HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5421  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:00 AM
Denscity Denscity is offline
Suburbs Suck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Castlegar BC
Posts: 5,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
The MV Marathasa was a bulk grain carrier. If Vancouverites are really sincere about stopping oil spills they would immediately shut down the harbour and ban ALL cargo ships. (And this would be so easy since there would be no issue with any other province!)

By not doing so it could be inferred that Vancouverites are unaware, ill-informed or selfish hypocrites.
Almost everything nowadays is made in Asia. Everything made in Asia sold in Canada goes through Vancouver. There would be empty shelves across the country if all cargo ships were banned in Vancouver.

And Alberta grain would not get out to market either.
__________________
Daily 1 hour flights from YCG to YVR & YYC on ACX
British Columbia is named after the Columbia River, a 4 minute walk from my house
Exactly halfway between Vancouver and Calgary
castlegar.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5422  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:19 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Mild Wild West
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
BC's threat actually has nothing to do with the pipeline. Or at least, it doesn't actually block the pipeline from being built. They simply stated as a vague threat that they will not allow any increase in bitumen to be shipped. It doesn't actually discriminate between pipelines or trains or however the bitumen happens to be travelling.
That seems even worse, however, Canada has already set a bad precedent, by allowing Quebec's refusal to permit hydro transmission through that province (from Newfoundland, dating back to the 1980s). If you give Canada's provinces too much power they will inevitably work against each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5423  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:44 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo View Post
Geotag, tell me this: why do you think Canadians are not more upset about the tens of millions that we lose each day from not receiving the world price for our oil products? The losses when totalled over a year are staggering, and all go to benefit Americans. Why doesn't that get Canadians up in arms? The Americans must be incredulous that this situation continues year on year.

Relatedly, I would think that whenever there's a glut of a product available at cheaper than market rates, that would be a prime opportunity to invest in processing. Why do you think that isn't happening more quickly?
The numbers are so big it's hard to relate too. I mean, 3 million barrels a day, 30 dollar average differential so far this year, we are talking 90 million a day lost value, which works out to about 32 billion of lost economic value a year, if we maintain this differential average.

That would work out to about 2% of Canada's entire economy, lost for almost no reason at all. That's more than our entire agriculture, forestry & fishing sector. That's about as much as our entire food service & accommodation industries.

I think part of it is, you can't miss what you don't have. Canadians can't really feel the impact to public services they would experience, because we don't have it. If we were starting from a baseline where the price differential gap was already closed, and then we lost 2% of our GDP overnight, I think a whole lot more Canadians would care.

A lot of the argument is perfect being the enemy of the good, and we all suffer for it.

Climate change is the big rallying cry, but no one seems to care about anyone else's environmental record except Alberta. Alberta Universities will publish a study about, say, methane leaks in the oil and gas sector, and environmentalists will be screaming to shut the whole thing down. Meanwhile they will happily import all their oil and gas needs from Texas and North Dakota, and not care one whit about what those regions are doing to the environment, gas flaring, and another pollutants damaging the environment.

It's been estimated if we burn up the entire economically recoverable oil sands deposits, which is about 22 billion metric tons of co2, we'll add 0.04 C to global temperatures (if that gets expanded to every single drop, it's about 0.4 C). Meanwhile the world emitted almost 40 billion metric tons of co2, half of which from coal alone in a single year. The world has a very pressing carbon problem but it isn't really the oil sands. If the world could get off coal, we'd save an entire economically recoverable oil sands development every single year.

Refining seems to just be a terrible business model. You are correct, in that there was an opportunity for refineries which were around to exploit the free falling oil price and make some money. You'll notice that huge refining operations like VLO (Valero) actually had huge stock market increases ever since the downturn, as they exploited the spread and made the first money they had in years. But it's a limited window, and banks have been foreclosing on refining assets for the previous few decades. Alberta did invest in a refinery:

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/insi...a-7c6fe5cd13f2

But it started in 2011 (actually conceptualised since the 80s), cost 8.5 billion dollars, and maxes out at 79k barrels a day. To get the same volume as the as the 590,000 transmountain pipeline, using a similar volume per investment as sturgeon, we'd have to invest about 62.5 billion dollars, in a controversial refining business which no one is even sure can make any money. A bit challenging, and not something that can happen at the snap of fingers just because oil prices went down. I'm sure Alberta will continue to invest in refining, but it isn't all that realistic as an overnight alternative to pipelines. It seems more realistic to use pipelines as a catalyst to invest in domestic refineries, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5424  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:52 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 17,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
That seems even worse, however, Canada has already set a bad precedent, by allowing Quebec's refusal to permit hydro transmission through that province (from Newfoundland, dating back to the 1980s). If you give Canada's provinces too much power they will inevitably work against each other.
As I pointed out already though, that kind of thing seems perfectly normal, to me at least. Quebec (then) and New Hampshire (now) and BC (now) should have the right to decide under what conditions they'd allow things like powerlines and pipelines to pass through their territory.

