British Columbia Pipeline Thread

[Tciso]

Instead of insurance (high premiums, and the insurance company probably goes bankrupt if they have to pay), how about the government add an extra catastrophic accident tax to the whole process?

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

No. It means the risk cannot be calculated accurately.

An extra tax? On whom? In what jurisdiction?

Not a jurisdiction. On the product.

Let's let real businesses decide the business case and ROI. No catastrophic accident tax, no pipeline subsidy. Government should step back.

Free markets and light regulation.

My reasoning is simple. It covers the insurance risk from the well head all the way to international waters. It’s basically what the government does already, except we have 20 year lawsuits and pay more than we should.

[Ronning's Ghost]

OK, it feels like we're getting close, here.

I agree, except insurance only works on low probability, high impact events where we know the cost.

Right.

With environmental shit, the cost is never known, and it grows every year...

Right. So does that sound to you like an argument in favour of building the pipeline, or against it?

And that leaves the residual risk with the taxpayer.

Right. And that, does that sound to you like an argument in favour of building the pipeline, or against it?

So, add a nickel tax to each barrel and have the government funds available for the residual risk.

OK, so you're taxing the pipeline operator. Well, that's certainly OK with me.

But the limitation of that approach is, what do we do if the spill happens before this fund is adequate to address the costs?

It also assumes that it is possible to clean up the spill. As noted previously, Prince William Sound is still not oil free (35+ years later), and bitumen is harder to clean up than Alaska North Slope.

Would you be on board with requiring changes to the composition of the oil cargo to make it easier to recover in the event of a spill?

[Ronning's Ghost]

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

No. It means the risk cannot be calculated accurately.

OK, and that one. That sounds like another argument against building the pipeline. If we don't know how risky it is, how do we know that it's not too risky? If we cannot calculate the risk, how do we know how big to make your pipeline transit surtax?

pay more than we should.

How do you figure?

[Tciso]

I am for the pipeline. I also believe in taxing shit that has potential risks both during and after it's economic life is over. With oil, it's easy to just add an "economic burden" levy to each barrel. And, it's not just to insure tankers, but the entire production and distribution chain.


Then, drop all corporate income taxes, and we can do business.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I am for the pipeline.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I also believe in taxing shit that has potential risks both during and after it's economic life is over. With oil, it's easy to just add an "economic burden" levy to each barrel. And, it's not just to insure tankers, but the entire production and distribution chain.

Fine in principle.

But from your previous statements, we have no way to calculate what level of taxation would be fair to the producers and shippers, and to the other taxpayers absorbing the risks.

Then, drop all corporate income taxes, and we can do business.

That is an entirely different conversation that should have its own thread, if you wish to pursue it.

(but I don't, so I can't recommend starting one unless you think there are other posters here who will want to discuss that with you)

[Tciso]

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

No. It means the risk cannot be calculated accurately.

OK, and that one. That sounds like another argument against building the pipeline. If we don't know how risky it is, how do we know that it's not too risky? If we cannot calculate the risk, how do we know how big to make your pipeline transit surtax?

Everything has some element of unknown risk.
And, as a nation, we have accepted larger risks than this many times over.

pay more than we should.

How do you figure?

We have no system in place to deal with environmental issues, much like aboriginal issues. The default is never ending lawsuits. Lawyers and NDP and shallow pieces of shit love the current system. It retards economic growth, and they love that shit. If we fund the solution in advance, and build a system to deal with issues, we start to find ways forward. Right now, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag for everything anyways

[Tciso]

I am for the pipeline.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I also believe in taxing shit that has potential risks both during and after it's economic life is over. With oil, it's easy to just add an "economic burden" levy to each barrel. And, it's not just to insure tankers, but the entire production and distribution chain.

Fine in principle.

But from your previous statements, we have no way to calculate what level of taxation would be fair to the producers and shippers, and to the other taxpayers absorbing the risks.

Then, drop all corporate income taxes, and we can do business.

That is an entirely different conversation that should have its own thread, if you wish to pursue it.

(but I don't, so I can't recommend starting one unless you think there are other posters here who will want to discuss that with you)

I'll wait for the rebuild first. Then we will have a few quality years of politics uninterrupted by anything resembling hockey. So, next Tuesday?

