Justin Trudeau 'open' to $1-billion B.C. power line into Alberta....... WTF??

Summitric

SUPER COOL MOD & Supporting Vendor
Moderator
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
48,007
Reaction score
32,148
Location
Edmonton/Sherwood Park
Website
www.bumpertobumper.ca
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he’s open to the idea of supporting a new grid that would ship surplus B.C. electricity to Alberta to help that province reduce its reliance on coal.
Premier Christy Clark’s government has launched “exploratory” talks on a jointly funded project, estimated to cost close to $1 billion, with the Alberta and federal governments.
The objective would be to help BC Hydro improve the economics of the $8.8-billion Site C hydroelectric project, while helping Alberta reduce its dependence on coal and natural gas.
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s government, meanwhile, has expressed an interest in the notion as long as B.C. shows more support for an oilsands pipeline to carry diluted Alberta bitumen to the West Coast.
Trudeau, in an interview last week, said the federal government would take a close look at a funding proposal from Western Canada.
More on Alberta:


“I think anything we can work together interprovincially or nationally on (to get) emissions down, you know, emphasizing hydroelectricity, creating opportunities to get off coal, to get off natural gas, where possible, this is good for the country, it’s good for our emissions profile, it’s good for the economy we need to build,” he said.
“So I’m open to discussing proposals when they come forward, but so far we haven’t had any formal proposals.”
Some critics have scoffed at Clark’s pitch, with the B.C. NDP’s BC Hydro critic, Adrian Dix, portraying it as a desperate move to justify the enormous expense of the Site C project on the Peace River in northeastern B.C., which won’t be completed until 2024.
Some also question the economics of an expanded B.C.-to-Alberta transmission system.
Harry Swain, who was the chairman of the defunct federal-provincial panel that assessed the Site C proposal, cited in a Vancouver Sun opinion piece last week figures that indicated B.C. power would cost Alberta more than twice what it pays producing power with natural gas and its own renewable sources.
“The Alberta market is not for real,” writes the former senior federal bureaucrat, who is now an associate fellow at the University of Victoria’s Centre for Global Studies.
The Canadian Energy Research Institute, in a January study of options available to transmit electricity to power the oilsands sector, also said the B.C. option would be significantly more expensive than natural gas.
And the study questioned whether B.C. system will have the capacity to follow through.

 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #2

Summitric

SUPER COOL MOD & Supporting Vendor
Moderator
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
48,007
Reaction score
32,148
Location
Edmonton/Sherwood Park
Website
www.bumpertobumper.ca
AND YET, BC IS DOING THIS TO SQUASH ALBERTA CRUDE TO COASTAL WATERS? AGAIN, WTF?

The City of Vancouver said on Monday it had taken legal action against the Canadian energy regulator's approval of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which would increase the number of oil tankers passing through city waters.

In a statement posted on the city's website, Mayor Gregor Robertson called the review by the National Energy Board (NEB) "flawed and biased" and said that it ignored scientific evidence on the consequences of a major oil spill and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
The city has filed an application for judicial review in an effort to quash the NEB's decision last month to recommend the approval of Kinder Morgan plans to twin the existing pipeline that carries crude from Alberta to a port in Metro Vancouver.
The regulator said it found the C$6.8 billion ($5.31 billion) project, which would boost capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 bpd and the number of oil tankers in Vancouver waters nearly seven-fold, would not cause significant harm to the environment.
© REUTERS/Ben Nelms The entrance for the Kinder Morgan Tank Farm is pictured in Burnaby But critics, who say the project will hasten the development of Alberta's oil sands and worry about the impact of an oil spill on Canada's west coast, were quick to pledge action against the regulator's decision.
The Squamish First Nation, whose traditional territories include areas directly impacted by the pipeline and shipping routes, filed an application for judicial review late last week.
The NEB's recommendation must still be reviewed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet, with a final decision expected in December.
($1 = 1.2813 Canadian dollars)
(Reporting by Julie Gordon; Editing by Chris Reese and Alan Crosby)
 

Stompin Tom

Active VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
8,136
Location
BC
AND YET, BC IS DOING THIS TO SQUASH ALBERTA CRUDE TO COASTAL WATERS? AGAIN, WTF?

The City of Vancouver said on Monday it had taken legal action against the Canadian energy regulator's approval of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which would increase the number of oil tankers passing through city waters.

