And what I find interesting is this new love for China. Seems to me the last 50 or so years we’ve had not such a bad relationship with the Americans. We have this long undefended border, access to their courts, and like it or not, been protected by their military when Russia wasn’t playing so nice.

Now, we want to divert oil from the US to China – making the US weaker, and China stronger. Just a theoretical question, but who would you rather have the big stick in the world, US or China.

“The simple answer is that Enbridge and the companies that they represent don’t want to let you know that if the pipeline is built, the various companies will be able to get about $8.00 dollars a barrel more for the oil that they sell in the Orient. Simple math would then show that the price of crude will rise in Canada because of that and you may also guess who will pick up that extra cost at the pumps.”

Lame argument Ben. Are you trying to tell us that the price of gas won’t go up if the pipeline isn’t buiit?

And if the pipeline is built, how do you prove that a rise of gas at the cost of the pump is directly tied to the pipeline? Answer: you can’t. BS indeed.

“It’s the old saying, “BS baffles brains”, and if you tell the public something often enough perhaps they will begin to believe it.”

Good quote. Just remember that it works both ways, especially with the editorial slant of this site (and the media in general) towards the pipeline.

“How do you prove that a rise of gas at the cost of the pump is directly tied to the pipeline?”

Answer: It’s called economics. It’s a discipline of a thing called ‘science’. Maybe you’ve heard of it?

Since when is opening an office in a community you hope to do business in BS??? Why don’t we ask Canfor, Spectra, Husky, FMC, Chemtrade and everybody else to close their offices and fire everyone because its “BS”??? Seriously, the anti-Enbridgies need to identify what exactly their problem is instead of flapping around over every little thing saying the sky is falling. How much did Sea to Sands pay to have this little piece of “BS” written???

“And what I find interesting is this new love for China.”

It’s not China they love, it’s money and there’s nothing new about it.

And Gamblor, the companies you name all process goods right here in BC/PG, whereas Enbridge does not make anything except pipelines for the sole purpose of taking a production good and shipping it through our province, with next to no pay-off for BC, so off-shore interests can pad their own and Enbridge’s wallet. Do you not see a major difference?

Ski50 … you do understand, of course, that teh USA does not seem to want oil distilled from the Bitumen sands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/america_doesnt_need_more_of_ca.html

Google the USA’s interest in “tar” sands oil and you might be enlightened a bit. Europe is the same. China is the only willing customer.

Sea to Sands is puny compared to the USA environmental interests. A very parochial view. Broaden you horizon a bit and you might learn what makes the world tick a bit better.

Harper has permitted Communist China, to buy up the tar sands. China is bringing their own people to work their projects, right down to Chinese cooks. China is also bringing swarms over, to build the Enbridge pipeline. Those are Harper’s words. Neither the Enbridge pipeline, nor the dirty tar tankers, benefits the BC citizens nor the F.N. people, what-so-ever.

The price at the gas pumps, is simply price gouging. This sneaky practice, we can always count on for, May long weekend is the first date in line, to start the gas gouging. Gasoline price gouging, gives us another hit, right in time for summer vacations.

Price gouging goes on, all over BC. Food costs up, heat, hydro, insurance, MSPBC up. Add the HST to the burden on the BC citizens. Thank heaven for the underground system, and bartering. I would have had to leave BC without it.

‘The simple answer is that Enbridge and the companies that they represent don’t want to let you know that if the pipeline is built, the various companies will be able to get about $8.00 dollars a barrel more for the oil that they sell in the Orient. Simple math would then show that the price of crude will rise in Canada because of that and you may also guess who will pick up that extra cost at the pumps’

That’s ridiculous. The whole economic system is about selling your valuable commodities and value-added products at the highest price the market will bear. Higher revenues mean more economic activity, greater tax base and greater wealth creation all around. To say that you should give away your product in order to keep prices low is dog-logic economics, and plain stupid.

curmudgeon: “”How do you prove that a rise of gas at the cost of the pump is directly tied to the pipeline?”

