Where do the Candidates Stand on Pipelines?
Prince George, B.C. – It’s time to talk pipelines.
More specifically, in part seven of our special election coverage, we asked the candidates the following question: Where do you stand on oil or gas pipelines running through the north half of B.C.? (Answers in alphabetical order).
Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies:
Elizabeth Biggar, The Green Party: This is an easy one. NO MORE PIPELINES!
Right now we are shipping raw bitumen out of Canada on tankers bound for China.
Why not manufacture it here in Canada?
Keeping the bitumen in Alberta for upgrading and refining will produce far more jobs in Canada than pipelines and rapidly expanding bitumen production. And, of course, rapidly expanding oil sands production is completely incompatible with the required transition off fossil fuels. The Green Party is the only party opposing any and all current pipeline plans. We will oppose any and all pipeline proposals committed to shipping raw bitumen out of Canada. We must move to a national energy policy with a strong climate plan. We need to ensure that by 2100 Canada’s bitumen production is going to petrochemical products, not fuel. We need to recognise that as a resource it is both too valuable and too dangerous to burn.
Todd Keller, Libertarian Party: Pipelines are the safest method of delivering bulk Oil & Nat. Gas. Pipelines are our primary conduit for oil and gas sales to trading partners and in a resource based economy we need to create as many trading partners as possible. So, yes, build those pipelines…and build them in the most environmentally friendly means possible.
Matt Shaw, Liberal Party: Much of economics is about risk versus reward. In general, it’s clear that pipelines are statistically the best way to move oil. Right now, I don’t see that the rewards for a pipeline that exports raw bitumen to the coast and then ships it off are very good. The actual number of jobs the Northern Gateway project will create will not be significant for my riding, while the environmental risks may be considerable. If we, on the other hand, were able to refine the bitumen before exporting it, the risk versus reward ratio may change. Regarding gas pipelines: they are an important part of the economy in the North, and as long as gas resources are developed responsibly with the highest environmental standards in place, the rewards far outweigh the risks.
*Note Conservative incumbent Bob Zimmer and NDP challenger Kathi Dickie in the Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies riding declined the opportunity to respond.
Cariboo-Prince George:
Tracy Calogheros, Liberal Party: Pipelines are statistically the safest method to transport oil and gas, but accidents will happen. Canada is a resource-driven economy and the world is not going to suddenly stop using non-renewable resources. Nor would Canada’s economy survive if we decided to stop utilizing these resources tomorrow. Since we are going to, at least for the foreseeable future, continue to sell our resources, we need to charge enough for them to:
a. justify the risks we are taking
b. afford real safeguards to minimize and mitigate accidents
c. have response technologies and plans in place for the unforeseen
True consultation with First Nations and fact-based decision making based on real science is essential. I have no doubt that technology can be developed to safely transport these materials through the north; I do not know however, if the technology can be developed to extract the materials safely or to transport them safely offshore, at a cost that would permit a profit on the market. I do not believe that we have consensus on this issue, nor do I believe that anyone has sufficient science at hand to inform a consensus on the entire cycle, of which the pipelines are simply the conduits.
Sheldon Clare, Independent: The statistics are very clear – pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas by a large margin. In fact the biggest issue when it comes to pipelines is which company is building them. If a pipeline is to be built, I believe the contract should be awarded to the company with the best safety record.
The larger issue of LNG and the shipment of raw bitumen is more complex.
In considering the global market, BC is not nearly the LNG player it touts itself as. Many other countries have already developed LNG shipment capabilities, and they are already flooding the market in East Asia. It is likely too late for BC to get any meaningful part of these profits, especially considering the risk to our environment.
In regards to shipping raw bitumen, the idea of shipping raw resources irks me. I understand that raw bitumen can be stored indefinitely, and refined oil has a limited shelf life. Why should we support another country’s economy with an unrefined product that started out under our feet?
The oil was extracted locally – it makes sense to refine it locally and keep those jobs within our borders.
Adam De Kroon, Christian Heritage Party: Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil and natural gas. I support Northern BC pipeline projects in general. In regard to environmental concerns, I believe it is entirely possible to develop natural resources with methods that keep our environment in good shape for future generations. For me a pipeline would need to take appropriate precautions to protect our environment. And an open dialogue with First Nations and local communities is also very important, we need to make sure their concerns are heard and addressed.
Trent Derrick, NDP: The NDP supports sustainable LNG development and export as part of a diversified and prosperous economy – it is common sense that each project needs to be looked at individually and in terms of cumulative impacts, and they need to be sustainable and done in partnership with First Nations. Regulating shale gas is primarily a provincial responsibility, but the federal government has a key role to play in LNG transport and exports, but also responding to potential environmental problems. The federal government has a role to ensure the best practices around LNG are in place.
