Politics, Religion & Controversial

Alberta threatens BC to shut off oil taps

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 29th, 2018 12:48 am
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 2, 2009
1397 posts
187 upvotes

Alberta threatens BC to shut off oil taps

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta ... -1.3835009

She should have done this a long long time ago, who cares if BC's gas goes up to $3.00 a litre, maybe those protesters can't afford to drive to protest and need to find an actual job instead of living on social assistance .
65 replies
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
13123 posts
1658 upvotes
Threats are only as good if you plan to follow through with it.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cou ... ff-the-oil
Kamloops would be hit hardest
Kamloops is a major terminal on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Unlike Vancouver, however, it doesn’t have a port, refineries or easy access to the U.S. market. Thus, any cut to the oil supply would need to be plugged with trucks and trains, imposing a permanent price hike of as much as five cents per litre. Alberta would be well-advised to question the utility of punishing Kamloops, however. The ideal goal of a pipeline shutdown would be to hurt a bunch of granola-munching Greenpeace-types who forgot that they still need petroleum to get to their ski vacations. Kamloops, however, consistently votes conservative, is filled with thousands of retired Albertans and has a council that openly supports the Trans Mountain expansion. They might justifiably question why they are the hardest-hit victims of a petroleum trade war.
Last edited by eldiablo on Mar 11th, 2018 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
8308 posts
1065 upvotes
Victoria
The whole situation is a mess. It's mutually assured destruction if she turns off the pipeline. BC has to source it's fuel from somewhere else (most likely the US) which will drive up the cost of fuel for BC, which already has high fuel costs because it has a fuel shortage and has to import fuel from US refineries. On the flip side it will do a lot of damage to Alberta companies who sell their product via the existing pipeline. Alberta sends gas, jet fuel, and oil through the pipeline. That's product the Alberta companies won't be selling. That would have a huge impact. To me both sides would be losers. BC ends up with higher fuel prices, and Alberta takes an economic hit from not being able sell their product.

Being from BC I'm personally more concerned about the increased tanker traffic than I am twinning the pipeline. There seems to be two issues. The pipeline, and the exporting of the contents of the 2nd pipeline through our waters. To me it feels like the concern is more about the tanker traffic (than twinning the pipeline). People point out the federal government promised to set up a 1.5 billion dollar spill response team, but few details have emerged yet. It's a 5 year plan to blow 1.5 billion on creating the plan (expanding coast guard, oil spill research etc..). The problem being they want to twin the pipeline and increase tanker traffic before there is an actual plan. BC want's it sorted before it happens (which I agree with).

When the Exxon Valdez crashed in Alaska in 1989 the cleanup costs were almost 3 billion USD. 40 years later I'm guessing another worse case scenario accident would costs 10's of billions. Not to mention we make serious revenue from our tourism industry, which heavily relies on our coastline. Fishing is also a big industry here. The catastrophic costs of a spill would hurt BC way more than what the government is spending to come up with a plan.

I'm not sure Notley's approach will work. What do most people do when they're told, forced, and then coerced to do something? They have a negative response. At this point I believe our Premier asked for a constitutional challenge on how much control we have to protect our own waters. As far I as I know it's not unconstitutional to make a constitutional challenge. There for he hasn't broken any laws?

My suggestion: Let gas prices keep going up here with our current gas shortage. Work with the oil/gas companies to build refineries. Either in Alberta and export gas down the new pipeline, or in BC so we can refine the oil into gas. Stop exporting it all raw to China. Try to come up with solutions to sell it domestically. You will still sell your product, you'll help BC's gas shortage, and you will create more jobs in Canada, and have a bigger positive impact on the economy. If you can figure out how to sell it domestically, it reduces the tanker problem. Dangle a few carrots for BC, and reduce the risk, that's negotiating.

That's my feeling. BC is being asked to take on a lot of risk with little no reward. BC is a have province. We don't benefit directly from Alberta paying more revenues to the fed government, than Alberta does from us paying higher revenues to the fed government. We would get a bunch of jobs for the few years it takes to build the pipeline, but it's pretty negligible after it's done. The 2nd pipeline is only going to be used to export bitumen, so it has no practical use other then to put it on ships and export it to China. It doesn't help address BC's fuel shortages, or benefit BC.

The more Notley tries stick it to BC, the more BC may try to stick it to her. People like me, who aren't anti-pipeline, but want BC to get something out of it, and minimize risk. I'll side with the premier I would never vote with, just to stick it to Notley. All she's going to do is increase support in BC for resisting the pipeline..

