You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
#RevsceneVLS General ChatSOCIAL LIFESTYLES ADSPACE AVAILABLE. CONTACT INFO@BLITZGEAR.COM 2016 VLS Community Head Moderator: SaucyWoman
2016 Social Media Liason: Blitzgear
@Revscene #RevsceneVLS. Vancouver LifeStyles Discussions: Car-free, political and current events, random thoughts, or topics that don't fit in the other forums. Remember to check out feature articles on the Main Website
Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights on the issue, ScizzMoney.
If employement opportunities is all the benefits BC will see as a result of the pipeline, I'd honestly be quite disappointed. The construction itself will obviously create employment opportunities, as will the on-going operations and maintenance. But those are pretty much just the costs for KM to operate the pipeline. To view them as payments for using the BC lands, and more importantly, as payments to offset the environmental risks seem inappropriate and highly inadequate.
IMO, I view the pipeline as the tool that KM needs to deliver their products to their desired market. And then I view the bitumen as the product that Alberta / KM are trying to sell. To make it worth BC's while, I'd really just look at the employment opportunities created in a light no different than another other company that wants to conduct business in the province. Meanwhile, the product itself is also creating huge profits, and that profit needs to be shared with BC in some form.
I'm sure as hell that KM pays AB a handsome coin just to dig that bitumen up. If they are going to run the product through BC properties (ie. land), it make sense for us to get a cut out of that too, probably based on the volume of the product that is going through the pipes.
People seem think as soon as the pipeline is built all of a sudden the oil sands companies are going to flick a switch and start to produce more oil sand. Trust me when I say this, each mine up here in Fort McMurray is already producing as much as they possibly can. Whether the pipeline is built or not, this bitumen is coming out of the ground and getting to market.
I work with a slightly different type of oil acquisition from Alberta/Sask but the companies we work with are operating the same way, everybody is running everything at max capacity.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
Economic Benefits
The $7.4 billion* pipeline Project will increase the value of Canadian oil by unlocking access to world markets. A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes that can be used for public services such as health care and education.
British Columbia receives $5.7 billion
Alberta receives $19.4 billion
The rest of Canada shares $21.6 billion
Municipal tax payments (not adjusted for inflation) total $922 million to BC and $124 million to Alberta over the first 20 years of expanded pipeline operations.
How does AB get 20 billion? is the result of my question out of that infographic. Could it be that Kinder Morgan is operating out of AB and it's the provincial taxes?
Those person-years metric, are the highest number they can get out of a calculation. lol. They seem so inflated.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights on the issue, ScizzMoney.
If employement opportunities is all the benefits BC will see as a result of the pipeline, I'd honestly be quite disappointed. The construction itself will obviously create employment opportunities, as will the on-going operations and maintenance. But those are pretty much just the costs for KM to operate the pipeline. To view them as payments for using the BC lands, and more importantly, as payments to offset the environmental risks seem inappropriate and highly inadequate.
IMO, I view the pipeline as the tool that KM needs to deliver their products to their desired market. And then I view the bitumen as the product that Alberta / KM are trying to sell. To make it worth BC's while, I'd really just look at the employment opportunities created in a light no different than another other company that wants to conduct business in the province. Meanwhile, the product itself is also creating huge profits, and that profit needs to be shared with BC in some form.
I'm sure as hell that KM pays AB a handsome coin just to dig that bitumen up. If they are going to run the product through BC properties (ie. land), it make sense for us to get a cut out of that too, probably based on the volume of the product that is going through the pipes.
You worded as if KM is an oil producer. They're just a pipeline company, they charge a toll. Blame Suncor/Canadian Oil Sands instead.
Originalhypa, you are not answering Teriyaki's question. All you're saying is, the pipeline will help Canada (and Alberta in particular) as a whole, but that doesn't translate into what BC can get out of it when the bulk of the pipeline pass through BC lands, and the increased port traffic (and thus higher spill risks) are happening right on BC shores.
