B.C.'s Northern Gateway demands trigger showdown with Albert

[Soulforger]

Yup...

[Godwin]

According to Robyn Allan ,Northern Gateway will be a limited liability partnership stand alone project. Enbridge will own about half the units. The partnership will have little cash and no other sources of income if it is shut down because of a failure. Funds for cleanup costs then seem be largely limited to insurance.

According to this information, Kalamazoo spill cost about 800 million so far to clean up and the meter is still running-- no pun intended. In the year following that spill she asserts Enbridge bought 575 million of pollution liability insurance for their entire Noth American operations and presumably this insurance would not be applicable to a stand alone limited liability project.

So it would appear that the issueof who would end uppaying for a spill is still an open question.

Further to this Allan suggests that NG only be approved if the Limited partnership had dedicated liability insurance of $1 Billion.

It will be interesting to see how the economics of the pipeline are affected by such a requirement.

[WestViking]

According to Robyn Allan, Northern Gateway will be a limited liability partnership stand alone project. Enbridge will own about half the units. The partnership will have little cash and no other sources of income if it is shut down because of a failure. Funds for cleanup costs then seem be largely limited to insurance.
According to this information, Kalamazoo spill cost about 800 million so far to clean up and the meter is still running-- no pun intended. In the year following that spill she asserts Enbridge bought 575 million of pollution liability insurance for their entire North American operations and presumably this insurance would not be applicable to a stand alone limited liability project.
So it would appear that the issue of who would end up paying for a spill is still an open question.

I think you mean . . . . . according to this speculation . . . . Allan has no stake in the project and cannot know what ownership will be or how liabilities will be distributed. Governments are notorious for demanding that contractors and builders hold them harmless under all circumstances. A $575 million pollution liability policy would be coverage per incident for the policy term not a maximum reduced by each incident. Insurance would be purchased in layers, with a $150 million primary, a second layer with $200 million excess of the primary and a third layer of $500 million excess of 350 million as an example.

[StandAlone]

Refering to Clark as a "commie" is paradoxical. If you support this pipe than you support that sale of our natural resources to Communist China. I would see someone who supports the pipeline for that reason as being a communist. I dont want the pipeline to be built. Red China has only one goal and that is to destroy the western world, by providing fuel to them we will help them achieve their end goal.

[Godwin]

According to Robyn Allan, Northern Gateway will be a limited liability partnership stand alone project. Enbridge will own about half the units. The partnership will have little cash and no other sources of income if it is shut down because of a failure. Funds for cleanup costs then seem be largely limited to insurance.
According to this information, Kalamazoo spill cost about 800 million so far to clean up and the meter is still running-- no pun intended. In the year following that spill she asserts Enbridge bought 575 million of pollution liability insurance for their entire North American operations and presumably this insurance would not be applicable to a stand alone limited liability project.
So it would appear that the issue of who would end up paying for a spill is still an open question.

I think you mean . . . . . according to this speculation . . . . Allan has no stake in the project and cannot know what ownership will be or how liabilities will be distributed. Governments are notorious for demanding that contractors and builders hold them harmless under all circumstances. A $575 million pollution liability policy would be coverage per incident for the policy term not a maximum reduced by each incident. Insurance would be purchased in layers, with a $150 million primary, a second layer with $200 million excess of the primary and a third layer of $500 million excess of 350 million as an example.

She asserts the project IS structured as an LLP and that the financial plan calls for dividends to be distributed to the unit holders annually. LLPS are not uncommon.

So it does not seem to be a speculation. These statements may be true or maybe false. She has submited her analysis to the NEB.

[styky]

B.C. has most to gain from pipelines: Study

By JACKIE L. LARSON ,Edmonton Sun

First posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 07:35 PM MDT | Updated: Thursday, August 09, 2012 08:03 PM MDT
EDMONTON - A new study suggests British Columbia stands to gain more from the construction of two proposed pipelines than any other province -- including Alberta.

The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) said Thursday the combined value from the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to the Lower Mainland will bring B.C. almost $10 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), forecast over 25 years.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark sparked a rift with other provinces over her declaration that there's not enough financial reward to offset any risk for B.C. with the proposed 1,177 km Northern Gateway pipeline taking Alberta bitumen to the port of Kitimat, B.C.