Answer: It’s called economics. It’s a discipline of a thing called ‘science’. Maybe you’ve heard of it?”

Nice job of skirting the question entirely. Your answer says nothing.

If you want to actually talk about economics, gas prices rise to the price that the market will bear, not whether a pipeline is built or not.

“gas prices rise to the price that the market will bear”

There is one caveat … if it is a “free market”

So say the people on the other side of the Pacific will pay 10% more. How much of that is taken up by transporting it to them? Do you know? I know I do not. How sensitive is the business of transporting oil to the changing price of oil?

What happens if the price of oil in general actually drops due to new discoveries and cheaper methods to access the oil we know is there but is expensive to access? What happens if the USA gets a Republican President and Arctic preserves in Alaska are opened up to oil extraction?

curmudgeonscurse said, “It’s called economics. It’s a discipline of a thing called ‘science’. Maybe you’ve heard of it?”

Economics is not science. It is based on a set of assumptions that attempt to use logic for their explanation of what will occur. But it is neither logic,like mathematics, nor science that depends on experimentation for its proof.

This is how economics works. Everything from shoulders to my head and beyond is up. So when I stand on my head the floor is up.

Actually Canada is getting ripped off selling oil to the US because they are our biggest market and they command the price. Just like Whalmart being so huge they tell the suppliers what they will pay. Selling to the Chinese opens up competition and Canada will now be able to command a better price.

shaida talk about price gouging what about the carbon tax based on a shady science, or is that C02 tax, seems to be confusion there.

Fossil fuels, there is no reasonable alternative on the horizon and even if there was, a transition would not happen over nite by any means. So fossil fuels as an energy source which have given you your prosparity and quality of life will be around for a long time yet.

gus: There is one caveat … if it is a “free market”

It is a free market. You are free to buy as little or as much gas as you need. If you find the price too high, you use less (in theory).

Ben the biggest ripoff presented by Enbridge is the use of BC natural gas for creating the oil from bitumen. BC could get $15/mmbtu for its natural gas if sold in Asia. That is more than 5 times what we are selling it to Alberta for at the moment. So we subsidize oil production in Alberta, and then let them build a pipeline across BC for little benefit and huge risk? What kind of voodoo economics is this? All this effort for an extra $8 bucks a barrel. It will take the NDP to set this mess right. When Liberals and Conservatives can’t see past Chinese “interest” (aka bribe) money, it is time for a change.

Actually Johnny Belt, a ‘free market’ you refer to is also known as perfect competition, a theoretical market structure that features no barriers to entry, an unlimited number of producers and consumers, no government manipulations, and a perfectly elastic demand curve.

What we have here is actually an oliogopoly, a small number if firms hold the majority of supply.

The demand for oil is actually highly inelastic, meaning a change in price does not dramtically affect the demand. Just because gas gets more expensive does not mean you can buy less of it. Your car cannot switch to another fuel. Ships and aeroplanes cannot move from diesel oil and kerosene for their propulsion. Conversely if gas gets cheaper, we rarely increase our demand, still only buying what is required for our daily lives and businesses.

It’s very clear that the demand for oil continues to rise even though the price of oil also continues to rise. This is NOT a free market.

And then there’s the $1.59 billion direct subsidization of the oil sands by Albertan and Canadian governments. And that’s only the subsidization the shows up in the tax return. That doesn’t include things like the Premier’s trips to China as Enbridge’s mascot.

BTW: My answer says you need a better understanding of economics before you start running your mouth off

Here’s my take: when public relations offices open and a corporation has to spend millions upon millions in advertising at movie theatres, internet sites, radio and television, to tell me something is good for me, chances are it isn’t as good for me as it is for them. Propaganda is insulting to me and many other citizens.

That isn’t science or anything, that’s called intuition. Liars and con artists usually invest a lot of time into convincing ppl that everything is all good too.

