Shard

From using petroleum products ?

ExKiwilass

those pesky scientists and climate change. killjoys If everyone could just ignore the evidence and let Alberta do whatever it wants, they'd all be rich and happy. Yay!

Novocastrian

I haven't been following this thread, but I thought I should point out that that first Green Party MLA is an excellent (pesky) climate scientist, one Andrew Weaver, who's a mate of mine.

Well done.

jimf

Bitumen is just the term for naturally occuring highly viscous petroleum. To be able to pump it the bitumen either has to be diluted or upgraded to synthetic oil. I don't know which one of these the pipeline would carry.

Tar is nothing to do with bitumen but the word is sometimes used for pejorative impact.

JonboyE

The risk can be minimized but it cannot be eliminated. The flip side of risk is reward, except BC isn't getting any.

At least with LNG the gas is mined in BC so we get the jobs and royalties that go with it. And, when there is a leak the pollution goes up and is disbursed.

Almost Canadian

Does it not benefit from the tax paid to the Federal Government?

Could it not benefit from charging those that wish to use the pipeline for the amount of the product flowing through the pipeline?

JonboyE

I don't believe there is any direct link between federal government revenue and transfer payments.

Novocastrian

Bitumen/tar/asphalt and pitch are all synonyms. Choose your poison.

Almost Canadian

I didn't state that there was but one would assume that, as good as you are with figures, you would understand that, if the Feds didn't receive the amount they require to do the things they wished to, taxes would have to go up in order to pay for them.

I would think that, if Canadians can obtain a higher price for their product by selling it to those that wish to pay a premium for it, it would be silly not to do so which would, again, increase the amount of tax paid to the Feds that, one assumes, would benefit all Canadians; or does that kind of logic only apply to lumber?

I thought Canadians were Canadians, not BCers, or Albertans, etc.

I have no particular dog in this fight but I really do hope that the pipeline wends its way east. That way, those in BC can pat themselves on the back for sending the work (and the money that goes with it) east.

Shard

I think you're paraphrasing me on risk there.

Does BC get absolutely nothing from the pipeline?

In any case, to the extent that we do still have a petroleum based economy, it makes no sense to object to infrastructure.

Almost Canadian

Wasn't he the expert that stated that burning all of the energy contained within the reserves in the oilsands would have a minimal effect on warming, particularly if only the commercial viable element was extracted?

Novocastrian

Sorry Jon, but that's an accountant speaking. You mean dispersed.

Shard

Novocastrian

Right guy, wrong memory. What he did (and I criticized him both on here and personally at the time) was to compare the effect of burning all the Alberta oil sand resources with all the coal on the planet and concluded, bizarrely, that this would not be misinterpreted. Silly boy.

Edit: I said he's an excellent climate scientist not an excellent politician but at least he's had the balls to give it a go.

Almost Canadian

Genuine question: Has there been any long term effect from an oilspill anywhere in the world? i.e., an ecological system that was unable to recover. I understand that seagulls covered in oil doesn't look great.