Ironic that we are the 2nd major supplier to the US fuel market and yet we are privileged to pay more.

And our dollar at par with the US, we are paying $5.36 per imperial gallon. $4.46 per US gallon @ 118.0 p/l. The oil companies are only pulling in 11 billion quaterly, poor souls.

Better yet the gas is trucked from here and it costs us more?

I notice many other businesses have lowered prices due to the strength of the Canadian dollar. Not the oil companies.
And what do our useless politicians do ? They sell Petro Can. so any chance to lower prices via a "price war" is gone.
If you buy at Superstore or Canadian Tire you can get $.05 p/l coupons.

Also check the car wash purchases. I bought one at College Heights ESSO and noticed that it must be used within 30 days. Canadian Tire car wash purchased Dec. 19 is good until April 27.
Just another example of ESSO's treatment of customers.

Did Petro-Canada sell us gas at lower prices when it was government owned? Would it, in view of the move towards 'carbon taxes' if it were still government owned?

We signed away our rights to have lower 'made in Canada' energy prices when we entered NAFTA, and the price of gasoline is higher here than in the USA because of taxes. Somebody has to pay for our 'free' Medicare, and that's one of the ways we do under the current way 'our' governments keep their books.

Now here's a question for you. If the gasoline prices rise to the point where gas consumption actually does signifigantly fall, will Gordo's new 'carbon tax' still be 'revenue neutral'? Or will we be paying back what's been cut, ON TOP OF THE CARBON TAX?

This was the announcement from the provincial government on January 31, 2008:
“The BC Bioenergy Strategy lays the framework for us to convert more waste into clean energy, helping to ensure we meet future energy demands,” said Campbell. “There is an abundance of bioenergy opportunities, such as using biomass created out of the mountain pine beetle outbreak that can stimulate investment and economic diversification while producing clean energy.”

http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bioenergy/PDF/2008OTP0017-000129.pdf

On January 24, 2008, the BC Ministry of Environment issued an Invitation To Quote on the following Background Preparation Report:
Introduction and Background
The combustion of wood is carbon (greenhouse gas) neutral as long as the wood is sustainability harvested. Thus, there are obvious benefits to promoting use of this resource to generate energy. However, from an air contaminant point of view, wood combustion can lead to releases of significant amounts of particulate matter (especially PM10 and PM2.5). The most significant health risks to air quality posed by wood combustion are associated with the fine particulates, in particular “inhalable” particulates < 10 μm in diameter and “respirable” particulates < 2.5 μm in diameter.

Purpose and Task
The purpose of this contract is to investigate biomass combustion practices and produce a background report for government agency policy development. Supporting research will focus solely on sources with a rated capacity greater than 0.1 MW, (excluding residential units and wood fired hydronic heaters).

The contractor will review biomass combustion practices from feedstock preparation to emission discharge and prepare a report that:

• Compares air emission performance for various biomass combustion technologies (based on recent
stack sampling data and other relevant sources); feedstocks; and after treatment for various rated sizes or capacities (greater than 0.1 MW) and for a variety of applications (e.g. heating; power generation; cogeneration; greenhouse heating);

• Includes an assessment of information from other jurisdictions particularly information made available by the Ministry of Environment;

• Indicates the expected emissions from all biomass combustion / gasification systems and practices, in use, in demonstration or in R&D domestically and internationally, including consideration for various
feedstocks and exhaust gas after treatment options. For each, note the key characteristics which would
affect the decision to choose that option, including:
• Application
• Emissions reduction potential (the following pollutants should be taken into consideration: criteria air contaminants (CACs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and toxic air contaminants (notably dioxins, furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)).
• Capital expenditure;
• Cost recovery;
• Operating cost;
• Feedstock availability and reliability;
• Ancillary benefits (fuel savings, operational efficiencies, maintenance savings); and
• Lifecycle considerations on air or other environmental media - include discussion of any considerations unique to Canada or regions of Canada.

