• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pipelines, energy and natural resources

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date
Nailed it...


COMMENTARY – Adam Pankratz: David Eby, Not a Pipeline, is the True Threat to Canada’s Economy​


David Eby is angry, but he’d also like you all to know he’s polite. In response to the Alberta government’s plan to draw up a proposal for a new oil pipeline for the Major Projects Office, Eby characterized the plan as not just a threat to “our pristine coast” but also “a direct economic threat to the kind of economy we’re trying to build in the country here.”

What economy that might be was left unspecified before Eby continued by insisting that his past vagueness and non-committal nature, in which he said he would “cross that bridge” (on pipelines) when B.C. and Alberta came to it, was merely him being “polite,” — politeness apparently something which is incompatible with clarity, as well as totally devoid of a basic understanding of what makes British Columbia and Canada’s economy move.

First, pipelines. On a weekend towards the end of June this past summer, Eby appeared on numerous national media shows and was asked directly about his government’s apparent opposition to pipelines to spur Canada’s economic growth in the face of Trump’s tariffs.

As legislative reporter Rob Shaw noted at the time, Eby downplayed any notion that B.C. and Alberta were in a tiff about pipelines; something that directly contradicted what he had said on the issue only a month earlier in May. He would, he said, “be happy to sit down” with Premier Smith if a project were proposed.

Apparently not. In his recent rant — pardon me, his recent polite admonishment — on Wednesday Eby defiantly stated there “is no project” and “there is no bridge to cross” for his government, unless the Alberta government will spend tax-payer money to make it happen.

Perhaps Canada’s most polite premier ought to reflect for a small moment as to why there is currently no private proponent? Could it be that all his diplomatic and genteel language from previous months did nothing to create the certainty businesses need to invest billions of dollars — as the CEO of Enbridge noted in August — and rather everything to create uncertainty about B.C.’s willingness to build major infrastructure projects? I rather think the answer might just be a well-mannered “yes.”

Eby’s civility and courteous nature doesn’t just apply to pipelines, however. It also applies to the B.C. economy writ-large, which he and the NDP have very thoughtfully driven into the ground.



 
Nailed it...


COMMENTARY – Adam Pankratz: David Eby, Not a Pipeline, is the True Threat to Canada’s Economy​


David Eby is angry, but he’d also like you all to know he’s polite. In response to the Alberta government’s plan to draw up a proposal for a new oil pipeline for the Major Projects Office, Eby characterized the plan as not just a threat to “our pristine coast” but also “a direct economic threat to the kind of economy we’re trying to build in the country here.”

What economy that might be was left unspecified before Eby continued by insisting that his past vagueness and non-committal nature, in which he said he would “cross that bridge” (on pipelines) when B.C. and Alberta came to it, was merely him being “polite,” — politeness apparently something which is incompatible with clarity, as well as totally devoid of a basic understanding of what makes British Columbia and Canada’s economy move.

First, pipelines. On a weekend towards the end of June this past summer, Eby appeared on numerous national media shows and was asked directly about his government’s apparent opposition to pipelines to spur Canada’s economic growth in the face of Trump’s tariffs.

As legislative reporter Rob Shaw noted at the time, Eby downplayed any notion that B.C. and Alberta were in a tiff about pipelines; something that directly contradicted what he had said on the issue only a month earlier in May. He would, he said, “be happy to sit down” with Premier Smith if a project were proposed.

Apparently not. In his recent rant — pardon me, his recent polite admonishment — on Wednesday Eby defiantly stated there “is no project” and “there is no bridge to cross” for his government, unless the Alberta government will spend tax-payer money to make it happen.

Perhaps Canada’s most polite premier ought to reflect for a small moment as to why there is currently no private proponent? Could it be that all his diplomatic and genteel language from previous months did nothing to create the certainty businesses need to invest billions of dollars — as the CEO of Enbridge noted in August — and rather everything to create uncertainty about B.C.’s willingness to build major infrastructure projects? I rather think the answer might just be a well-mannered “yes.”