If AB wants to use BC's resources to make the pipeline happen, that's fine -- just pay up for it properly and make sure BC gets a fair cut of the benefits. All their threats and posturing isn't gonna make anyone in BC more receptive to what AB wants to do.
I'm with you on the threats and posturing. It's typical ignorant, alpha male Alberta bullshit. Let me start off by saying that I despise Alberta. Every time I see a fat girl in a Pontiac Sunfire with red plates I cringe a little. Same goes for the ultra lifted Dodge Ram driven by a guy who can deadlift 500lbs, but still reads at a grade 2 level..... but I digress.
The truth is that by allowing our Canadian oil (notice how I didn't say Alberta's oil) to the Asian market it strengthens our nation as a whole. Through tax revenue, job creation, investments, and simple trickle down economics, our economy is bolstered by the strength of our oil industry. Just like how our timber exports help the rest of Canada, except that oil is far more important than wood.
Truth is, we need this pipeline. Nationally, BC is being seen as a province that doesn't want to do business. On a global scale, Canada is being seen as the kind of place you don't want to invest in these days because of the rogue provinces. In financial circles, this spat is embarrassing at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noclue
You worded as if KM is an oil producer. They're just a pipeline company, they charge a toll. Blame Suncor/Canadian Oil Sands instead.
Why blame?
They're simply extracting a natural resource not much different than gold, lithium, or coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgsr
hopefully the BC NDP are just holding out to fight for a larger cut of the pie
I think that's the case. No one wants to be seen as the bad guy here, so Horgan blames the Greens, Alberta blames BC, and Trudeau smiles like a fucking idiot through it all.
. Every time I see a fat girl in a Pontiac Sunfire with red plates I cringe a little. Same goes for the ultra lifted Dodge Ram driven by a guy who can deadlift 500lbs, but still reads at a grade 2 level..... but I digress.
I lol'd this is spot on accurate especially in Kelowna.
I think the BC Green/NDP are waiting for the supreme courts to rule in favor of KM so they can say they tried their best without losing face.
I think the BC Green/NDP are waiting for the supreme courts to rule in favor of KM so they can say they tried their best without losing face.
Another entirely likely and viable option is to drag the incident out long enough such that KM deems there to be too much risk and/or uncertainty, and then they (KM) pull out themselves.
Another entirely likely and viable option is to drag the incident out long enough such that KM deems there to be too much risk and/or uncertainty, and then they (KM) pull out themselves.
Isn't KM already suggesting they might pull out?
I believe their deadline is May 31st. But who knows, could be just pressure tactics.
A different buy very interesting viewpoint on the pipeline that resonates with some of the posts above.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/1...laying-Canada/
Long story short, it very well could be that all Kinder Morgan doesn't see the return on investment it would like anyways, and the in-fighting between the governments is playing right into their hands because they want out. Now they'll have a way out, plus sue us for all we're worth, super salt in wound.
KM and the sands producers don't like it when the price of oil is low.
The Saudi oil mafia wants to see the price of a barrel go up to $100, and they have the power to do it.
Quote:
Exclusive: OPEC's new price hawk Saudi Arabia seeks oil as high as $100 - sources
DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) - Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia would be happy to see crude rise to $80 or even $100 a barrel, three industry sources said, a sign Riyadh will seek no changes to an OPEC supply-cutting deal even though the agreement’s original target is within sight.
Spoiler!
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia and several other producers began to reduce supply in January 2017 in an attempt to erase a glut. They have extended the pact until December 2018 and meet in June to review policy.
OPEC is closing in on the original target of the pact - reducing industrialized nations’ oil inventories to their five-year average. There is no indication yet, however, that Saudi Arabia or its allies want to wind down the supply cut.
Over the past year, Saudi Arabia has emerged as OPEC’s leading supporter of measures to boost prices, a change from its more moderate stance in earlier years. Iran, once a keen OPEC price hawk, now wants lower prices than Saudi Arabia.