The construction and operation of the $5.5 billion pipeline alone will be better for B.C., said CERI research director Dinara Millington.

"For both the pipelines, B.C. will see higher economic benefits than any other province in Canada. This is based on the fact that both will be operated and constructed in the province," Millington said.

Construction of the Northern Gateway would bring $4.7 billion in GDP for B.C. over 25 years, compared to $2.9 billion for Alberta, Millington said.

Construction of Kinder Morgan's TMX pipeline to Burnaby, B.C., would bring in $4.4 billion in GDP for B.C. over the same period, compared to $2.2 billion for Alberta, she said........................http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/08/09/bc ... ines-study

[Brexx]

B.C. has most to gain from pipelines: Study

By JACKIE L. LARSON ,Edmonton Sun

First posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 07:35 PM MDT | Updated: Thursday, August 09, 2012 08:03 PM MDT
EDMONTON - A new study suggests British Columbia stands to gain more from the construction of two proposed pipelines than any other province -- including Alberta.

The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) said Thursday the combined value from the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to the Lower Mainland will bring B.C. almost $10 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), forecast over 25 years.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark sparked a rift with other provinces over her declaration that there's not enough financial reward to offset any risk for B.C. with the proposed 1,177 km Northern Gateway pipeline taking Alberta bitumen to the port of Kitimat, B.C.

The construction and operation of the $5.5 billion pipeline alone will be better for B.C., said CERI research director Dinara Millington.

"For both the pipelines, B.C. will see higher economic benefits than any other province in Canada. This is based on the fact that both will be operated and constructed in the province," Millington said.

Construction of the Northern Gateway would bring $4.7 billion in GDP for B.C. over 25 years, compared to $2.9 billion for Alberta, Millington said.

Construction of Kinder Morgan's TMX pipeline to Burnaby, B.C., would bring in $4.4 billion in GDP for B.C. over the same period, compared to $2.2 billion for Alberta, she said........................http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/08/09/bc ... ines-study

Hilarious. If there was a "most deceptive headline" contest this would surely win.

[Soulforger]

A pipeline will bring revenue.

[dpwozney]

According to Robyn Allan ,Northern Gateway will be a limited liability partnership stand alone project. Enbridge will own about half the units. The partnership will have little cash and no other sources of income if it is shut down because of a failure. Funds for cleanup costs then seem be largely limited to insurance.

According to this information, Kalamazoo spill cost about 800 million so far to clean up and the meter is still running-- no pun intended. In the year following that spill she asserts Enbridge bought 575 million of pollution liability insurance for their entire Noth American operations and presumably this insurance would not be applicable to a stand alone limited liability project.

So it would appear that the issueof who would end uppaying for a spill is still an open question.

According to “Requirements for British Columbia to Consider Support for Heavy Oil Pipelines”, “The province can make improvements as well. In particular, it may be time to learn from other jurisdictions - including the federal government and Pacific states - and institute a polluter pays system for spill management. Currently, in the event of a major marine or terrestrial spill, the province would be exposed to an enormous amount of financial risk.”

The province of British Columbia seems to have freely chosen to be exposed to an enormous amount of financial risk instead of instituting a polluter pays system for spill management.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for the province of B.C.'s lack of a polluter pays system for spill management?

[Soulforger]

Why should British Columbia have to take the risk for Alberta, Canada and Saskatchewan without assurances that this will be an overall benefit to our Province? This should work out for everyone.

[Free_Reign]

The price they are getting in the US for the bitumen is $10 to $30 a barrel less than they could get in Asia.

Seems naive to expect overseas markets to keep paying a $10 to $30 premium for bitumen while relatively sweet Russian and middle eastern crude is more closely available at the same price. Bitumen is 1% sulphur and usable for fertilizer production but at only $40 per tonne for sulphur they'd only get about 1 kilogram of sulphur from one barrel of bitumen. Not hardly worth a $10 to $30 premium and they'd have to extract the sulphur themselves.

