[masteryxisman]

BC

[Guloqkcm]

What about sending it to Thunder Bay?

JM

[Bwvapays]

There is also Kelowna and Vernon.

JM

[xochex]

Dawson Creek is in Yukon...or is that Dawson City? I don't remember the Robert Service **** that well. There's a region in the eastern part of Northern British Columbia that is east of the Rockies, that has all the oil in BC - same thing as what you find in Alberta. It's called the Peace River region. It borders Alberta. Dawson Creek is the start of the Alaska Highway and is on the BC side of the BC/AB border. It's somewhat west and north of Edmonton.



The real answer is for America to elect a president who isn't beholden to retarded environmentalists that you find on the west coast. By the way, what is it with Pac Northwest, both in the US and Canada, and being filled with drug-addled hippies? I haven't figured it out. Is it all the coffee shops, or is that a symptom rather than a cause? It's the weather in Vancouver.

[saturninus.ribb]

... silly place...

[broksaksaak]

I thought we did this a couple of months ago. No hysteria needed - currently Canada and Canadians own under 30% and that's going down. But I'm really not concerned - these be nationalized in a few years.

I think it will be hilarious when Canada nationalizes communist Chinese assets.

[HwoRas1]

No, that would be idiotic. Who cares if the Chinese own the oil fields? Canada still gets the tax money either way, and Canadians get jobs either way. It's like complaining about outsourcing. Only anti-trade idiots do it.

[Shiplyopidomi]

Forget the BC government, BC natives will be the big obstacle.

There won't be much $$ left once Alberta pays off everyone with their hand out. It looks like AB could really use some supporters. Too bad they don't seem to think so.

[Tij84ye]

Despite your opening post - Their (the BC gov's) concerns are legit.

A oil spill off the coast would be an order of magnitude worse than a spill from a pipeline leak. Just saying "Don't worry, we'll clean up the inevitable spill" isn't very reassuring.

But again, this is only a sideshow. The natives are your real problem.

[Belindanan]

Why only a decade? Will you only use this pipeline for ten years?

Money in compensation for damage is nice but you still have the damage.

Unlike Albertans, the rest of us have a hard time accepting the 0% environmental damage spin that you guys lap up so readily (still an almost unanimous gut laugher whenever I mention it to non-Albertans).

[AbraroLib]

Why only a decade? Will you only use this pipeline for ten years?

Because tankers today are not the tankers of 10 years ago. There's been a ton of regulation changes.

This is the problem, no one seems to know what they're talking about but that doesn't stop them from being all-knowing.

BC is trying to cash in, there's nothing else about it. If they were truly that "concerned" about environmental disasters, they simply wouldn't allow it AT ALL. They're happy to have the pipeline, they're just trying to take advantage of the situation to wring (more) money out of Alberta.

[AlexBrith]

When Russia and Germany had a similiar Problem with Poland we built the Pipeline arround it. Guess thats not an Option here?

[FYvWldC0]

When Russia and Germany had a similiar Problem with Poland we built the Pipeline arround it. Guess thats not an Option here?

Sure. That's the Washington State option Asher mentioned.

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.


BC isn't going to be agreeable at the price offered and as I have pointed out a couple times the natives are almost 100% opposed. This pipeline has some very big hurdles if it is going through BC.

[tyclislavaify]

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

[pipitous]

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.

[feedcomnet]

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.

[somawaima]

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?

[Xiciljed]

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?

[hojutok]

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...

[Thomaswhitee]

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.