Enbridge forecast a $2 to $3 annual increase in the price per barrel of crude in its pipeline application to the joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel.
I was reminded of this piece from a few weeks ago:
The analyst said that if TransCanada is allowed to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline all the way to Houston, refineries could eventually export Canadian crude oil overseas.
"Whenever you add potential customers to your type of crude oil, the price will likely go up. Why? Because there's not a whole lot of buyers right now for Canadian crude oil," DeHaan said.
You know, if you told the same people who back these pipelines that you wanted to hike gas prices for any other reason--say to fund environmental initiatives--they would never stop freaking out.
13 comments:
Well, that's only because someone else will be getting that money, and don't you know all the money's theirs?
Right now the Americans pay about $10 LESS per barrel for our oil than world market prices because we can't sell to anyone else. Imagine what boon to Canada's balance sheet we'd get by being able to increase the price on ALL of our bitumen exports.
That's the REAL reason the Americans don't want the Northern Gateway pipeline. It's to protect their favorable pricing structure.
BC didn't give a toss about increasing gas a couple of bucks for their silly eco-tax. They shouldn't get bent out of shape over this.
Oh, and just filling the pipeline will pull millions of barrels out of the world market forever and have a short term impact on price.
Funny, I don't notice all that much money going to the people of Alberta, much less the people of Canada.
As Kevin Taft points out, most of the Alberta money goes to corporate profits, and I do not want corporations to get more money, particularly if they have to keep poisoning our environment to do so:
http://www.albertadiary.ca/2012/01/kevin-taft-follows-albertas-money-and.html
Holly should ask all the truck drivers and rig workers where that money going. Everyone makes six figures up in fort macmurray. The reason alberta can be so careless with it's balance sheet is due to oil/gas royalties.
So why do they keep cutting back on education and health care spending? Why is our Heritage Savings Trust Fund so small?
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/alberta-heritage-savings-trust-fund
http://www.finance.alberta.ca/business/ahstf/index.html
Holly @ 2:51
Re: "Why do they keep cutting back on education and health care spending"
http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2011/fiscal-plan-tables.pdf
- David Sands, Government of Alberta
Inadequate, David, they are still repairing the damage from that abusive drunkard Klein's cuts. I remember when he cancelled kindergarden.
You're right, Frunger. Most BCers don't reject the pipeline because it might put the cost of fuel up, they reject it because we don't want our coast coated with Albertan crud. But, I'd imagine those delicate folks that nearly fainted at the thought of Dion's "tax on everything" won't be too happy. Of course, this "tax on everything" won't be offset by a corresponding decrease in income tax, and that money is going to corporations rather than the public, so...what was it you were you saying?
But hey, they've increased funding to blog commenting department.
Lenny:
All this talk about "money is going to corporations rather than the public". Why do none of you oil-haters understand that public corporations ARE THE PUBLIC. All our pensions / mutual finds / GICs and some of the best parts of all our investment portfolios are made up of these companies.
The taxes made off these companies (corporate / employee income / capital gains & others) pay a sizable chunk of all those entitlement programs the left feel are so crucial. Kill the golden goose and try to find out how to pay for them.
"...public corporations ARE THE PUBLIC"
Wow. I thought you wingnuts were supposed to understand finance. Publicly traded corporations are not "the public". More than half of Canadians don't have any savings, let alone any kind of significant investment in the tar sands. Furthermore, "the public" has a whole spectrum of interests, a healthy environment, a peaceful society, gainful employment, healthy citizens, security, etc. Corporations have one single, solitary interest - making as much money as possible as quickly as possible. Corporations aren't even remotely "the public".
The "Golden Egg" is the BC coast, which has fed and sustained its inhabitants for tens of thousands of years.
"More than half of Canadians don't have any savings"
That statement is perfectly true but nobody's fault but the people who have chosen not to save. I don't recall ever being forced into buying things I can't afford or being told that I have to live paycheck to paycheck.
Even Aesop in 600 BC knew that you froze hungry in the cold if you didn't prepare properly in the fall. I have no sympathy for the population that takes the same path.
What does who's fault it is have to do with anything? I was responding to your bullshit claim that corporations are "the public".
But the rest of your non-sequitur sounds like you're in agreement that Alberta and the oil industry is responsible for its own problems, and British Columbians have no responsibility to give them handouts by assuming risk. If the industry spent too much capital to ramp up production before they'd secured an outlet for the additional product and can't service their debts, to bad for them, eh Frunger?
Post a Comment