If BC says no, then sweeten the deal for them and eventually they'll say yes. Or address their concerns. Or pass somewhere else.

If you want NH to say yes, then pay to bury the line everywhere and maybe they'll say yes.

If they say no it's because they see more drawbacks than advantages to these projects, and that should be their right.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like the Feds to ram a project that Newfoundlanders don't want down their throats, right? If so, then you and I are in agreement on how a federation should work...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5425  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 8:00 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Did you even read that?
Yes.

BC's floating the idea of a study is not unconstitutional, as Nutley claims. You seem to have missed “It’s absolutely constitutional for B.C. to regulate on environmental protection and emergency response...”. The study cannot automatically be considered an impairment.

Last edited by whatnext; Feb 14, 2018 at 8:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5426  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 9:44 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denscity View Post
Everything made in Asia sold in Canada goes through Vancouver. There would be empty shelves across the country if all cargo ships were banned in Vancouver.
Not true. Asian goods could just as easily be imported through other west coast ports such Prince Rupert, Puget, Portland or even Los Angeles/Long Beach or hell, even the east coast ports. Canada doesn't need the port of Vancouver, it's just convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denscity View Post
And Alberta grain would not get out to market either.
Kinda like oil, eh? But don't worry, just like oil, AB could send it's grain south to the major port of South Louisiana on the Gulf, which BTW exports 4x the amount of grain that Vancouver does to Asia.
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5427  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 9:50 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
The study cannot automatically be considered an impairment.
Well many constitutional scholars feel otherwise, and some politicians also feel otherwise.

Feds won’t entertain attempts by B.C. to stop expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline: Carr

Only time will tell ....
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5428  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 12:53 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Yes.

BC's floating the idea of a study is not unconstitutional, as Nutley claims. You seem to have missed “It’s absolutely constitutional for B.C. to regulate on environmental protection and emergency response...”. The study cannot automatically be considered an impairment.
FYI, using terms like 'Nutley' discredits your arguments. No need to cheapen what you are saying unnecessarily. TBH, I think she is the very opposite of a nut, she has remained very cool headed despite being highly pressured by right wing politicians and citizens in Alberta to go to war over this.

As to your argument, this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Well many constitutional scholars feel otherwise, and some politicians also feel otherwise.

Feds won’t entertain attempts by B.C. to stop expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline: Carr

Only time will tell ....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5429  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 1:34 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
FYI, using terms like 'Nutley' discredits your arguments. No need to cheapen what you are saying unnecessarily. TBH, I think she is the very opposite of a nut, she has remained very cool headed despite being highly pressured by right wing politicians and citizens in Alberta to go to war over this.

As to your argument, this:
Absolutely agree. If the Feds ensure this line goes through, especially if they can expedite it, she may have my vote next election.

If not, that carbon tax can be considered a complete sham, and Albertans can rightfully believe that they were lied to, in that such an aggressive policy, including the capping of oilsands emissions, did absolutely nothing for the cause of getting our products to market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5430  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 3:00 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,127
I think Notley has handled the situation quite well, all things considered. She's got her back up against the wall and she knows it, has spoken firmly and taken decisive action yet has refrained from any mud-slinging and vitriol. While I do sympathize with BC in this dispute and understand their concerns, I think Notley has taken the high road so far. I doubt you'd have seen that level of decorum and civility from Jason Kenny
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5431  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:09 PM
Denscity Denscity is offline
Suburbs Suck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Castlegar BC
Posts: 5,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Not true. Asian goods could just as easily be imported through other west coast ports such Prince Rupert, Puget, Portland or even Los Angeles/Long Beach or hell, even the east coast ports. Canada doesn't need the port of Vancouver, it's just convenient.