In a statement posted on the city's website, Mayor Gregor Robertson called the review by the National Energy Board (NEB) "flawed and biased" and said that it ignored scientific evidence on the consequences of a major oil spill and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
The city has filed an application for judicial review in an effort to quash the NEB's decision last month to recommend the approval of Kinder Morgan plans to twin the existing pipeline that carries crude from Alberta to a port in Metro Vancouver.
The regulator said it found the C$6.8 billion ($5.31 billion) project, which would boost capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 bpd and the number of oil tankers in Vancouver waters nearly seven-fold, would not cause significant harm to the environment.
© REUTERS/Ben Nelms The entrance for the Kinder Morgan Tank Farm is pictured in Burnaby But critics, who say the project will hasten the development of Alberta's oil sands and worry about the impact of an oil spill on Canada's west coast, were quick to pledge action against the regulator's decision.
The Squamish First Nation, whose traditional territories include areas directly impacted by the pipeline and shipping routes, filed an application for judicial review late last week.
The NEB's recommendation must still be reviewed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet, with a final decision expected in December.
($1 = 1.2813 Canadian dollars)
(Reporting by Julie Gordon; Editing by Chris Reese and Alan Crosby)
You are really comparing a very poorly designed pipeline with a powerline that could be used to replace coal fired power plants? Really? No problem, just say no to the power line. If there is no benefit to you, squash it.
 

pfi572

Active VIP Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
15,262
Location
Grande Prairie
You are really comparing a very poorly designed pipeline with a powerline that could be used to replace coal fired power plants? Really? No problem, just say no to the power line. If there is no benefit to you, squash it.

Same can be said the other direction? If petroleum products don't benefit you , they should all be cut off.
Very poorly designed pipeline? Improvements can always be made in someone's eyes.
Your smarter then that I would hope?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #6

Summitric

SUPER COOL MOD & Supporting Vendor
Moderator
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
48,007
Reaction score
32,148
Location
Edmonton/Sherwood Park
Website
www.bumpertobumper.ca
Ndp is shutting down the coal fired power plants... Even though most countries that have tried other alternatives are now going back to coal, because of the incredible research and excellent exhaust reburn etc for ultra clean coal fired plants... Alberta has one such plant and saskatchewan has one and converting another to clean. So, we really don't need bc power. Truedope will approve a billion $ power line, but won't approve pipelines to coastal waters for alberta! Pfffft
 

Stompin Tom

Active VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
8,136
Location
BC
Same can be said the other direction? If petroleum products don't benefit you , they should all be cut off.
Very poorly designed pipeline? Improvements can always be made in someone's eyes.
Your smarter then that I would hope?

well that takes the prize for one of the stupidest responses of the year.
 

Stompin Tom

Active VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
8,136
Location
BC
Go back and look at what you posted ?
That's my point .
So if your opposed to a power line you shouldnt have the benefit of electricity? Thats based on your logic that if your opposed to a pipeline you shouldnt have oil based products?

Just curious, do you think that Alberta is the only source of oil in the world?
 

CJR

Active VIP Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
392
Reaction score
1,047
Location
Red Deer
You are really comparing a very poorly designed pipeline with a powerline that could be used to replace coal fired power plants? Really? No problem, just say no to the power line. If there is no benefit to you, squash it.
Just curious why you say" Very poorly designed"?
 

Stompin Tom

Active VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
8,136
Location
BC
Go back and look at what you posted ?
That's my point .

You can argue this till your blue in the face, I am steadfast against the Enbridge project for so many reasons, no sense rehashing it here, there are literally thousands of posts on this site on the subject already. The astoundingly stupid arguement that if you dont support a ridiculous proposal for pipeline than you should not be allowed to use petroleum based products is so mind blowing dumb that I am not sure why I bother to reply, but alas I always get pulled in.
 

Got boost want snow

Active VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
2,386
Location
Alberta
Thinking Alberta should quit trying to ship raw product and refine and sell the finished product, being the rest of Canada is against pipelines. But never have they refused trànsfer payments from our dirty oil. Really tired of the hipocracy of the rest of the country!
 

Joholio

Active VIP Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
35,101
Reaction score
29,604
Location
Hespero/Sicamous
Just curious why you say" Very poorly designed"?

Yah are they using oval or square pipe? Lol

I drove right beside the Transmountain pipeline today for a couple hours and I'd bet 98% of the drivers on hwy1 dont even know its there. Close the friggin valve on that bitch from our end in Ab and watch the lower mainland squirm for a bit if they are so opposed to it. However, I'm sure the Americans will have no problem selling the Burnaby refinery their oil through their pipeline from Cherry Point though, so that might not work either, further damaging any profits to Canadian workers and companies.

Honestly though, it makes perfect sense to twin the pipeline because at some point the existing pipe WILL need integrity work, resulting in it being shut off.
 

CJR

Active VIP Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
392
Reaction score
1,047
Location
Red Deer
I got to work on the section running through Jasper and Mount Robson. I think reducing pressures and providing an alternative to a line constructed in 1953 is good idea. Only if they are using round pipe again!
 

Stompin Tom

Active VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
8,136
Location
BC
Just for clarification my comments and opposition are towards the Enbridge project, I have little to no information on the Transmountain pipeline therefor I am not for or against it.
 

Joholio

Active VIP Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
35,101
Reaction score
29,604
Location
Hespero/Sicamous
Just for clarification my comments and opposition are towards the Enbridge project, I have little to no information on the Transmountain pipeline therefor I am not for or against it.

Is it something to do with Enbridge? Theres plenty of pipelines of all sizes existing and being built all over up there that cross rivers, muskegs, mountain ranges, etc, what makes that one so bad in your opinion?
 
Top Bottom