I find it quite telling that Enbridge still hasn’t answered the question most British Columbians are posing which is “why do we see so little reward when we carry all the risk?”. Also telling is that our sad provincial government has yet to enter the debate in any meaningful capacity. When other entities with questionable ethics are silent, my internal alarm goes off even louder.

When there is a disaster, you will hear Enbridge CEO talk about taking full responsibility and sadly they will do what they always do and fight their accountability in court.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, I can only reasonably conclude that it is probably a duck.

Capt: “Here’s my take: when public relations offices open and a corporation has to spend millions upon millions in advertising at movie theatres, internet sites, radio and television, to tell me something is good for me, chances are it isn’t as good for me as it is for them.”

The other side is advertising too. Maybe you’re only seeing what you want to see?

curmudgeon: “BTW: My answer says you need a better understanding of economics before you start running your mouth off”

lol. That’s rich coming from someone who thinks economics is a discipline of science. Better quit while you’re behind.

“Here’s my take: when public relations offices open and a corporation has to spend millions upon millions in advertising at movie theatres, internet sites, radio and television, to tell me something is good for me, chances are it isn’t as good for me as it is for them. Propaganda is insulting to me and many other citizens.”

So its okay for Greenpiece, WWF, Sierra Cub and all those other unelected NGO’s to do the same.

Definition: Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Social science studies behaviour, just as physical science studies objects. All use the scientific method.

Also, to quote yourself “Nice job of skirting the question entirely. Your answer says nothing.”

JohnnyBelt:”Lame argument Ben. Are you trying to tell us that the price of gas won’t go up if the pipeline isn’t buiit?

Take off you tin foil hat,JB!

The way I see this whole pipe line by Enbridge is like this. Alberta has the oil and China wants the oil. Enbridge is the carrier from Alberta through BC to the coast then onto China we go. So who takes the risk?
Well BC takes the risk. Who stems to gain big time? Well Alberta, Enbridge and China. What is the risk to BC? Well a possible breakage in the pipe line, a shipping incident on the coast. What makes this even more critical is that the last time I read – 4/5 of world’s fresh water is in Canada and the majority of that is in BC – Think about it folks, think about political leaders, do you think it is a good idea to run oil pipe lines through our water sheds?
A major spill could really hurt our water supply! There is too much risk and very little gain for the citizens of BC – You can’t drink oil! There is got to be a better way to harvest the tar sands!

“Selling to the Chinese opens up competition and Canada will now be able to command a better price.”

The USA does not want the oil from the sands. They might buy it in an emergency just as wwe buy electricity from Albera generated by coal. But we really prefer hydroelectricity.

We are no opening up the market. We are simply making it available to a country that does not care and is willing to buy.

A mere change in political position and China may no longer want it either. Look at what happened to the coal deal from Tumbler Ridge.

Things change. There is a risk. BC is caught in the middle of that risk. Especially when transport become expensive and someone needs to cut costs … no maintenance … just like the city roads, etc.

I havent seen or heard anything about selling this oil to China, other than a few statements in the press.

Who decides where this oil is sold? Certainly not the Federal or Provincial Governments, because they do not own the oil. They just receive royalties on the oil that is extracted, and control the enviormental impact portion of the oil sands.

Where the oil is sold will be a decision made by the oil companies who own the oil. Once it gets to a seaport, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Vancouver, etc; they will sell it wherever the hell they please, or they might just sell it to the US via the Keystone Pipeline.

So lets quit the BS about Harper selling this oil to China. The only oil that Harper owns is the litre he has in the trunk of his car, and that goes for the rest of us.

About $11.7 billion of investments in oilsands production between 2007 and 2011 were coming from China, making up about 16% of the total investments of $73.6 billion in that time period.

So you can see that China does not in fact have as much money invested in the oil sands as some would have you beleive. Between China, and other foreign companies, approx 90% or more of the oilsands are owned by other than Canadian companies.

So while we may THINK that we own this oil, in fact we dont. We have basically sold it off to private companies, much like the forest industry. All we collect is royalties.

