthy country with vast resources, we're in a good position to do this. As someone stated earlier, nobody thinks this will happen overnight.

This is related to Shadow's post. The oil companies are despised, so why keep pandering to them? And there ARE alternatives. They aren't mainstream and affordable enough, and lots of work needs to be done, but it IS coming. So let's attract investment that will speed up that process!

People like to throw claims of hypocrisy around. That's not helpful. The one I find especially ridiculous is about the "foreign funded environmentalists." Pollution and climate change don't stop at borders, so why wouldn't like minded organizations support eachother? And can it even compare to how much oil companies throw around to promote and support their interests?

And yes Kelly I know about our federation. I also know that AB is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was, and that in the spirit of "national interest" shouldn't complain about transfer payments, especially when they'll receive billions from the feds this year.

I can't have much sympathy for the view that "it's never enough" for the opposition no matter what protections and guarantees are in place. The opposition is there because people realize this can't go on forever and they crave something new.

Related question: how much do Albertans love their national parks? Isn't protecting our parks in the national interest?
http://www.fitzhugh.ca/fact-check-tr...spills-in-jnp/
Candy Sack is offline  
post #37 of (permalink) Old 05-05-2018, 01:26 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
The oil companies are despised, so why keep pandering to them?
Because THEY run the country....or do really believe that "government" can keep the big boys in check?

Follow the money.....that's who is running the show. We know it....they know it....and they know that we know it, and until "new" energy becomes mainstream, this will be the status quo......and then they will find a way to own that technology as well.
TheShadow is offline  
post #38 of (permalink) Old 05-06-2018, 03:00 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
Kelly I made the bias remark because you commented on reading articles that all had a leaning, one way or another. It's definitely hard to find facts with so much conflicting data floating around.

No its because you thought you had "got me". That the article was some kind of statement from KM about the impact to gas prices in Vancouver rather than an op-ed piece written by someone advocating against the pipeline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
On the jobs question I just don't see it as a major contributor to long term job creation. There will be jobs while it's built, but those are temporary. The sample jobs you noted might be created, but we're not talking big numbers-- possibly not even hundreds, and certainly not thousands. As you say, the numbers and opinions are conflicting, which simply makes me skeptical. I'm not ready to support a pipeline that only MIGHT create jobs.

Long term the number of jobs created in BC is likely to be less than 100. However again, it's not just about what BC gets out of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
I get the idea about attracting investment to Canada, but are these the companies we really want to attract? They continue to be a necessary evil for now, but why not work towards attracting investment in cleaner energy? Our oil supplies are being met through a mix of import and domestic and will be for a while yet, so in the meantime I think the national (and global) interest is to transition toward alternatives. Because we are a wealthy country with vast resources, we're in a good position to do this. As someone stated earlier, nobody thinks this will happen overnight.

This is related to Shadow's post. The oil companies are despised, so why keep pandering to them? And there ARE alternatives. They aren't mainstream and affordable enough, and lots of work needs to be done, but it IS coming. So let's attract investment that will speed up that process!

There is already significant investment going towards alternatives. Once big challenge for Canada is that we are still largely a resource based economy (it's WHY we are such a wealthy country). Much of our competitive advantage comes from the fact that the resources are physically located here (hydro, fossil fuels, minerals, forestry, tourism). When it comes to attracting high tech manufacturing in solar panels or wind turbines there are few reasons to attract international capital flows. If I'm a global fund looking to invest a billion dollars in a solar panel factory, Canada isn't very high on my list of countries to look at. We used to have a very strong semiconductor sector based out of Ottawa but it was decimated in the 2000 dot com boom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
People like to throw claims of hypocrisy around. That's not helpful. The one I find especially ridiculous is about the "foreign funded environmentalists." Pollution and climate change don't stop at borders, so why wouldn't like minded organizations support eachother? And can it even compare to how much oil companies throw around to promote and support their interests?

Why not, hypocrisy helps understand what people actually want vs. what they claim they want. I don't begrudge "foreign funded environmentalists." supporting initiatives that address their stated goals. I do take issue with groups that stage PR events to raise funds, or where funds come from competitors (i.e. the objective is not to achieve better environmental outcomes, but to obstruct competitors)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
And yes Kelly I know about our federation. I also know that AB is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was, and that in the spirit of "national interest" shouldn't complain about transfer payments, especially when they'll receive billions from the feds this year.