Kinda like oil, eh? But don't worry, just like oil, AB could send it's grain south to the major port of South Louisiana on the Gulf, which BTW exports 4x the amount of grain that Vancouver does to Asia.
Haha that just means that they grow more grain down there than you do.
And would importing everything from Asia through the east coast make prices on the shelf shoot up?
__________________
Daily 1 hour flights from YCG to YVR & YYC on ACX
British Columbia is named after the Columbia River, a 4 minute walk from my house
Exactly halfway between Vancouver and Calgary
castlegar.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5432  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 4:40 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,127
Lets face it, most of these boycotts and threats are fairly meaningless, they're symbolic more than anything. BC wine can easily be sold in other markets, Fuel for the lower mainland can be obtained from Washington state, AB can get power from the two 500KV ties to the US, BC natural gas can flow through the pipelines into Washington, AB beef can be sold anywhere, etc etc. The infrastructure and markets that exist are diversified enough that no one province is going to cripple another province in any significant capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5433  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 5:06 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 17,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Well many constitutional scholars feel otherwise, and some politicians also feel otherwise.

Feds won’t entertain attempts by B.C. to stop expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline: Carr

Only time will tell ....
Well, it's pretty much always "legal" to do something ambiguous enough that it will be up to the courts to decide the validity of it. (By definition, it can't be illegal.)

Party A says they can, Party B says they can't, it's not clear, nothing is yet illegal until the courts have sided with one of the parties.

Whenever the goal is to stall something / gain time, and spending money to do it isn't a problem, these tactics usually work well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5434  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 5:39 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
A separate conversation about a relatively marginal increase in tanker traffic (roughly 3% of port traffic, but can be twisted to an alarming ** 7 X INCREASE **), whose fifty year history does not have a single spill at the magnitude of that bulk grain carrier spilling bunker fuel, is literally an existential threat to the entire metro Vancouver area.
I just want to make two points here:

1) The "7 times increase" comes directly from TransMountain: "With the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Westridge Marine Terminal expansions, the terminal is forecast to serve up to 37 vessels per month." It currently serves up to 5 vessels per month. The "7 times increase" has always referred to the number of tankers serving Westridge, not the total traffic in the port.

2) The Sanchi (a Suezmax double-hulled tanker similar to those that will be servicing the Trans Mountain Pipeline) collided with a cargo ship, burned, and eventually sank off the coast of China. What guarantees are in place that this sort of collision isn't possible anywhere between the Westridge Marine Terminal and the Pacific Ocean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5435  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 6:31 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
2) The Sanchi (a Suezmax double-hulled tanker similar to those that will be servicing the Trans Mountain Pipeline) collided with a cargo ship, burned, and eventually sank off the coast of China. What guarantees are in place that this sort of collision isn't possible anywhere between the Westridge Marine Terminal and the Pacific Ocean?
The same thing that guarantees it wont happen today

As per your link there are oil tankers plying the waters of Vancouver today - and yet we don't have collisions daily. In the past 10 years the worst oil spill involved a cargo ship and not an oil tanker.

If you are truly sincere about ensuring absolutely NO risks of oil spills in the waters around Vancouver, you would be actively campaigning to completely shut down the Port of Vancouver and ban all ships from anywhere nearby.

Since you appear to be somewhere aware of things, as per my previous comment I can now only infer that you are either ill-informed or a hypocrite.

BTW, while 35 ships a month sounds like a lot, last year the Port of Rotterdam handles over 8,200 tankers annually (about 820 a month) and hasn't had any collisions. Does that counter your example of the Sanchi collision??
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5436  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:03 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
If you are truly sincere about ensuring absolutely NO risks of oil spills in the waters around Vancouver, you would be actively campaigning to completely shut down the Port of Vancouver and ban all ships from anywhere nearby.
I do believe I'm speaking out about this Kinder Morgan increase in traffic and the resulting increase in risk of spills from that and not the general port traffic. It is possible to speak out about the increased risk of spills separately from the current risk of spills.

It is also possible to point to minor spills like the grain carrier fuel spill and see that the spill response is nowhere near adequate. That was a pretty minor spill, and yet beaches in Vancouver had to close because of the inadequate spill response. Is it too much to ask that the spill response be improved, not only because of the proposed increase in traffic but also to be able to handle even minor spills from current traffic?

Quote:
BTW, while 35 ships a month sounds like a lot, last year the Port of Rotterdam handles over 8,200 tankers annually (about 820 a month) and hasn't had any collisions. Does that counter your example of the Sanchi collision??
A little. But to get from Rotterdam to open ocean there isn't a series of islands and straights like we have here. And while a cursory search didn't reveal any collisions in Rotterdam (mostly because there was a collision involving a car transporter named City of Rotterdam in England), they've had other things like tanker fires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5437  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:08 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
It is also possible to point to minor spills like the grain carrier fuel spill and see that the spill response is nowhere near adequate. That was a pretty minor spill, and yet beaches in Vancouver had to close because of the inadequate spill response. Is it too much to ask that the spill response be improved, not only because of the proposed increase in traffic but also to be able to handle even minor spills from current traffic?
Spill response was actually one of the main conditions regarding the conditional approval of the transmountain pipeline in the first place, which I believe was pushed hard by the BC government.