So again, what makes you think that this oil will go the China???? If there was a shortage of oil do you really beleive that these foreign companies (mostly American) would sell their oil to China, and allow the US economy to tank?? I hardly thing so.

The concept of selling this oil to China, is nothing more than a pig in a poke. The oil will go via ship primarily to California, because that is where the diesel and gas is needed. (30 Million vehicles), and that is where there are numerous refineries.

Its easier to sell the concept of a pipeline to the coast, if the final destination is China, and the alluding to a second market for this oil. Its a much harder sell if you were to state that it was going to California.

Some comments in the press alluded to the oil going to California, but it was very low profile.

Seamutt: “So its okay for Greenpiece, WWF, Sierra Cub and all those other unelected NGO’s to do the same.”

Pretty much. At least if you ask the mob around here. Don’t forget First Nations. Their ads are on heavy rotation on he radio right now.

PG: “Take off you tin foil hat,JB!”

What are you talking about?

Curmudgeon: “Also, to quote yourself “Nice job of skirting the question entirely. Your answer says nothing.”

Now you’re just repeating what I’m saying? Lame. Come up with some of your own thoughts, kid. It’s not that hard.

You know what they say…”If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance! Baffle them with BS!!!

Rumour has it that Enbridge has leased the Integris space at Parkwood for an office. The problem is that this is C2 zoning and only allows 280m2 of office space. They’ve leased almost double this and intend to use it for their office…

Does anyone want to complain to the City and shut them down?

Rumour has it that Enbridge has leased the Integris space at Parkwood for an office. The problem is that this is C2 zoning and only allows 280m2 of office space. They’ve leased almost double this and intend to use it for their office…

Does anyone want to complain to the City and shut them down?

Palopu:”Between China, and other foreign companies, approx 90% or more of the oilsands are owned by other than Canadian companies.”

I was about to make the same point! Those nice patriotic comments like “Selling to the Chinese opens up competition and Canada will now be able to command a better price” are misdirected. If Canadian companies would own the oilsands it would hold some truth, but it’s virtually all foreign owned.

It’s not too far out to assume that a lot of the exported refined fuels would power cars in China. China is expectewd to put about 150-200 million additional vehicles on China’s highways by 2025 – the gasoline and diesel to power them will have to come from somewhere – Canada included.

An earlier story here related how a Chinese pipeline contsruction giant is more than likely going to bid on the pipeline construction job having made some preliminary moves already. It may also bring an all the Chinese experienced labour force to do the whole job. Enbridge has no obligation to Canada as far as the awarding of the contract goes, if it goes ahead.

The mob? What’s next? Public lashings for daring to voice a different opinion?

Hey Icicle – regarding the rumour that Enbridge leased double then allowed…not a problem…wasn’t that the same place that Ms. Green rented for her campaign office last fall?

Feeble mediocre minds vigorously try to protect and exploit what they have. The great minds spend their energy innovating and creating new ways to do things in the face of adversity.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion guys and gals. I personally have not had my Facebook or email display any anti-Enbridge advertisements nor did I see them at the theatre.

I’m taking my stance on what is proven. Enbridge has had hundreds of spills in the last decade and a bit. They had a few in the last month if I’m not mistaken. For myself personally, i don’t believe the rewards even come close to justifying the risk from a company that appears to have a pretty poor track record in this kind of business. I don’t have the burning desire to defend my opinion to the peanut gallery on opinion250. Enbridge doesn’t know me or owe me anything. I am not a shareholder. By the vociferous activity of dissenting people’s opinions on here, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of you have hitched your wagons to Enbridge. But I’m also not foolish enough to believe that when they mess up like their record shows they do continually, they will do everything to make it up to me.

JohnnyBelt, I’m just trying to get you to re-read your own statements and see the same ill-informed armchair philosophy that I see.

None of the arguments in support of this project hold water. This project will result in a net loss to BC, economically, socially and environmentally.

