BC wants Alberta Royalties

[Sugarphreak]

....

[rage2]

I found it funny that BC keeps talking about environmental risk, and they need more revenue because of it. Problem is, if there was an environmental incident because of it, they would just go to Enbridge for cleanup costs, so shared revenue has nothing to do with it other than free money.

[benyl]

Christy Clarke is just trying to get re-elected.

[dj_patm]

This is what happens when you let bitches run the show :poosie:

[Phl0xed]

Originally posted by rage2
I found it funny that BC keeps talking about environmental risk, and they need more revenue because of it. Problem is, if there was an environmental incident because of it, they would just go to Enbridge for cleanup costs, so shared revenue has nothing to do with it other than free money.

Exactly what I thought when I heard this...

[Spoons]

Originally posted by rage2
I found it funny that BC keeps talking about environmental risk, and they need more revenue because of it. Problem is, if there was an environmental incident because of it, they would just go to Enbridge for cleanup costs, so shared revenue has nothing to do with it other than free money.

That's fucking horse shit. They don't seem to give a rat's ass about the environmental risk of over fishing... And that is a pretty big issue at the moment.

[Khyron]

If I build a bridge for BC to use to transport lumber, should BC give me half the value of everything that goes over the bridge? Aren't they already getting 17% by not even providing any of the actual consumable resource?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[benyl]

All because they don't want HST. haha.

People in BC are such strange folks.

[projekz]

God Damn Socialists!!!

[Spoons]

Originally posted by benyl
All because they don't want HST. haha.

People in BC are such strange folks.

I thought HST was absolved (in BC) in April and is now back to a GST+PST method? Or is that next April?

[stonedp]

Originally posted by dj_patm
This is what happens when you let bitches run the show :poosie:

Boom.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Canmorite]

I agree that they are shouldering a lot of the environmental risk.

Would be great to see Redford propose that the money BC wants for the deal was kept in an account just in case an environmental disaster happened, instead of going into general revenues. Wonder if Christy would agree to that deal.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by Canmorite
I agree that they are shouldering a lot of the environmental risk.

Would be great to see Redford propose that the money BC wants for the deal was kept in an account just in case an environmental disaster happened, instead of going into general revenues. Wonder if Christy would agree to that deal.

But BC would then turn around and recouporate all their damages from Embridge... They're double dipping.

[lasimmon]

I thought Enbridge was essentially giving ownership to the Natives and BC and then only operating it, which absolves them of having to do environmental clean up.

They are essentially loaning money to BC and Native groups and then getting paid to operate and construct the pipeline. By forming a company called Northern Gateway or something like that. Which makes sense why BC wants more money.

At least that's my understanding.

[lasimmon]

Double post.

[tirebob]

What do you expect? They have something that somebody else needs (the land between the port and the source)... They have leverage. Of course they are going to try and maximize their share! Haha! I can't believe anybody is surprised by this. If they didn't try, I would have been surprised...

[rage2]

Originally posted by Canmorite
I agree that they are shouldering a lot of the environmental risk.

Would be great to see Redford propose that the money BC wants for the deal was kept in an account just in case an environmental disaster happened, instead of going into general revenues. Wonder if Christy would agree to that deal.
I don't think the Alberta government gives a crap about it. In our eyes, we're gettign the royalties regardless from oil reserves on Alberta land. Even if it's going thru BC by pipeline, truck, or going somewhere other than BC, it doesn't matter, Alberta gets paid. BC wants a cut of the royalties that frankly has nothing to do with transport.

What BC should be doing is going after Enbridge for royalties on transport on BC land, it's their pipeline, and their oil. Of course, there's not as much money there, because Alberta and Ottawa has already taken their big cut in royalties.

[Ntense_SpecV]

So rather than going after Enbridge for a much smaller share, they go back to Alberta for additional funds saying...well, since we have the land you need maybe we should get paid more. Then they say that if you don't go along with our demands we will threaten to hamstring the construction process of the pipeline...real ethical BC.

Maybe Alberta can impose a royalty scheme for all the products that come from BC through Alberta's pipeline network.

[-relk-]

Originally posted by Canmorite
I agree that they are shouldering a lot of the environmental risk.

Would be great to see Redford propose that the money BC wants for the deal was kept in an account just in case an environmental disaster happened, instead of going into general revenues. Wonder if Christy would agree to that deal.