Eby’s civility and courteous nature doesn’t just apply to pipelines, however. It also applies to the B.C. economy writ-large, which he and the NDP have very thoughtfully driven into the ground.



It's funny how Eby - not that long ago - was saying he was open to a pipeline being built, but there were no industry proponents of the idea...

Then Smith & industry sat down, and now it looks like there might be some real interest in getting that pipeline built after all - and now he's suddenly deadfast against it



Eby is an NDP twit who I'm becoming more & more convinced went to the same economics school as Trudeau.
 
It's funny how Eby - not that long ago - was saying he was open to a pipeline being built, but there were no industry proponents of the idea...

Then Smith & industry sat down, and now it looks like there might be some real interest in getting that pipeline built after all - and now he's suddenly deadfast against it



Eby is an NDP twit who I'm becoming more & more convinced went to the same economics school as Trudeau.

It's sad really.

Horgan (NDP) did a pretty good job, so it's not necessarily an NDP thing....
 
It's funny how Eby - not that long ago - was saying he was open to a pipeline being built, but there were no industry proponents of the idea...

Then Smith & industry sat down, and now it looks like there might be some real interest in getting that pipeline built after all - and now he's suddenly deadfast against it



Eby is an NDP twit who I'm becoming more & more convinced went to the same economics school as Trudeau.

If they didn't their instructors and advisors did: London School of Economics and Harvard.
 
If they didn't their instructors and advisors did: London School of Economics and Harvard.
lol, I’ve got friends who went to both who love to make money hand over fist and are Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals alike - but none are NDP supporters.
 
lol, I’ve got friends who went to both who love to make money hand over fist and are Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals alike - but none are NDP supporters.

I'm pleasantly surprised they survived. Or did they just join the fraternity? 😁
 
If they didn't their instructors and advisors did: London School of Economics and Harvard.
How bloody hard is economics, really, when you boil it down to the absolute basics?


"Will this create jobs or employ people?" Yes or No?

"Is this a valued resource? Can we build a sustainable industry around this?"

"Will this have any foreseeable negative secondary affects in other areas of the economy?" Yes or No?

"Will this increase or decrease the GDP of the country?"



A pipeline would employ hundreds if not thousands of people throughout northern BC during it's construction - and these types of jobs pay pretty well.

Not to mention the fees and other tax revenue the shipping companies & oil companies wouid pay to BC while those pipelines are in operation.


With a lumber industry that's constantly under attack, dwindling American tourism, and a need to build more jails/involuntary treatment centers - you would THINK the Government of BC would at least be somewhat open to new revenue streams...
 
It's funny how Eby - not that long ago - was saying he was open to a pipeline being built, but there were no industry proponents of the idea...

Then Smith & industry sat down, and now it looks like there might be some real interest in getting that pipeline built after all - and now he's suddenly deadfast against it

I'll be shocked if any national infrastructure project ever happens again.

 
Let's just hope that the opposition party in BC gets it's act together...

View attachment 96018
doesn't depend on BC. Carney has to step up to the plate. He has already built in his 'sorry no can do' excuse: everything is tied in to carbon capture which is a bottomless money pit. that is coupled with the carbon tax and the tanker ban. All of these issues are federal. But then again he also said that they have to come to agreement with the first nations and they have already said no. So the whole thing is dead in the water and we will continue to be losers.
 
The tanker ban is for Cdn tankers. US ships from Alaska apparently regularly sail down the coast.

Eby characterized the plan as not just a threat to “our pristine coast” but also “a direct economic threat to the kind of economy we’re trying to build in the country here.”
What economy?

British Columbia’s fiscal deficit soared — rather majestically I must say — to the heights of $11.6 billion dollars.

......next year Eby’s NDP are already projecting to cordially offer B.C. residents a deficit of over $12 billion.

.......following John Horgan’s departure as premier, B.C. had a fiscal surplus of $3 billion which has since been vaporized. To then add insult to British Columbians’ injury our economy was driven off a cliff as Eby and his gang spent like sailors on an epic bender and many viable resource projects languished in permit purgatory.