The Enbridge pipeline is just one of many problems facing BC residents at this time.

I have no idea how people are expected to keep pace of all the different projects that are proposed, or indicated. The various levels of Government, and the private sector will bowl us over by the magnitude of whats taking place.

Who stands up for citizens of BC. Who represents us in the Legislature, or the House of Commons, or at City Hall. The short answer is **No One**. We are as usual being manipulated.

Some of the issues that have all ready taken place with little or no input from those who have to pay for them.

1. Sale of BC Rail
2. 2010 Olympics
3. Sea to Sky Highway
4. BC Transit, Port Mann Bridge,GM Place Roof.
5. 2015 Winter Games

Some projects pending or sitting idle waiting for the right moment to make their move.

1. Enbridge Pipeline.
2. Liquid Natural Gas plants in Kitimat, and Prince Rupert BC.
3. BC Transmission line up highway 37
4. Various mines located in North Western BC dependent on power from Highwy 37 transmission lines.
5. BC Hydro’s plan to go forward with Site C
6. Rio Tinto Alcan reviving Kemano Two tunnel. Will this lead to the production of more power, and less water in the Nechako??

No doubt I have missed some things, however you get my drift. Individuals cannot keep abreast of everything that is taking place, and have to rely on our elected politicians to mind the store. Problem is, they are not minding the store. In fact they are helping the vested interest groups empty the store.

People very soon will have to stand up and be counted on these issues, and they had better be prepared to discuss them in a sane manner. If our elected officials do not get on board, and take some responsibility for whats going on, then we have an obligation to get rid of them.

Its time to move beyond bitching and bellyaching, and get involved, and get things done.

The winds of change begin when dialogue is encouraged on sites as Opinion 250 – Special thanks to Ben Meisner for providing this avenue. In this day and age it is becoming increasingly difficult to find men and women of integrity. It’s because good people don’t make our leaders accountable.

curm: “JohnnyBelt, I’m just trying to get you to re-read your own statements and see the same ill-informed armchair philosophy that I see.”

“None of the arguments in support of this project hold water. This project will result in a net loss to BC, economically, socially and environmentally.”

All I see from you is the same tired old eco-rhetoric, post after post. Your last paragraph above is a fine example.

Palopu, you can not be serious when you say China has no connection to Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Surely we all know that China (Petro China) paid Enbridge $100 million to get Northern Gateway Pipeline approved. Our former mayor works for Northern Gateway Pipeline and not Enbridge… ie he works for the Chinese money.

Cheetos and Captain America might want to rethink their scenarios. Northern Gateway is not Enbridge. They are completely separate corporate entities with completely separate shareholders, stakeholders, and corporate missions. Enbridge gets paid well to get the pipeline approved, but at the end of the day it is owned, operated, and controlled by Northern Gateway.

Petro China and Enbridge want to be able to walk away from any spill. Enbridge has $500 million in insurance to cover the entire company and all its risk. Valdez light crude was a $20 billion dollar spill that was never fully cleaned up. So what does Northern Gateway carry for insurance?

Northern Gateway as a stand alone corporate entity will have to have its own insurance policy. We all know they could never afford the full cost of insuring worst case scenario or the pipeline would never go ahead if they had to. The working assumption is that BC will publicly insure the worst case scenario through our duty to fix the wrongs after Gateway closes up shop.

When the big oil spill happens Northern Gateway Pipeline is a throw away corporate entity with limited liability. Enbridge will have none of their own money into Gateway, so the cost of a spill is nothing. Petro China the real financier behind corporate entity Northern Gateway Pipeline has what they put into the project at risk and nothing more. So when the big one happens and Enbridge, Petro China, and their partners all walk away from corporate entity called Northern Gateway Pipelines, then the question becomes is this entity that will carry the responsibility for the risk of the project capable of funding a proper cleanup and that comes down to what kind of insurance they have.

