CanPol: *****-umen Showdown

[Wezil]

The oil will get out regardless. How and at what price is what is problematic to Albertans.

[Asher]

Are you really arguing tanker spills are a thing of the past? Really?

Can I add that to the 0% enviro damage claim?

Tanker spills are always possible, but they're very, very unlikely given the overkill regulations.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think I'd be terribly fussed about this in any case, but crop yields are already declining from the screwy weather here on the Eastern Shore. I'm not going to fret over lost opportunities to transfer yet more carbon into the atmosphere.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ns-spotty-rain

You think that's because of global warming?

Furthermore, the oil is going to get used anyway. Do you plan to stop driving cars while you're at it?

[Asher]

Another option is using (diesel) trains to ship the oil to the coast.

BC can't really stop that, as it requires no new building permits.

That would be pretty amusing for various reasons.

[Wezil]

Tanker spills are always possible, but they're very, very unlikely given the overkill regulations.

And BC has decided the payoff isn't worth the risk.

[Wezil]

Another option is using (diesel) trains to ship the oil to the coast.

BC can't really stop that, as it requires no new building permits.

That would be pretty amusing for various reasons.

What's wrong with the NW US route?

[Elok]

You think that's because of global warming?

Furthermore, the oil is going to get used anyway. Do you plan to stop driving cars while you're at it?

The weather is going crazy. We had a temp of 108 in the shade one day in June. I can't recall it ever getting that hot before around here, even in July/August in the open. Scientists claim there's a reason for increasing incidents of screwy weather. I am in no position to verify their specific claims, but I can't imagine why anyone would make this stuff up, and they did predict something like this would be happening. The heat (and drought) are killing crops.

I can't stop driving--nobody can, outside of large cities. And individual action is basically pointless. I imagine we'll need a large gas tax at the very least, to change consumption patterns, along with a plethora of other actions. The gas tax will totally screw me over, of course, but between that and massive famines I'll take the damn tax.

[Kontiki]

What's wrong with the NW US route?

I don't want to weigh in on the debate, but bypassing BC altogether would require building a pipline through a large chunk of Alberta (the oilsands are mainly in the northern part of the province), and then through Montana, Idaho and then Washington state. It's closer and easier to run through northern BC.

[Wezil]

I don't want to weigh in on the debate, but bypassing BC altogether would require building a pipline through a large chunk of Alberta (the oilsands are mainly in the northern part of the province), and then through Montana, Idaho and then Washington state. It's closer and easier to run through northern BC.

That was the reason I was thinking. More distance = higher build costs.

Is it such a greater cost that it becomes economically infeasible?

[Wezil]

Before this turns into a climate change debate I'd like to point out the injustice of having Asher's clever thread title censored.

[Asher]

And BC has decided the payoff isn't worth the risk.

No, BC has decided to try to milk more money out of Alberta.

Alberta lets uranium travel by rail without asking other provinces for tolls...

[Asher]

That was the reason I was thinking. More distance = higher build costs.

Is it such a greater cost that it becomes economically infeasible?

It almost certainly would be more economical (and far less dangerous, precedent-wise) to run it through the NW US than it is to give another province a share of royalties which are constitutionally the right of the province they come from.

If Alberta gives BC a share, then what? Next thing you know every province/state that has a pipeline will ask for the same thing. Then there's no ****ing point to extracting it in the first place if you have to give billions of dollars a year to other jurisdictions so they don't have to do anything.

BC is already getting something like $7B out of it, not to mention thousands of jobs and infrastructure investment. Enough is enough.

The fact that they refuse to publicly even say what's "fair" is another joke.

[Ben Kenobi]

In all likelihood it will be the easiest route. I don't know why it isn't the 1st option, perhaps Asher can provide that.

Logistically, shipping it by pipeline to Rupert is by far the least environmentally damaging option. It also opens up the development of BC's natural resources in the North and commits to economic development of a rather economically depressed area. Rerouting it south is exactly what the *******s in the south want. **** them. About damn time Northern BC got something.

[Ben Kenobi]

BC wants to hold Canada hostage unless you pay a toll to use their ports.

Goddamn. We never elected that ***** Christy Clark. She's ****ing radioactive up in the North. There's a reason they've gone from being the governing party for BC to third in the polls behind the BC Conservatives and the NDP.

[notyoueither]

0% environmental damage spin that you guys lap up so readily

Nice strawman. Can you point out where anybody has said there is zero environmental damage?