That seems like a good solution to the problem.

But I have a feeling Christy still wouldnt like it. Me thinks she is after the $$$$.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Toma]

Good for them.

Take as much as you can from the shit your are giving away that can never be replaced.

If the governments and people can't benefit supremely, then no reason to live the rat race, environmental disaster that it produces.

[JayDoggExclusiv]

Sounds to me like she just wants to take advantage of Alberta for the money it makes if you ask me..:dunno:

[BrknFngrs]

Wait, so now BC can put a price on the environment? :rofl:

[rage2]

Apparently, BC and Clark already signed off on the pipeline pending federal approval. So she can't really stop anything. Looks like it's just a show for election next year.

Carry on.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by rage2

I don't think the Alberta government gives a crap about it. In our eyes, we're gettign the royalties regardless from oil reserves on Alberta land. Even if it's going thru BC by pipeline, truck, or going somewhere other than BC, it doesn't matter, Alberta gets paid. BC wants a cut of the royalties that frankly has nothing to do with transport.

What BC should be doing is going after Enbridge for royalties on transport on BC land, it's their pipeline, and their oil. Of course, there's not as much money there, because Alberta and Ottawa has already taken their big cut in royalties.

That's what I was thinking. If they want a cut they should do a per-barrel fee on the pipeline. Hell double dip and have a tonnage fee on the tankers as well. If they kill the economic feasibility of the pipeline Alberta still gets its money for the oil coming out of the ground being shipped somewhere else more favorable.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by JayDoggExclusiv
Sounds to me like she just wants to take advantage of Alberta for the money it makes if you ask me..:dunno:

Well of course! It only makes sense...

If your neighbor came to you and said that he can make millions if he can build a pipe over your back yard, and he will give you a few percent of the profit if you let him, that's great! But now if he says the ONLY way for him to make those millions is with that pipe, and yours is the ONLY yard to cross over, you're damn well certain going to consider the fact you have something he needs and look to maximize the amount of money you get out of it... Don't tell me you wouldn't because we all would!

If there were another option for getting the oil there, it wouldn't even be a conversation. Take what you can get and be happy for it! But when you have the only property accessible, you now have a much stronger hand to play...

Annoyed by it or not, it is smart to try and maximize your own profit when you hold those cards...

[rage2]

Originally posted by tirebob
If your neighbor came to you and said that he can make millions if he can build a pipe over your back yard, and he will give you a few percent of the profit if you let him, that's great! But now if he says the ONLY way for him to make those millions is with that pipe, and yours is the ONLY yard to cross over, you're damn well certain going to consider the fact you have something he needs and look to maximize the amount of money you get out of it... Don't tell me you wouldn't because we all would!
Only problem is both you and your neighbor are renting the property haha. The owner, in this case being Ottawa, dictates who gets what.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

Only problem is both you and your neighbor are renting the property haha. The owner, in this case being Ottawa, dictates who gets what.

Resources are provincial.

And "Crown" land is roughly 50/50 provincial/federal....

If my memory serves me.... I am old though, so who knows.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by rage2
Apparently, BC and Clark already signed off on the pipeline pending federal approval. So she can't really stop anything. Looks like it's just a show for election next year.

Carry on. She's threatening to withold the 60 odd permits that will allow the construction.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
Resources are provincial.

And "Crown" land is roughly 50/50 provincial/federal....

If my memory serves me.... I am old though, so who knows.
Sure, Alberta sells the oil to Enbridge and collects royalties on that. I dunno how BC thinks it's owed a fair share of those royalties. Alberta has nothing to do with the transport of oil that Enbridge owns at that point. In terms of approval for the pipeline, that's a federal jurisdiction, not provincial, so BC can't stop it AFAIK.

This article is an interesting read:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/yourmoney/Cayo+Premier+leverage+wring+financial+concessions+from/6983968/story.html

The comparison to the 1969 power contract between Quebec and Labrador is interesting. Quebec has been raping Newfies, and continue to do so till 2041. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station


According to former Premier Brian Tobin, as Labrador only borders Québec, when an agreement was being negotiated to sell the power generated at Churchill Falls, the power either had to be sold to an entity within Québec or it had to pass through Québec. The government of Québec refused to allow power to be transferred through Québec and would only accept a contract in which the power was sold to Québec. Because of this monopsony situation, Hydro-Québec received very favourable terms on the power sale contract. The contract was negotiated to run for a 65-year timespan, running until the year 2041, and according to former Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, Hydro-Québec reaps profits from the Upper Churchill contract of approximately $1.7 billion per year, while Newfoundland and Labrador receives $63 million a year.