BC’s future is linked to a healthy and diversified resource economy. We will take practical steps to grow a competitive and profitable LNG sector, but each and every LNG project needs to be thoroughly evaluated. British Columbia was built on its resource wealth and in many ways is leading Canada in the transition to a cleaner economy – we have a responsibility to ensure that we do all we can to support the development of clean energy options to reduce the environmental footprint of LNG development.
Todd Doherty, Conservative Party: Canada has a world-class pipeline safety system. Our Conservative Government is committed to strengthening Canada’s pipeline safety, and providing the National Energy Board, an arm’s length independent regulator, with the resources and tools it needs to ensure a pipeline system that is safe and secure.
We do not take positions on specific applications for energy infrastructure until an independent review is complete. The government relies on the independent National Energy Board to set the criteria for the review of projects and make recommendations based on science and facts. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been clear: projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
Richard Jacques, The Green Party: NO.. to any new pipelines running through the Cariboo corridor; encourage safety improvements to existing pipeline and rail infrastructure networks to mitigate any future industrial accidents or pollution.
Tomorrow’s question: What Services would you like to see offered (or improved) for veterans?
Comments
There is quite a difference between pipelines carrying LNG and those transporting diluted bitumen or crude oil when it comes to dealing with leaks and spills. Trent Derrick elaborated only on LNG pipelines and did not say what the NDP’s position is on oil/bitumen pipelines.
Interesting that no one ever seems to question whether refining the product here, ‘value-adding’ it, in other words, would pay out enough in additional incomes for us to consume the finished products by paying a price sufficient enough to cover the costs. Surely it must be evident that if we did this, even if we exported any surplus over and above our own needs, we would then have to import some alternative products from whomever we were ‘trading’ with, and then be able to consume those products here for such a process to make any sense. Could we do this? Remembering, of course, that if we were doing as the Green candidate suggests, that we used petroleum not as fuel but as a feedstock for plastics and other manufactures that ‘last’, and such things as these that we currently import would all be made here. How would we do this? No matter how far up the ‘value-added’ job creating chain you want to go there’s still never going to be enough money distributed in incomes to cover the costs that have to be recovered in prices. Not the way the system works now. And yet from any of these people there’s no solutions offered on how to rectify that.
Interesting how Trent elaborated to some length on LNG Pipelines, but did not say a word about oil pipelines.
Either he failed to understand the question or he is skirting the issue. I suspect the latter.
I think Trent might be the only one who understood the question.
The question was: “Where do you stand on oil OR gas pipelines running through the north half of B.C.?”
The operative word is “or”, not “and”.
Socredible wrote: “….we would then have to import some alternative products from whomever we were ‘trading’ with….”
Why on earth would we have to have an equal trade with each individual country? That is not how the world accounting of trade balances works. It is not like going shopping at a store and having to pay that store for the product bought at the store.
The interesting thing is that these days “balance of payment” is the system used rather than “balance of trade” since these days a Boeing plane, as an example, is assembled in Seattle, but parts come from all over the world and it is the “ownership” of those parts which are taken into consideration. This especially affects countries such as China, Mexico, etc. where assembly plants are located.
statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/gblec02a-eng.htm
Oh come on, artisan! Please, do you really believe your own spin? He obviously forgot the most controversial kind of pipeline – the one that can cause the greatest environmental damage! I am sure he will correct his omission given an opportunity!
As far as the dil-bit pipeline goes, a more important question is where do they stand on oil tankers coming into Kitimat. To me that is the highest risk part of the transportation route from Alberta to the rest of the world.
The question was about pipelines, not about whether it carries a refined or unrefined product.
Again, these opportunities to respond to policy are very cursory and do not get at many of the real issues surrounding policies.
Reminds me of grade school quizzes.
Where is the spin? The answers from everyone are all over the place. I am nitpicking just as much as you are.
The quality of the answers often depends on the quality of the questions. Remember, these are not oral responses. They are written responses to questions that one can read and think about.
It is very much like setting a written examination, if the questions are not precise, one never knows how they are answered. Some people have very precise thinking processes, others are all over the place and make assumptions as to what was intended by the “interviewer”. There is no opportunity to clarify in such cases.
Just re-reading everyone’s response. The question is about pipelines. The question was not about exporting of oil or gas or how to use oil or gas.
So, everyone went further than the question actually went. As I mentioned, there are many issues surrounding the export of energy, pipelines are a very specific component of that whole topic.
There is actually no real way of assessing the answers because no one really knew where they were supposed to go with it. Sort of like asking what one thinks of the weather today and then trying to determine who had the best response to that question. There are no best responses.