Industry sources have linked this shift in Saudi Arabia’s stance to its desire to support the valuation of state oil company Aramco ahead of the kingdom’s planned sale of a minority stake in an initial public offering.
The supply cut has helped boost oil prices this year to $73 a barrel, the highest since November 2014. Oil began a slide from above $100 - a price that Saudi Arabia endorsed in 2012 - in mid-2014, when growing supply from rival sources such as U.S. shale began to swamp the market.
But the kingdom wants the rally to go further. Two industry sources said a desired crude price of $80 or even $100 was circulated by senior Saudi officials in closed-door briefings in recent weeks.
“We have come full circle,” a separate high-level industry source said of the change in Saudi thinking. “I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia wanted oil at $100 until this IPO is out of the way.”
Once the Aramco share sale is done, Riyadh would still want higher prices to help fund initiatives such as Vision 2030, an economic reform plan championed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
“Saudi Arabia wants higher oil prices and yes, probably for the IPO, but it isn’t just that,” an OPEC source said.
“Look at the economic reforms and projects they want to do, and the war in Yemen. How are they going to pay for all that? They need higher prices.”
To be sure, OPEC and Saudi Arabia have no official price target and say the objective of the production cut is to balance supply and demand, and reduce the inventory glut.
But guidance on preferred price levels comes from officials speaking off the record, and from industry sources who have discussed the issue with Saudi officials.
“I personally think that now $70 is the floor for oil prices,” a second OPEC source said. “But OPEC is unlikely to make any changes in June, maybe by the end of the year. The market still needs support.”
TALKS IN JEDDAH
OPEC and its partners meet on June 22 to review policy and before then a ministerial monitoring panel gathers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on April 20.
By OPEC’s parameters, the deal has worked. Oil stocks in developed economies in February stood a mere 43 million barrels above the latest five-year average, down from 340 million barrels above in January 2017.
The cuts have been even bigger than those specified in the deal, thanks in part to a slide in Venezuelan production due to an economic crisis in the South American country.
Compliance has reached 150 percent, according to OPEC, meaning the organization’s members have cut production by about 1.8 million barrels per day, 600,000 bpd more than pledged.
Few OPEC sources call for an exit strategy. Most officials are talking of introducing additional inventory metrics to assess the success of the deal, and of a need to support investment in new production to avert any supply crunch.
The impression is that oil prices are seen as not yet high enough to encourage sufficient oil investment.
“We will know what will be the good price when the market is balanced and we have enough investments,” the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, Suhail al-Mazroui, told Reuters last week. “We need to have more investments coming.”
The Jeddah meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee is unlikely to change the parameters for assessing the deal’s success, Mazroui and other OPEC officials said, and sources see little chance of a major tweak in June.
“Even if we reach the five-year average before June, it does not mean we just go and open the taps,” a third OPEC source said. “We have to test it.”
This would make oil producers all over the world very happy.
A simple for/against poll like this is utterly meaningless and useless. The matter is a complex subject, and cannot be broken down into a simple yes/no question. What if someone is supportive of the pipeline, but only if certain terms and conditions are met? What if someone is ideologically against the pipeline, but begrudgingly supports it because he sees it as a lower risk alternative compared to other methods of transport?
And given that the majority of the pipeline runs through BC, and the risks are primarily borne by BC, BC should obviously have more say in the matter than the rest of Canada. But only half of those surveyed are from BC. When an oil pipe is running through my backyard, why should someone else who is living 5000 km away have an equal say on the matter than I would?
The prime minister’s announcement that he will subsidize the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has added a new and disconcerting dimension to the pipeline debate.
The question is: Why should taxpayer funds be used to support a U.S. pipeline company that is putting B.C.’s coast at risk when there are Canadian pipeline companies capable of transporting Alberta oil to market without risking B.C.’s coast and without requiring any subsidy?