• Provides a comparison of air emissions from current biomass combustion and control technologies, with non-biomass technologies (such as natural gas and oil combustion).

• Indicates achievable emission levels for logical size categories (i.e. megawatts output) for biomass
combustion units.

• Includes, for comparative purposes, relevant currently used or business-as-usual non-biomass
technologies and best-available non-biomass technologies. For each, include the same key
characteristics noted above. For example, include expected emissions using best practices and
technologies using natural gas as a fuel for various applications.

By March 1, 2008, the contactor will produce a draft report for initial review by the Ministry. The report is to detail all sources of information investigated with enough information to easily track down the source (web link, report, individual contact person, etc.) and is to lay out the sources of information used to arrive at logical end conclusions. The contractor will produce one (1) final electronic (i.e. MS_WORD) and six (6) hardcopy reports in English by March 31, 2008.

------------------------------
It appears that on the one hand the political arm of government is announcing a move to Biomass use, calling it CLEAN ENERGY, while the administrative arm of government does not have the technical knowledge about what that would mean in practice, specifically with respect to CLEAN ENERGY from the point of view of human health.

The one side of government, not surprisingly, does not know what the other side is doing. And our health is at stake. And, of course, anyone who objects is painted as being NEGATIVE and OBSTRUCTIONIST.

sorry, posted in the wrong location

;-(

Isn't the difference in fuel price between Canada and USA at least partly explained by taxation levels on the fuel? Really, these taxes are 'carbon taxes' aren't they? Sure this new tax is proudly called a carbon tax but it's nothing new.

I have a bulk plant pass card and it's currently about 96c / litre. Anyone can get one, although I think the amount you save is based on how much you use, however there is nothing stopping you from asking your employer to manage the process so that everyone at work pools their buying power so greater savings are achieved.

That, or get rid of your V-8. Even you Andy! heh heh.

Gasoline is manufactured for profit and I have no issue with that.
Business needs to make a profit to survive.
To a point.
Factor in the taxes that the feds and the provincial government add in and that's where it starts to get stinky.
Now we will have a carbon tax here in B.C.thanks to Mr Campbell and company.
So perhaps when they are calling for prices as high as $1.40 plus per liter by this summer(not unreasonable),our elected officals could explain how it will be revenue neutral?
Some of these prices are justified,but much of it is a complete scam at the taxpayers expense.
And the government knows that.
These prices will be devastating to our economy, but nobody in Ottawa or Victoria seems to care about that.
To them the taxpayer is nothing more than a cash cow to be used and abused.
That part is called greed.
There is an old saying...God helps those that help themselves...but god help those who help themselves to too much!!!!

You can have my V8 4x4 when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!
(really,it spends much of it's life parked,65,000k on 2003 is a lot of park time!)
:-)

An empty wallet after filling up sure makes my wallet "revenue neutral". Leaving me with less money to spend elsewhere. That sure helps our economy. Am I missing something with this analogy? By the way, I sure would like to buy local bananas and lessen a carbon footprint. Know any growers near here?

I think you will see more and more that blanket income taxes will be replaced with these user pay type taxes.

I actually like user pay model better in that you can reduce usage to pay less taxes.

I disagree with them labeling it a 'Carbon Tax' though.

It's a tax. Plain and simple.

Labeling it 'Carbon Tax' just plays into the current media feeding frenzy surrounding Carbon.

In last week's Wester Producer, a farm paper out of Saskatoon, an article about biofuel, namely ethanol stated that it costs approx. $0.35/l to produce.

At that price it could not compete with the cost of producing gasoline from fossil fuel. So how much profit is being made by the oil companies??

Go figure!!!!

rvuser. 11 billion quarterly is their profit 44 billion per year. But they are not hosing us. Then pushed the pay at the pump so they make sure they don't lose any od their profit. Just a bunch of greedy *****'s

thats strange I live in Kamloops and gas today was between 111 and 115.9 a litre Haven't saw any 118.9 yet