I repeat what I said before, namely that Trent did not mention the bitumen/oil pipelines. All the others gave comprehensive answers. Trent will correct his omission as soon as he gets an opportunity. That’s it.
The question was also where do “YOU” stand on oil or gas pipe lines running thru the north half of BC.
Only these three candidates used the word “I”.
Tracy Calogheros, Sheldon Clare and Adam De Kroon.
The rest of them seem to be using cut and paste from there party’s speaking points.
If you can’t use your own voice talking to your riding how can we expect them to be a strong voice in Ottawa.
I stand corrected Matt Shaw also uses the word “I”
I keep seeing ads on this site for re-electing a Bob Zimmer.. Does anyone know who he is?
I think he a big Harry Potter fan . At first his pop up was annoying . But now it’s just funny . I hope 250 is charging them big for every pop up . He’s to be seen but not heard ,thankfully . He can be heard on you tube with the title . Watch 13 conservatives drone on like robots .
His talking points have been viewed almost 140k times .
Nobody wants pipelines, nobody wants leaky pipelines, but everyone drives a vehicle, everyone wants good paying jobs.
Sorry, but if you drive a vehicle your a hypocrite to say no to pipelines. If your making more than $15.00 / hr, like directly or indirectly your tied to the resource industry, thus your tied into oil. Your a hypocrite again saying no to oil.
Nobody wants leaky pipelines, but if you say no to new pipelines, than those old ones will leak, this is also the reason they build bigger pipelines thru the same corridor, to replace old ones.
use rail or truck, I wouldn’t trust CN to keep it on the rails. With these road conditions, Do you want to see all those tanker trucks.
We have a timeline. we have to sell all that oil in the tarsands in the next 85 years. Harper said we would not be selling oil by 2100. LOL
The Chinese have never heard of socredible and his educated principles of manufacturing and trading. They just keep doing what has lifted their country from being an impoverished mostly agrarian society to an industrial manufacturing and exporting giant super power, ranking number Two globally. And all that in three decades! This also lifted the living standard of the vast majority of the Chinese population and even created a growing middle class – whereas the Canadian middle class has been dwindling! Perhaps we should do more of what the Chinese are doing!
At the stand up for the north thought Trent was clear, no Enbridge pipeline and most likely wont see one as they cant even meet the 5 points the Libs have hung their hat on.
They might rank number two in the world, but that is only because of their population
When measured by the per capita production, they still have a considerable way to go.
Here are the per capita GDP rankings in the world in US$ in 2014 based on World Bank figures:
1 Norway 97,363.10
2 Macao SAR, China 96,037.70
3 Australia 61,887.00
4 Denmark 60,634.40
5 Sweden 58,887.30
6 Singapore 56,286.80
7 United States 54,629.50
8 Ireland 53,313.60
9 Iceland 52,111.00
10 Netherlands 51,590.00
11 Austria 51,127.10
12 Canada 50,271.10
13 Finland 49,541.30
14 Germany 47,627.40
15 Belgium 47,516.50
16 United Kingdom 45,603.30
17 United Arab Emirates 44,204.30
18 France 42,732.60
19 Brunei Darussalam 41,344.00
20 Hong Kong SAR, China 40,169.60
And then there is China in 71st place
71 China 7,593.90
Change your moniker again gus?
71 China 7,593.90
What was their ranking in 1985? 30 years ago.
34 Refineries shut down in Canada 1970-2013. Just sayin.
Prince George wrote:-“The Chinese have never heard of socredible and his educated principles of manufacturing and trading. They just keep doing what has lifted their country from being an impoverished mostly agrarian society to an industrial manufacturing and exporting giant super power, ranking number Two globally. And all that in three decades! This also lifted the living standard of the vast majority of the Chinese population and even created a growing middle class – whereas the Canadian middle class has been dwindling! Perhaps we should do more of what the Chinese are doing! ”
=========================================================================
You obviously haven’t heard of the Chinese ‘ghost cities’, have you Prince George? Those modern metropolitan areas with all the latest conveniences that no one can live in, because there’s not enough ‘money’ coming in to any Chinese city dweller to cover their costs. For people to be able to afford to live in just one of them, the Chinese would have to build, well, who knows how many more? But we’ll do more of that same type of thing if another Trudeau is visited upon us by a deluded electorate. We’ll spend mega-bucks building ‘infrastructure’. What will we be paying in tolls to drive on new roads? Or cross new bridges? Or for increased utility bills to continue to get a drink of water, or get rid of it later? Even with the kind of ‘command and control economy’ the Trudeaus of this world could only dream of emulating the Chinese still couldn’t afford to buy all their own production from the total incomes paid out in the course of making it.
Comments for this article are closed.