The agreement committed Hydro-Québec to buy most of the plant's output at one-quarter of a cent per kilowatt-hour — the exact rate is 0.25425 cents per kilowatt-hour until 2016 and 0.20 cents for the last 25 years of the contract.
Anyone know what current power prices are?

[rage2]

Originally posted by codetrap
She's threatening to withold the 60 odd permits that will allow the construction.
Ahh ok that makes more sense.

[dexlargo]

Here's an article on the legal basis (or lack thereof) for BC's claims: http://ablawg.ca/2012/07/25/british-columbia-and-the-northern-gateway-pipeline/

It seems Ms. Clark doesn't have much of a legal leg to stand on, all she could do is try to obstruct, which would likely delay the project, but not stop it as long as the Federal government continues to support the pipeline.

[LOLzilla]

Originally posted by tirebob
What do you expect? They have something that somebody else needs (the land between the port and the source)... They have leverage. Of course they are going to try and maximize their share! Haha! I can't believe anybody is surprised by this. If they didn't try, I would have been surprised...

This. Alberta has the oil, BC has the port. Both are natural resources. Act like adults and find a solution. :thumbsup:

[LOLzilla]

Originally posted by Toma
Good for them.

Take as much as you can from the shit your are giving away that can never be replaced.

If the governments and people can't benefit supremely, then no reason to live the rat race, environmental disaster that it produces.

Exactly. BC has a greater amount of risk in terms of the impact a environmental disaster would have. If there is little to no benefit why bother risking the coastline and the revenue it creates?

[LOLzilla]

The commercial say "Canadian Oil Sands" don't they? :dunno:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Here's an article on the legal basis (or lack thereof) for BC's claims: http://ablawg.ca/2012/07/25/british-columbia-and-the-northern-gateway-pipeline/

It seems Ms. Clark doesn't have much of a legal leg to stand on, all she could do is try to obstruct, which would likely delay the project, but not stop it as long as the Federal government continues to support the pipeline.

Nice, hopefully they can use this to push it through regardless of what she tries to do. Then after it gets pushed through, pay them the bare minimum or put any additional funds into escrow for an accident. After all, they are only concerned for the environment and not lining their pockets.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by LOLzilla
The commercial say "Canadian Oil Sands" don't they? :dunno:

Then let BC chip into the costs associated with them, not just sit and wait to grab a slice when it comes their way.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by FraserB


Then let BC chip into the costs associated with them, not just sit and wait to grab a slice when it comes their way. Well supplying the Land and the ports to get the oil to market IS chipping in no?

Don't think I am advocating for them to be able to just demand whatever they want hell be damned, but to think they are fucked for trying for more? That's another story. Of course they are going to try for more... Anyone would!

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by tirebob
Don't think I am advocating for them to be able to just demand whatever they want hell be damned, but to think they are fucked for trying for more? That's another story. Of course they are going to try for more... Anyone would!

It's a political move since Christy is likely to lose re-election for the whole HST debacle.

But I heard that there isn't anything legally can be done to stop the pipeline. Only the natives can stop it.

[ipeefreely]

Originally posted by Toma


Resources are provincial.

And "Crown" land is roughly 50/50 provincial/federal....

If my memory serves me.... I am old though, so who knows.

Alberta own's about 81% of the mineral rights... Feds own about 10% (if I remeber correctly, mostly in the national parks).


The Department of Energy administers Crown owned minerals on behalf of the province. The Alberta Crown owns approximately 81% of the province's mineral rights. The remaining 19% are either freehold minerals or belong to the Crown in the right of Canada. Albert Energy (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Tenure/975.asp)

Freehold Map (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Tenure/pdfs/MapFreehold.pdf)

[ZenOps]

BC has got very greedy in the last year.

For mineral claims on BC soil, the fee for acquisition will increase:

- For mineral claims, the acquisition will increase from $0.40 per hectare to $1.75 per hectare;

- For placer claims, the acquisition fee will increase from $2.00 per hectare to $5.00 per hectare.