Considering Alberta is a land-locked provinces, and we're the closest domestic port. Surely there's creative ways the BC government can retaliate.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 10, 2015
2018 posts
727 upvotes
Monte Creek, BC
eldiablo wrote:
Mar 11th, 2018 11:17 am
Threats are only as good if you plan to follow through with it.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cou ... ff-the-oil
Kamloops would be hit hardest
Kamloops is a major terminal on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Unlike Vancouver, however, it doesn’t have a port, refineries or easy access to the U.S. market. Thus, any cut to the oil supply would need to be plugged with trucks and trains, imposing a permanent price hike of as much as five cents per litre. Alberta would be well-advised to question the utility of punishing Kamloops, however. The ideal goal of a pipeline shutdown would be to hurt a bunch of granola-munching Greenpeace-types who forgot that they still need petroleum to get to their ski vacations. Kamloops, however, consistently votes conservative, is filled with thousands of retired Albertans and has a council that openly supports the Trans Mountain expansion. They might justifiably question why they are the hardest-hit victims of a petroleum trade war.


Wow, lots of holes in this article. Where to start?
First off, Kamloops is not a major terminal for the line. There are storage tanks there but the impact would be minimal.
The Trans Mountain pipeline ends at the Chevron refinery in Burnaby.
And Kamloops is not filled with thousands of retired Albertans.
Who wrote this garbage?

The Burnaby refinery is maxed out to the point they have to bring in gasoline from Washington State occasionally. Slow down gas shipments even a bit at Vancouver's gas price of $1.50 will look very nice. And it's the only refinery in southern BC. The next one is a Husky refinery in Prince George, 800 kms North.

Yeah, I'm okay with Alberta slowing down shipments to southern BC. That's were the granola crunchers are, and they are completely oblivious to the economy outside their little coffee shops.
No political content in signatures (Who did I offend?)
Deal Fanatic
Oct 6, 2007
6646 posts
2726 upvotes
Kootenays
poleman wrote:
Mar 11th, 2018 1:08 pm
Kamloops would be hit hardest
Kamloops is a major terminal on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Unlike Vancouver, however, it doesn’t have a port, refineries or easy access to the U.S. market. Thus, any cut to the oil supply would need to be plugged with trucks and trains, imposing a permanent price hike of as much as five cents per litre. Alberta would be well-advised to question the utility of punishing Kamloops, however. The ideal goal of a pipeline shutdown would be to hurt a bunch of granola-munching Greenpeace-types who forgot that they still need petroleum to get to their ski vacations. Kamloops, however, consistently votes conservative, is filled with thousands of retired Albertans and has a council that openly supports the Trans Mountain expansion. They might justifiably question why they are the hardest-hit victims of a petroleum trade war.


Wow, lots of holes in this article. Where to start?
First off, Kamloops is not a major terminal for the line. There are storage tanks there but the impact would be minimal.
The Trans Mountain pipeline ends at the Chevron refinery in Burnaby.Which is now owned by Albertans https://biv.com/article/2017/04/new-own ... ron-refine
And Kamloops is not filled with thousands of retired Albertans.
Who wrote this garbage?

The Burnaby refinery is maxed out to the point they have to bring in gasoline from Washington State occasionally. Slow down gas shipments even a bit at Vancouver's gas price of $1.50 will look very nice. And it's the only refinery in southern BC. The next one is a Husky refinery in Prince George, 800 kms North.

Yeah, I'm okay with Alberta slowing down shipments to southern BC. That's were the granola crunchers are, and they are completely oblivious to the economy outside their little coffee shops.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2013
5332 posts
1948 upvotes
redflagdeals.com
smacd wrote:
Mar 11th, 2018 1:37 pm
Wow, lots of holes in this article. Where to start?
First off, Kamloops is not a major terminal for the line. There are storage tanks there but the impact would be minimal.
The Trans Mountain pipeline ends at the Chevron refinery in Burnaby.Which is now owned by Albertans https://biv.com/article/2017/04/new-own ... ron-refine
And Kamloops is not filled with thousands of retired Albertans.
Who wrote this garbage?

The Burnaby refinery is maxed out to the point they have to bring in gasoline from Washington State occasionally. Slow down gas shipments even a bit at Vancouver's gas price of $1.50 will look very nice. And it's the only refinery in southern BC. The next one is a Husky refinery in Prince George, 800 kms North.

Yeah, I'm okay with Alberta slowing down shipments to southern BC. That's were the granola crunchers are, and they are completely oblivious to the economy outside their little coffee shops.
The Burnaby refinery is closed for a few months for maintenance/ovehaul/upgrades. All gasoline is being imported from the U.S. at the moment. Stopping the oil will do nothing except hurt the Red Deer, Alberta headquartered company (Parkland Fuel) that just bought the refinery for $1.5 Billion.......bad timing to say the least.
A wise RFD'er once said, "Buy now, think later."
I like wearing tinfoil hats.