Eby wants to make all citizens entirely dependent on the NDP government.
 
The tanker ban is prevent large oil tankers from using Canadian ports for exports. The "tanker moratorium" was basically a guideline to ensure tankers were far enough offshore to allow a salvage vessel to get to them in case of a breakdown. We responded to the sistership of the Exxon Valdez that broke down off the BC coast. We were a 4,400DWT 1100 Class buoytender and looked like a toy beside it. Our Captain guessed with out makeshift towing gear we could hold it in place, but not make much headway. Luckily a Salvage tug got to our location before we had to try our towing rig.
 
The tanker ban is for Cdn tankers. US ships from Alaska apparently regularly sail down the coast.


What economy?



Eby wants to make all citizens entirely dependent on the NDP government.
Ditto with the federal LPC.

The more everybody comes to rely on government services, the less likely they are to vote for a party that would claw back some of those benefits in the interest of fiscal prudence.



(I'm willing to bet that most Canadians didn't even notice the PBO's dire warning about our economic outlook that went public last week.)
 
The tanker ban is prevent large oil tankers from using Canadian ports for exports. The "tanker moratorium" was basically a guideline to ensure tankers were far enough offshore to allow a salvage vessel to get to them in case of a breakdown. We responded to the sistership of the Exxon Valdez that broke down off the BC coast. We were a 4,400DWT 1100 Class buoytender and looked like a toy beside it. Our Captain guessed with out makeshift towing gear we could hold it in place, but not make much headway. Luckily a Salvage tug got to our location before we had to try our towing rig.


NoCGV Svalbard has, as one of her duties, towing up to 100,000 tons. 13 MW generated, 10 MW of propulsion.

HMCS Harry de Wolf, 13 MW generated, 9 MW of propulsion.

An Aframax tanker displaces 80-120,000 tonnes.

...

Homeport the two new Coast Guard AOPVs in Rupert.

Crew them with Haisla.
 

BLUF

The demand is there. The problem is ours.
Of course the demand is there - straight away it would automatically reduce/eliminate the ‘discount’ that Alberta crude trades at down in the US. Producers here are not going to ship to Texas at a 12-20$/barrel discount just for ‘old times’ if they can ship it out to BC at an additional 12-20$/barrel in potential profit.

The US will do ALL that it can to stop us from pushing large quantities of oil out to the West Coast.
1) The cost of their gas will rise greatly than 10%
2) They lose some leverage with some key Allies in Southeast Asia
3) Canada gains leverage with those same key Allies
4) Canada grows richer
5) Gulf Coast refineries lose profits
6) Gulf Coast refiners may have to cut jobs
7) Potentially reduces/eliminates the trade deficit with Canada which reduces the ability of Trump to use against us.
 
Of course the demand is there - straight away it would automatically reduce/eliminate the ‘discount’ that Alberta crude trades at down in the US. Producers here are not going to ship to Texas at a 12-20$/barrel discount just for ‘old times’ if they can ship it out to BC at an additional 12-20$/barrel in potential profit.

The US will do ALL that it can to stop us from pushing large quantities of oil out to the West Coast.
1) The cost of their gas will rise greatly than 10%
2) They lose some leverage with some key Allies in Southeast Asia
3) Canada gains leverage with those same key Allies
4) Canada grows richer
5) Gulf Coast refineries lose profits
6) Gulf Coast refiners may have to cut jobs
7) Potentially reduces/eliminates the trade deficit with Canada which reduces the ability of Trump to use against us.

The cynically/suspiciously minded of us are inclined to note that the Tide Water campaign was funded by American money.

As you note, keeping us from Tidewater benefited American interests.
 
The cynically/suspiciously minded of us are inclined to note that the Tide Water campaign was funded by American money.

As you note, keeping us from Tidewater benefited American interests.
Part of me wants us to go down the path of a Canadian owned oil pipeline, a nice big one, right to the west coast, even a nice big refinery there as well. By ‘Canadian’ I mean a Federal Government one, maybe even having BC and Alberta directly own 10% each.
 
Back
Top