An early story about it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...nned-1.3750572

It's not too much to ask, and it was answered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5438  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:17 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo View Post
Geotag, tell me this: why do you think Canadians are not more upset about the tens of millions that we lose each day from not receiving the world price for our oil products? The losses when totalled over a year are staggering, and all go to benefit Americans. Why doesn't that get Canadians up in arms? The Americans must be incredulous that this situation continues year on year.

Relatedly, I would think that whenever there's a glut of a product available at cheaper than market rates, that would be a prime opportunity to invest in processing. Why do you think that isn't happening more quickly?
The issue here is that for most Canadians and especially those east of Manitoba, this is seen as a Alberta issue and not really a national one. AB & SK are rightfully seen as being the biggest offenders when it comes to climate change and so their concerns about far less revenue coming from an already high emissions province rings on deaf ears in the rest of the country. In short by being big polluters, they have lost all credibility and much of the empathy to boot.

Also there is the issue that many see oil as a boom for the West and a bust for the East as oil revenue and expansion results in a higher dollar hitting Eastern manufacturing. Prices are high, Alberta booms while when prices are low Ontario and Quebec do well as does their population growth. Politically, Ontario and Quebec have no reason to support this pipeline and Ottawa has no desire to force it being built because when push comes to shove this is a political decision and math explains everything......Ont & PQ have over 200 seats in the House and Alberta only 34.

It would be very interesting to see what Ottawa would do if after this battle the courts say they must allow the pipeline to go thru due to BC's stance being over ruled by their lack of Constitutional powers to do it and then BC decides to turn around and use the infamous "not withstanding clause". With the can of worms that would open, it would be very fun to watch Ottawa squirm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5439  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:24 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
I think Notley has handled the situation quite well, all things considered. She's got her back up against the wall and she knows it, has spoken firmly and taken decisive action yet has refrained from any mud-slinging and vitriol. While I do sympathize with BC in this dispute and understand their concerns, I think Notley has taken the high road so far. I doubt you'd have seen that level of decorum and civility from Jason Kenny
I think Notley has put on a political masterclass here, and those outside of Alberta might not be able to appreciate it. I can fully understand people in BC poking fun at Notley and rallying behind "their guy" in Horgan, but Notley has all at once galvanised political energy around her in the province, shut down Jason Kenney into the sidelines (something we should all be cheering for), and initiated momentum towards the 2019 at almost the perfect time.

I think Gary Mason captures it perfectly:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37970518/

As an aside, towards the other comments regarding benefits to the rest of Canada, this summation I think does a good job of summing up the key benefits:

https://www.alberta.ca/keepcanadaworking.aspx

Relevant section:

Quote:
Over the next 20 years, Trans Mountain Pipeline is expected to generate $46.7 billion in government revenue to fund public services across the country:

$5.7 billion in B.C.
$19.4 billion in Alberta
$21.6 billion across the rest of Canada
Note that the "notwithstanding clause" has a very limited scope in it's application. It can't be used willy nilly against any Federal law - and it is very very carefully worded to avoid the application to infrastructure specifically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5440  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:29 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I think Notley has put on a political masterclass here, and those outside of Alberta might not be able to appreciate it. I can fully understand people in BC poking fun at Notley and rallying behind "their guy" in Horgan, but Notley has all at once galvanised political energy around her in the province, shut down Jason Kenney into the sidelines (something we should all be cheering for), and initiated momentum towards the 2019 at almost the perfect time.

I think Gary Mason captures it perfectly:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37970518/

As an aside, towards the other comments regarding benefits to the rest of Canada, this summation I think does a good job of summing up the key benefits:

https://www.alberta.ca/keepcanadaworking.aspx

Relevant section:



Note that the "notwithstanding clause" has a very limited scope in it's application. It can't be used willy nilly against any Federal law - and it is very very carefully worded to avoid the application to infrastructure specifically.
You make the assumption Horgan is seen as the "loser". Far from it, other than the cohort of has-beens around the BC Liberal brand, most BCers I know support his stance. As to Notley, she may gain some visibility now but Albertans won't permanently change their spots, they'll go baaack to the conservative option next election, as they always do.

Of course the real loser is Trudeau, the Machiavellian might think the two NDP premiers had that in mind all along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.