To understand how we got to this seemingly illogical decision, we need to go back a few years when oil markets were booming and it looked like we needed a large number of new pipeline projects. Five new projects, including Trans Mountain, were proposed during that boom time.
But then things changed. The oil market has weakened as the world transitions away from fossil fuels, and Alberta oil production forecasts have declined by about 1.5 million barrels per day (2014-2017), thus reducing the demand for new pipelines.
The Energy East pipeline connecting Alberta to eastern Canada was cancelled because of declining demand, and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway was rejected by the federal government. That leaves three new approved pipelines still on the table: Enbridge’s Line 3, Keystone XL, and Trans Mountain. In addition, Enbridge is proposing 0.5 million bpd of expansions to its existing pipeline.
The new capacity from these proposed expansions — without Trans Mountain — is 1.7 million bpd. But with the declining oil market, Alberta only needs between 0.5 and 1.3 million bpd of new capacity by 2030 (and likely closer to the lower end). Bottom line: There is more than enough new pipeline space proposed without building Trans Mountain.
Trans Mountain’s alleged advantage is that it connects to Asian markets, thus reducing dependency on the U.S. But much of the oil destined for Trans Mountain will go to the U.S., and the other proposed Enbridge and TransCanada pipelines connect to world market prices at tidewater in the U.S. Gulf.
There may be short-term market constraints that cause temporary divergence in prices in specific markets, but, over the longer term, prices in all tidewater locations will be similar as oil moves from market to market to equalize price.
Therefore, all the pipeline expansions on the table will fetch world prices for Alberta oil.
But Trans Mountain has a big disadvantage: It has a much higher risk factor than the other projects because it cuts through the middle of Canada’s third-largest metropolis and requires tankers that will put B.C.’s coast at risk. The risk of a port spill is 77 per cent, and the median risk of a tanker spill is 56 per cent.
Trans Mountain will also increase gas prices in B.C. by more than doubling the toll on the existing pipeline than transports gas and oil to the B.C. market to help subsidize the new pipeline.
Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.
Therefore, it is possible to meet Alberta’s need to get its oil to world markets and protect B.C.’s coast by using the alternative pipeline projects.
Add to this a concerted effort by Alberta to get more value for its oil by upgrading it into a refined product instead of shipping it out as raw bitumen and strengthening our climate change policies, and we have the elements of a compromise that comes close to meeting everyone’s interest than pushing through with Trans Mountain.
Why then is the prime minister doubling down to subsidize Trans Mountain when there are more palatable alternatives?
Justin Trudeau points to the need to protect Canada’s international reputation and the authority of the federal government to deliver on its decisions. Egos are no doubt also at stake.
While there is merit to the prime minister’s argument, it needs to be balanced against his own statements that the review process that led to the approval of Trans Mountain was deficient and his commitment to First Nations reconciliation.
And it has to be balanced against the harm to Canada’s reputation that will come from the massive protests and arrests and the reopening of the constitutional discord with Quebec and others that will ensue if he continues to push the building of Trans Mountain in the face of escalating opposition.
The federal government no doubt is facing a tough dilemma. But doubling down on Trans Mountain by using taxpayer funds to subsidize one company at the expense of its Canadian competitors and risking a major conflict that will do irreparable damage to Canada’s reputation is a risky course.
Maybe it’s time for the federal government to reconsider other options and let Kinder Morgan make good on its ultimatum to shelve Trans Mountain. Like most compromises, this will not make everyone happy, but it may come closer to meeting everyone’s objectives than the current option of subsidizing a controversial American owned pipeline.
Thomas Gunton is director of the Resource and Environmental Planning Program at Simon Fraser University and is a former deputy environment minister for B.C. who helped resolve the province’s “War in the Woods”.
deadline's next week
i doubt even KM wants this built at this point
if's going ahead, the AB gov't will need to buy the project to which it will face an even more vehement opposition
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