Alberta will receive $0 in equalization payments in 2018. Federal transfers for healthcare and social programs are part of the constitutional convention that allows the Federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the provincial governments. Alberta will receive the same per capita transfers as every other "have" province (BC, Alberta, Saskatewan, and Newfoundland)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
I can't have much sympathy for the view that "it's never enough" for the opposition no matter what protections and guarantees are in place. The opposition is there because people realize this can't go on forever and they crave something new.
They crave something "new" while pursuing the behaviors that enable the status quo. It's like someone not wanting to watch what they eat, nor exercise, yet "craving" a new way to lose weight. We call the oil companies "evil" and complain how they "gouge" us, yet Canadian's line up to buy record numbers of Trucks and SUVs (passenger car sales are down to 1964 levels). It's not just rank and file Canadian's, even our most vocal crusaders made conscious lifestyle choices to increase their usage of fossil fuels. If you want to protest, protest outside your local Toyota dealership to convince people to buy a Yaris vs a Sequoia. Even this group, as backpackers, carry, wear and sleep under a pile of fossil fuels every time we hit the trail.


Its easy to call for something "new" without a plan for what that "new" is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
Related question: how much do Albertans love their national parks? Isn't protecting our parks in the national interest?
http://www.fitzhugh.ca/fact-check-tr...spills-in-jnp/

Personally I'd say wanting to reduce the number of higher risk tanker cars on the rails that wind through every single mountain National Park (except Kootenay) in favor of lower risk pipelines fits the bill. Or do you not "love" our national parks? I'll point out that each of those tanker cars is filled with 131,000 liters of crude (a greater amount than all but one of those spills listed). Besides if you want to go tit for tat on "which province loves their parks more", I'm happy to leave this here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...gers-1.3661583
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #39 of (permalink) Old 05-06-2018, 05:17 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellymcdonald78 View Post
All I've seen are articles from anti-pipeline advocates that it will increase gasoline costs, and pro-pipeline advocates that it will reduce them.
Thus the jab about bias- just a joke. I didn't even post the Robyn Allan piece.

Anyway, since most opposition is in BC and we're the ones holding up the show, and BC has the most to lose and least to gain (between BC and AB), it has a lot to do with what BC gets out of it. We're the ones needing convincing.

Regarding your post about declining park ranger numbers between 2001 and 2016 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...gers-1.3661583), ya that sounds about right. Those dates correspond quite well to the Liberal premierships of Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark, so it's about what we'd expect. Thanks for the reminder. It's also off topic, as I was talking about oil spills in national parks, not rangers in provincial ones.
Candy Sack is offline  
post #40 of (permalink) Old 05-06-2018, 06:17 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
Thus the jab about bias- just a joke. I didn't even post the Robyn Allan piece.

Anyway, since most opposition is in BC and we're the ones holding up the show, and BC has the most to lose and least to gain (between BC and AB), it has a lot to do with what BC gets out of it. We're the ones needing convincing.
Firstly the majority of BC citizen's already support the pipeline, so I'm not sure they need convincing. Secondly, as we've talked about, many of the folks in opposition don't need convincing because they CAN'T be convinced... EVER. It's not a matter of sitting down with the Mayor of Burnaby and going through the merits and risks, addressing concerns, making changes.


Canada is a Confederation and the project is considered in the "National Interest" not necessarily in the "BC Interest", just like shipping goods from Vancouver ports to Toronto through Edmonton isn't necessarily in the "Alberta Interest". Nor paying out more in federal taxes than either of our provinces receive back in either of our "interests", but its part and parcel of being part of the country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Sack View Post
Regarding your post about declining park ranger numbers between 2001 and 2016 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...gers-1.3661583), ya that sounds about right. Those dates correspond quite well to the Liberal premierships of Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark, so it's about what we'd expect. Thanks for the reminder. It's also off topic, as I was talking about oil spills in national parks, not rangers in provincial ones.
No you brought up "how much do Albertan's love their national parks" and pointing to an article on spills in Jasper (the most recent being 25 years ago). Beyond pointing out that expanding the pipeline actually reduces the likelihood of spills in the parks (Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Glacier and Mt Revelstoke), I'm pointing out that we could easily go round and round on "which province loves their parks the most"
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #41 of (permalink) Old 05-06-2018, 08:11 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellymcdonald78 View Post
we could easily go round and round on "which province loves their parks the most"
Ya you're right that sounds horrible let's not do that.

There's fair points on both sides, I think many would agree. I'd certainly be more supportive of twinning KM then going ahead with the ridiculously named Eagle Spirit Pipeline.
Candy Sack is offline  
post #42 of (permalink) Old 06-13-2020, 11:04 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Oh shit!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...pill-1.5611424

Meh, it's probably only a piddle's worth....
Candy Sack is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1