SOB, how is a nickel digger supposed to make any money.

[Toma]

Originally posted by ZenOps
BC has got very greedy in the last year.

For mineral claims on BC soil, the fee for acquisition will increase:

- For mineral claims, the acquisition will increase from $0.40 per hectare to $1.75 per hectare;

- For placer claims, the acquisition fee will increase from $2.00 per hectare to $5.00 per hectare.

SOB, how is a nickel digger supposed to make any money.

I COMPLETELY agree with soaking up Royalties to almost ridiculous levels.

I grew up in Calgary during the "Recession" of the 80's.... despite how "bad" it was, quality of life in every way you can measure was better.

Lower Student/teacher ratios, no emergency wait times, no traffic, faster to see a specialist, much less household debt, higher average household savings, lower credit card bills, Foothills had 24 hour emergency dental. Cheaper (relative) cost of living etc etc.

This "boom" is benefiting someone, but if it hurts all the above for the average Albertan, then why the fuck? Slow it down, and take more for the province.

No one wants to be busy and in a rat race just so they can be busy and in a rat race. At the end of the day, there should be some benefit to the MAJORITY, not just the ..... ?

[Toma]

There is one benefit to the boom. Wannabe ballers have access to ricidulous levels of "debt" .... or "credit". lol

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by tirebob
Well supplying the Land and the ports to get the oil to market IS chipping in no?



Do you mean that selling the land and port that nobody currently uses at an inflated price is chipping in?

[Toma]

Originally posted by CapnCrunch


Do you mean that selling the land and port that nobody currently uses at an inflated price is chipping in?

They better not sell it, they better lease it at astronomical cost, or if they sell, have a "raoylty deal" where they take 5% of all economic flow through the port.

At one time, a signed Elvis record was worthless too.

Just because NOW something has value, does not mean you should not benefit from it.

I keep hanging onto these Star Wars toys .... maybe one day, they will be worth something :dunno:

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Toma


I COMPLETELY agree with soaking up Royalties to almost ridiculous levels.

I grew up in Calgary during the "Recession" of the 80's.... despite how "bad" it was, quality of life in every way you can measure was better.

Lower Student/teacher ratios, no emergency wait times, ...The recession wasn't the cause of those benefits. Those were created before the recession when we could afford them. During the recession the province kept building a hospital in every small town and kept the service levels at the high level we now couldn't afford. Having all of those expensive social benefits during the recession created all of the Provincial debt that took so long to pay off.

So are you saying that we should run up giant debts again?

[Toma]

Originally posted by dexlargo
The recession wasn't the cause of those benefits.

Who said it was the cause?

What I tried to imply was "even though we were in a recession".....

And the government "running up debt" had nothing to do with family debt and savings.

Are you suggesting that during a recession, the government should shut down to save money?

[Toma]

PS, so last year (2011), the Oil Sands produced roughly 600 million barrels of oil.

In the same year, oil averaged $110 a barrel ( a record high price average I believe), the provincial share was only $5.35 a barrel.

That's about what we as citizens pay as GST.

I think they need to follow the restaurant Tip rule, at least 3x the gst ;)

[blitz]

Because the tar sands produce a nice light oil that's comparible to WTI...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Toma


No one wants to be busy and in a rat race just so they can be busy and in a rat race. At the end of the day, there should be some benefit to the MAJORITY, not just the ..... ?

Toma, you give the average Joe Schmoe too much credit. First time I've worked on a oil sands plant under construction (KEARL) and the attitude is mind boggling. The weirdest thing is, these people are making over $100k per year and don't have anything to show for it... all they know is the rat race, working 2 weeks on 1 week off (or 20 days on 8 off BLEH!) and thinking that is a fine life.

[Maybelater]

Why are we even concerning ourselves about how others live their lives? They want to waste all that money, let them. They are taxing paying, economy producing citizens.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

BC has rejected the appliation for Northern Gateway. Time to send it through the NWT to Alaska and bypass BC altogether.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-rejects-northern-gateway-project-over-environmental-concerns-1.1305479

[Maybelater]

BC is never going to stop playing hardball on this, isn't even worth the time anymore.

[FraserB]

I like this idea, just make sure it is visible from the BC border.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/made-in-the-north-oil-proposal-keeps-pipelines-out-of-b-c-1.1279671