[dave]

B.C. has most to gain from pipelines: Study

By JACKIE L. LARSON ,Edmonton Sun

First posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 07:35 PM MDT | Updated: Thursday, August 09, 2012 08:03 PM MDT
EDMONTON - A new study suggests British Columbia stands to gain more from the construction of two proposed pipelines than any other province -- including Alberta.

The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) said Thursday the combined value from the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to the Lower Mainland will bring B.C. almost $10 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), forecast over 25 years.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark sparked a rift with other provinces over her declaration that there's not enough financial reward to offset any risk for B.C. with the proposed 1,177 km Northern Gateway pipeline taking Alberta bitumen to the port of Kitimat, B.C.

The construction and operation of the $5.5 billion pipeline alone will be better for B.C., said CERI research director Dinara Millington.

"For both the pipelines, B.C. will see higher economic benefits than any other province in Canada. This is based on the fact that both will be operated and constructed in the province," Millington said.

Construction of the Northern Gateway would bring $4.7 billion in GDP for B.C. over 25 years, compared to $2.9 billion for Alberta, Millington said.

Construction of Kinder Morgan's TMX pipeline to Burnaby, B.C., would bring in $4.4 billion in GDP for B.C. over the same period, compared to $2.2 billion for Alberta, she said........................http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/08/09/bc ... ines-study

versus.....http://www.go2hr.ca/BCsTourismbrIndustr ... fault.aspx without the risk.

[Soulforger]

British Columbia hosts more than 5.6 million overnight international visitors a year.

Tourism generated $12.7 billion in revenues in 2009.

Tourism accounts for approximately 129,000 direct jobs in British Columbia.

BC will need 84,000 NEW tourism workers over the next decade.

From the above link posted by dave. More in that link...

[Soulforger]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... binet.html

Harper's pipeline dilemma: can't reject, can't ram through

Political debate around Northern Gateway shows less clarity, more complexity


Figuring out what's likely to unfold with the Northern Gateway pipeline project felt somewhat easier before evidence began trickling out that not all conservatives agree on how to proceed.

When the Harper government's senior minister for B.C. popped up on private radio sticking up for B.C.'s right not to be treated like a "doormat" by Enbridge, ears perked up at the prospect of serious cabinet dissent.

This was, after all, a project that had been assumed to be a done deal.

Federal cabinet ministers had gone so far as to attack "foreign-funded radicals" for "hijacking" the environmental review process. Last spring's budget bill smoothed the way for streamlined regulatory approval. From Harper on down, at home and abroad, everyone seemed to agree on its importance to the international trade strategy of diversifying markets for the oil we were selling all-too-cheaply at the moment, capitalizing on opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region.

And yet, off went Moore, denying to his Vancouver listeners that it was his government's intention to ram the project through.

Was he putting on the jersey of the home team, mindful of public opinion polls and the federal Conservative government's own political realities down the road in a province where Tom Mulcair's NDP has room to grow?

Or was it the first breeze signalling a change in prevailing winds along Gateway's route to regulatory approval?

Provincial New Democrats are trending upwards towards B.C.'s provincial election. Mulcair is poised to draft off that momentum in the coming months. His messaging on resource development appears designed to appeal to doubters.

In the other corner, Conservative politics in B.C. these days is, in a word, complicated. The emergence of a provincial Conservative party led by a former member of Harper's caucus means that Premier Christy Clark's Liberals are no longer the default ally of federal Conservatives.

But that doesn't mean that she's been completely abandoned by Harper. Things are, perhaps, just a bit less cozy than they used to be.

B.C.'s conditional support divisive
A few days before she hosted the premiers meeting last January, Clark's office released a photo of a friendly private meeting between the premier and the prime minister at a local hockey rink, watching her son play. The intended message: she's got his ear.

More in link...

[dpwozney]

Why should British Columbia have to take the risk for Alberta, Canada and Saskatchewan without assurances that this will be an overall benefit to our Province? This should work out for everyone.

Why is British Columbia already voluntarily taking an enormous financial risk, for existing pipelines and tankers, by not having a polluter pays system for spill management, like other jurisdictions have?