news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

B.C. wants 'more-balanced fair share' of oil lo

Canadian Content
20808news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

B.C. wants 'more-balanced fair share' of oil loot


Provincial Politics | 208078 hits | Jul 24 5:27 pm | Posted by: Alta_redneck
220 Comment

What�s in it for B.C.? The answer to that, according to Alberta�s western neighbour, is �not enough.�

Comments

  1. by avatar Alta_redneck
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:36 am
    Now we'll have to put a tax on all cargo heading east through AB. from BC. ports.

  2. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:38 am
    "Alta_redneck" said
    Now we'll have to put a tax on all cargo heading east through AB. from BC. ports.


    I smell Northern Gateway a dyin'...

  3. by avatar Xort
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:38 am
    Alta_redneck, well said.
    ~
    It's nice to see that everyone has agreed the pipeline is a go, the only thing left now is the dicker for the price.

  4. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:42 am
    "Xort" said
    Alta_redneck, well said.
    ~
    It's nice to see that everyone has agreed the pipeline is a go, the only thing left now is the dicker for the price.


    That dickering will last until the election. Then it'll likely end.

  5. by avatar Xort
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:49 am
    "Gunnair" said

    That dickering will last until the election. Then it'll likely end.

    Free money is a hard thing to turn down. The best solution would be for the current government sign a contract or make a binding commitment to ok the line.

    Then at the election it's not an issue because the other parties that realy want the money, but also want to be in power can say, 'well the current government already agreed to it, and it would cost far to much to back out'.

    While the current government can say we have secured this deal to bring in more money from Alberta for us to fund worthless vote buying 'family first' spending.

    That way they get their money, and it's not an election issue.

  6. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:44 am
    "Gunnair" said

    That dickering will last until the election. Then it'll likely end.


    "Xort" said
    Free money is a hard thing to turn down. The best solution would be for the current government sign a contract or make a binding commitment to ok the line.


    Well, not really free actually. More of a down payment to help with the inevitable environmental disaster.

    Then at the election it's not an issue because the other parties that realy want the money, but also want to be in power can say, 'well the current government already agreed to it, and it would cost far to much to back out'.

    While the current government can say we have secured this deal to bring in more money from Alberta for us to fund worthless vote buying 'family first' spending.

    That way they get their money, and it's not an election issue.


    Yeah, I don't really think it's going to play out that way. Fact is, the majority of BC does not support it, and the Liberal government has done nothing but look at first like a cowardly corporate shill and now a Johnny-come-lately. The hollow platitudes towards the concerns of BC citizens is too little and too late. The NDP, which has been against this from minute one, will come out on top. Add the natives, the environmentalists, and the everyday taxpayer which has been keener than most in exercising a form of direct democracy through recalls and I think it's safe to say this terrible project is wheezing its dying breaths. If not, it'll be such a massive expensive mess that Enbridge might just call time of death on it eventually.

  7. by avatar BeaverFever
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:26 am
    The sad thing is that it seems Clark is willing to sell out for cash and isnt really concerned about the environment and sooner or later, the oil cos will poney up the money directly or indirectly just like they did in Newfoundland. They have deep pockets and will spend big money to make even bigger money at the end of the day.

    OTOH, they may be worried that this will set precedent for other porjects like Keystone or pipelines through the territories. Maybe giving other jurisdictions a cut will be the new normal in the oil and gas industry, which may mean environmental and community concerns will get ignored more than they already do as more.provincial and state governments get bought off. Its a double-edged sword.

  8. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:10 am
    These efforts, combined with the fact that pipelines are still by far the safest means by which to transport oil, significantly mitigate the environmental risk and weaken the B.C. government�s argument for compensation based on potential risk.


    Well, technically risk potential, so "potential risk" is a redundant term. Sorry, I'm a geek, what can I say?

    I just don't get the whole Kitimat port thing. Doesn't seem like a great place for a port, as the vessels have to navigate all the way up Kitimat Arm. I agree with sorting out the risk / reward equation, but on the other hand, it's likely those billions of dollars will go to general revenue, and the environment will be at the back of the line, as always, to get to those funds. I.e. the royalties will not, I don't think, translate to significantly greater environmental protection.

  9. by avatar herbie
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:15 am
    Who cares what Christy Clark wants or says. By the time of final hearings, she won't be Premier. Hammered yet another nail into the BC Liberal coffin.
    Once again she sat on the fence far too long, and came up with a stance of a money-sucking whore.

  10. by avatar Unsound
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:19 am
    But atleast she's helping expose yet another fissure between western provinces for the eastern bastards(technicall term that does not apply to most easterners) to cynically exploit when they try to win back power in Ottawa.

  11. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:22 am
    "Zipperfish" said
    These efforts, combined with the fact that pipelines are still by far the safest means by which to transport oil, significantly mitigate the environmental risk and weaken the B.C. government�s argument for compensation based on potential risk.


    Well, technically risk potential, so "potential risk" is a redundant term. Sorry, I'm a geek, what can I say?

    I just don't get the whole Kitimat port thing. Doesn't seem like a great place for a port, as the vessels have to navigate all the way up Kitimat Arm. I agree with sorting out the risk / reward equation, but on the other hand, it's likely those billions of dollars will go to general revenue, and the environment will be at the back of the line, as always, to get to those funds. I.e. the royalties will not, I don't think, translate to significantly greater environmental protection.


    Douglas Channel makes no sense to me, never has, never will. And I agree, so,little of that money will be squirreled away to pay for the billion dollar cleanup to be done by the clean up industry that no longer exists.

    Hell, there ain't a real plan for the tsunami cleanup so how will they deal with a tanker that, whoops, parked on Coste Rocks.

  12. by avatar RUEZ
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:23 am
    "herbie" said
    Who cares what Christy Clark wants or says. By the time of final hearings, she won't be Premier. Hammered yet another nail into the BC Liberal coffin.
    Once again she sat on the fence far too long, and came up with a stance of a money-sucking whore.

    That money sucking whore just shut down whiners that were complaining we were taking the risk without getting enough benefits.

  13. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:25 am
    "Unsound" said
    But atleast she's helping expose yet another fissure between western provinces for the eastern bastards(technicall term that does not apply to most easterners) to cynically exploit when they try to win back power in Ottawa.


    The BCLibs are mismanaging this soooooo badly, that it's almost a shoe in for the NDP. Mr. Mulchair will jump on that and the BC/Alberta relationship, oft rocky, will get much worse. Alison already has a dislike for Christy.

    Wonder if they'll sort it out in the jello ring?

  14. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:26 am
    "RUEZ" said
    Who cares what Christy Clark wants or says. By the time of final hearings, she won't be Premier. Hammered yet another nail into the BC Liberal coffin.
    Once again she sat on the fence far too long, and came up with a stance of a money-sucking whore.

    That money sucking whore just shut down whiners that were complaining we were taking the risk without getting enough benefits.

    Buddy, that's only if they pony up with the bucks. Redford didn't show too much interest in that.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net