¯\_(-.-)_/¯

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ "Behold!"
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
4462 posts
108 upvotes
Toronto
While we are at it, can we cut the flow of gasoline to native reserves that don't want pipelines? If they don't want oil than they get no gas either!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
8308 posts
1065 upvotes
Victoria
dealseaker101 wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 12:35 am
The Burnaby refinery is closed for a few months for maintenance/ovehaul/upgrades. All gasoline is being imported from the U.S. at the moment. Stopping the oil will do nothing except hurt the Red Deer, Alberta headquartered company (Parkland Fuel) that just bought the refinery for $1.5 Billion.......bad timing to say the least.
I don't think it's all? We do get gas through the current pipeline too. I think the Burnaby refinery only makes up 25% of BC's Gas usage... then a large amount from Alberta, and then the US. Changing that 25% to us US did cause a further spike in prices.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
17374 posts
2168 upvotes
Langley
Just some sabre ratlin'.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7519 posts
1199 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 6:46 am
While we are at it, can we cut the flow of gasoline to native reserves that don't want pipelines? If they don't want oil than they get no gas either!
you think reserves just randomly have gas taps in the pipeline? lol

These are just 2 reasons that Alberta isnt going to win this regardless of what they do.

1. Threatening things that BC cares little about, if at all. Not buying wine and stopping gas? ok. Except there's plenty of wine buyers everywhere else, and Alberta's not the only gas producer that BC buys from.

2. Offering no major concessions or deals to make the pipeline AND the extremely ridiculous tanker traffic, be profitable or make sense for BC in any way. More than willing to destroy BC lands with future oil spills and the congest the port, but not wanting to pay for either. What was the emergency spill/damage budget? a bit more than handful of billion? Thats toilet paper money when major oil spills occur. BC would be left with the cleanup bill and the damage and Alberta with the revenue and profits. Good luck with that sales pitch.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 17, 2009
2079 posts
685 upvotes
Hey, didn't the Russians do this to the Ukranians? It's like that South Park episode, the Simpsons did it first. LOL
Corvus oculum corvi non eruit.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
4462 posts
108 upvotes
Toronto
Buggy166 wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 2:37 pm
you think reserves just randomly have gas taps in the pipeline? lol

These are just 2 reasons that Alberta isnt going to win this regardless of what they do.

1. Threatening things that BC cares little about, if at all. Not buying wine and stopping gas? ok. Except there's plenty of wine buyers everywhere else, and Alberta's not the only gas producer that BC buys from.

2. Offering no major concessions or deals to make the pipeline AND the extremely ridiculous tanker traffic, be profitable or make sense for BC in any way. More than willing to destroy BC lands with future oil spills and the congest the port, but not wanting to pay for either. What was the emergency spill/damage budget? a bit more than handful of billion? Thats toilet paper money when major oil spills occur. BC would be left with the cleanup bill and the damage and Alberta with the revenue and profits. Good luck with that sales pitch.
Taps in the pipe line? all I am saying is that if natives do not want oil and gas to be piped across their lands than they shouldn't expect us to deliver oil products to them over our land...
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 2, 2009
1397 posts
187 upvotes
Buggy166 wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 2:37 pm
you think reserves just randomly have gas taps in the pipeline? lol

These are just 2 reasons that Alberta isnt going to win this regardless of what they do.

1. Threatening things that BC cares little about, if at all. Not buying wine and stopping gas? ok. Except there's plenty of wine buyers everywhere else, and Alberta's not the only gas producer that BC buys from.

2. Offering no major concessions or deals to make the pipeline AND the extremely ridiculous tanker traffic, be profitable or make sense for BC in any way. More than willing to destroy BC lands with future oil spills and the congest the port, but not wanting to pay for either. What was the emergency spill/damage budget? a bit more than handful of billion? Thats toilet paper money when major oil spills occur. BC would be left with the cleanup bill and the damage and Alberta with the revenue and profits. Good luck with that sales pitch.
First of all the waters do not belong to BC , second When was the last oil leak on the original KM pipeline, It is not just Alberta that profits from this pipeline it is all of Canada including BC.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7519 posts
1199 upvotes
rotjong wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 5:16 pm
First of all the waters do not belong to BC , second When was the last oil leak on the original KM pipeline, It is not just Alberta that profits from this pipeline it is all of Canada including BC.
waters dont belong to BC. BC belongs to BC.

Alberta is more than within its rights to fly oil over BC.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7519 posts
1199 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 12th, 2018 4:51 pm
Taps in the pipe line? all I am saying is that if natives do not want oil and gas to be piped across their lands than they shouldn't expect us to deliver oil products to them over our land...
I more than agree. I actually find reserves to be dying grounds for indigenous people and little else. They shouldn't exist to begin with. Promotes of culture of separation and segregation.

Where New Zealand integrated aboriginals into parliament and every day life, Canada keeps them in the basement and serves them food every now and then, only because they feel guilty about the situation.

http://theconversation.com/why-the-indi ... nada-84980

Top