Some want to say its all about market forces, but then if so, then why the need for a limited liability corporation that is only two point five percent insured.

So we have a throw away corporate entity funded by a foreign power that is only 2.5% insured for the full risk, the rest of the 97.5% risk being borne by the province of BC… all so that Alberta can pay .30cents on the dollar for BC natural gas and inflate the cost of our own domestic oil and fuel by as much as 20%.

Only a foreigner like Johnny that doesn’t vote would be so partisan for such a bad deal IMO.

When the Republicans get in, then watch the pipeline south get built. They have about 800 million in their war chest, Obama only a fraction of that. Just saying don’t flame me.

So if we stopped shipping raw wheat to the rest of the world, we would all have cheap bread? Same logic with percieved oil inflation. If we stop exports we will have cheap gas?

This topic brings out some very naive comments sold as solid “economics”. Ben’s in particular.

dow7500:-“So if we stopped shipping raw wheat to the rest of the world, we would all have cheap bread? Same logic with percieved oil inflation. If we stop exports we will have cheap gas?”
——————————————-
No, because while the upper limit of price is “what the market will bear”, and, theoretically at least, is infinite, the lower limit of price is always ‘financial’ COSTS.

Once those costs can’t be recovered in price, production stops. Either because the producer realises he’s not getting anything out of continuing to produce, or he doesn’t realise that, and continues until he goes bankrupt.

Now keeping that in mind, if we applied the logic the way dow7500 wants us to see it to some other things, only in reverse, what might we expect to see?

If we had 100% full employment, with everyone that could work employed and busily working to the full capacity that all the modern methods of production we currently possess would enable, would the price of all that we were making come down to the point where we could buy 100% of it, or whatever alternate products we exchanged it for in international trade, and FULLY PAY FOR IT FROM THE ‘INCOMES’ WE EARNED IN THE COURSE OF MAKING IT?

And if we couldn’t, (and we currently can’t ~ but don’t take my word for it, try to think it through for yourselves), then just how could it be bought? Unrepayable debt, perhaps?

dow7500: “So if we stopped shipping raw wheat to the rest of the world, we would all have cheap bread? Same logic with percieved oil inflation. If we stop exports we will have cheap gas?”
——————————————-
Socredible: “No, because while the upper limit of price is “what the market will bear”, and, theoretically at least, is infinite, the lower limit of price is always ‘financial’ COSTS. “

At least a couple of people get it. Talk about ‘economics’ is a red herring. And a bad one.

The US and China now need each other. The US owes so much money to China they have to keep good relations..and if the US stops buying from China they are sunk.

As for the Oil.. its easy to track any increases/decreases..its called a graph.. for all interested parties why not start a graph and then see how much it rises as we ship more and more un refined crude out of our country once the pipeline is completed… the price will go up.. how can it not..

We have seen it here in our electricity.. Rio Tinto ( formally Alcan) has such a sweet deal with BC hydro they actually make more money selling the power into the grid than making Aluminum..yet they get tax breaks like crazy… anyone seen a increase in Hydro lately ???

Socredible wrote:

“Now keeping that in mind, if we applied the logic the way dow7500 wants us to see it to some other things, only in reverse, what might we expect to see? “

I don’t really care about how the brainwashed see my logic. But the idea that limiting exports to artificially keep prices low reeks of soviet central planning. Producers, wether it be oil, grain, copper, will not continue if there are restrictions on maximizing prices realative to world prices, as many posters seems to think is Sound government policy. “Its our oil, why can’t we have kuwait like gas prices”.

Socredible, I have taken more than my share of economics courses through my education. I have also worked on the “real” side of the markets. Academic and theoretical economic terms may make for impressive wordsmanship, but the market realities tend to be much simpler. I’ve learned that the hard way. The old saying goes, ” economists are the only profession called experts, and they’ve never been right.”

I think Johnny got beat up a lot when he was a kid.

What’s the matter acrider, you can’t deal with someone who has a different opinion than yours? No sympathy here.