Being against the northern gateway pipeline is not hypocrisy. To paint it as such is just rhetoric. Actual hypocrisy is expecting others to take all the risk for your own benefit.

Not according to Redford, but according to the law of Canada. Do you disagree with this?

I don't know enough about the economics to be able to comment in an informed fashion but, from what I understand, the resource goes south at the moment and the US pays X for it. If it was able to go to other markets, the producers would obtain X+ for it. The additional price would mean additional revenues for Alberta and additional revenues for Canada.

It would appear that the argument you have made above is that BC should only approve the pipeline if BC benefits from it. While, on one level, I agree, what about the benefit to Canada? I am confident that there are workers employed in Alberta that reside in BC, will spend their money in BC, etc.

As I said, I have no involvement with the oil and gas industry at all, so no dog in this fight. I get the environmental argument; sort of. I accept there is a risk but I genuinely have no idea how big a risk it actually is. I am curious to understand how those in BC (that oppose the pipeline) expect to have access to petrol for their vehicles without incurring any form of risk during transportation. Maybe they believe it simply magically appears at their local station but, if they are not that stupid, what about the risk of transporting it so they can access it?


The money involved with building it, operating it and the port, servicing it.

Does the pipeline start at the Alberta/BC border or do some in BC acknowledge that the pipeline will pass through Alberta too?

Since when does "anti-oil" mean "against the northern gateway pipeline" ? Some comments were made in the thread to the effect that oil is a polluting energy source and that the country should focus on renewables instead of oil. As AC pointed out, those who make those charges are often the ones to hop on an aircraft propelled by the very substance they deplore. To me that is hypocritical.

The question is, why does BC need to be compensated for the pollution risk? If the pipeline were to leak, clearly there is a strong case for compensation; indeed the Province could demand guarantees from Canada that any incident is adequately compensated. But to ask for risk compensation in advance is a kind extortion is it not?

Since when did "anti-oilsands exploitation" mean "anti-oil"?

I really can't remember on how many threads on BE I've raised the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested, but please research the numbers before posting again on the subject.

No. It is just that you were suggesting that BC should just accept the pipeline because, well, we are all Canadians after all. I am quite content recognize that Alberta's land and what is in it belongs to Alberta, and BC's land belongs to BC.

As I understand it the whole project was originally intended to force the US's hand to approve the Keystone XL pipe line. I believe this will be approved when it is politically expedient in the US. However, the Northern Gateway will be one fallback option. As will be pipelines in other directions.

I believe the US gets a "deal" on Albertan oil but I really don't know if selling at world market prices would mean more or less cash to Alberta once infrastructure and transport costs are taken into account.

That is basically my argument. The vast majority of the pipeline, including the more remote bits, would be in BC. The terminal would be in BC, the oil tankers would be sailing up and down a treacherous and currently pristine coast in BC. When there is a crash/leak/spill BC will pay the price. I am more than happy if the rest of Canada gets some benefit too. But BC has to get a benefit commensurate with the risk it is exposed to. The few jobs manning the terminal once the pipeline is complete are nowhere near what is needed.

Me neither, but it is still there. I am certain that it is not a matter of if, but when and how big.

We accept the risk of transporting gasoline around the province because we need gasoline. There is a risk, and a reward.

We don't need Alberta oil. And, there are negligible rewards.

If the energy return is greater than the energy investment (which was the case in your example of 1:0.6) then there really is nothing to research. The economics of it are then governed by the oil price.

Good. Now have a look at alternatives (including other sources of oil),

So you are saying that you can't advocate for a focus on renewable energy and get on an aircraft without being a hypocrite? That's a bit too black and white for me. I think that in reality, most peoples views are a bit more nuanced than that simplistic characterization you are making implies.

a) Cleanup costs could be massive. I note than Enbridge will only be a limited partner in the venture which speaks deeply of their assessment of the risk and cost. You also assume the feds will happily stump up all the money that is needed. I assume they will stump up enough to make it look like they are doing something when the story is in the national news.

b) It is a normal commercial transaction. Some tax work involves more risk than others. The more likely my errors and omissions insurance will be needed, the more I charge. If I have any doubts about the client’s willingness or ability to pay an appropriate fee I ask for a retainer up front.

If it'll affect the fishing then I'm against it.

Well now you mention it, it will decimate fishing the world over. I think.

Err, what was "it" again?

This pipeline business.

Ah yes. For a minute there I thought it was climate change.

But fish and pipelines don't mix well at all. No access.