[Tciso]

Would you be on board with requiring changes to the composition of the oil cargo to make it easier to recover in the event of a spill?

I'm not sure what you mean? Refining it to a better grade, with more toxins removed? Freezing it? Equipping the tankers with spill recovery booms?

[Ronning's Ghost]

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

No. It means the risk cannot be calculated accurately.

OK, and that one. That sounds like another argument against building the pipeline. If we don't know how risky it is, how do we know that it's not too risky? If we cannot calculate the risk, how do we know how big to make your pipeline transit surtax?

Everything has some element of unknown risk.
And, as a nation, we have accepted larger risks than this many times over.

If you don't know the size of the risk, how do you know that Canada has accepted larger ones ?

But even if you did, I'm not sure how that's an argument for accepting it this time.

Some of those risks (e.g. WW2) were moral imperatives. I do not share the view (apparently common in Alberta) that the construction of pipelines is a moral imperative.

It retards economic growth, and they love that shit.

The common libel of industrialists who want to externalize the costs of their environmental depredations on the wider polity. No one (almost no one) is opposed to material prosperity, individually or collectively. It is just patently unjust for anyone to prosper individually through the destruction -- or risk of destruction -- of assets that we all share.

Right now, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag for everything anyways

That is precisely the outcome that I am trying to avoid.

While your proposal might form the basis of such a system, I have tried to make it clear that -- in its present form -- it can't, because you admit that neither the degree of risk nor the extent of the damage can be quantified.

(Actually, you insisted that it couldn't be. My theory was the actuaries probably could, but you rejected that view, so I went with your version.)

[Ronning's Ghost]

Would you be on board with requiring changes to the composition of the oil cargo to make it easier to recover in the event of a spill?

I'm not sure what you mean? Refining it to a better grade, with more toxins removed? Freezing it? Equipping the tankers with spill recovery booms?

Ah, you missed my reply to BCExpat.

If this works, it would go a long way to mitigating spill damage:

https://www.miningandenergy.ca/read/can ... uted-by-cn

https://financialpost.com/commodities/c ... ucks-plant

[Chef Boi RD]

The key problem I see is convincing the public it’s safe for oil tankers to navigate the Hecate strait. That looks like to me what the big stumbling block will be

[Ronning's Ghost]

The key problem I see is convincing the public it’s safe for oil tankers to navigate the Hecate strait. That looks like to me what the big stumbling block will be

Nothing is absolutely safe.

The problems are:

1) quantifying the risk, both in terms of likelihood and liability

(and hey, maybe it's low. But I'd like the opinion of someone with some skin in the game if it goes wrong, i.e. the insurers)

2) determining the technological capability for risk mitigation and spill recovery

3) seeing to it that B.C. is adequately protected against the risk.

And if we aren't, or we can't be, then it makes sense to oppose this route.

There are other ways to get more Alberta bitumen to other markets. I'm not sure why Smith has such a hard-on for B.C.'s north coast, but I suspect that it is political.

[Tciso]

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

No. It means the risk cannot be calculated accurately.

OK, and that one. That sounds like another argument against building the pipeline. If we don't know how risky it is, how do we know that it's not too risky? If we cannot calculate the risk, how do we know how big to make your pipeline transit surtax?

Everything has some element of unknown risk.
And, as a nation, we have accepted larger risks than this many times over.

If you don't know the size of the risk, how do you know that Canada has accepted larger ones ?

But even if you did, I'm not sure how that's an argument for accepting it this time.

Some of those risks (e.g. WW2) were moral imperatives. I do not share the view (apparently common in Alberta) that the construction of pipelines is a moral imperative.

It retards economic growth, and they love that shit.

The common libel of industrialists who want to externalize the costs of their environmental depredations on the wider polity. No one (almost no one) is opposed to material prosperity, individually or collectively. It is just patently unjust for anyone to prosper individually through the destruction -- or risk of destruction -- of assets that we all share.

Right now, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag for everything anyways

That is precisely the outcome that I am trying to avoid.

While your proposal might form the basis of such a system, I have tried to make it clear that -- in its present form -- it can't, because you admit that neither the degree of risk nor the extent of the damage can be quantified.

(Actually, you insisted that it couldn't be. My theory was the actuaries probably could, but you rejected that view, so I went with your version.)

Since no risk can be properly quantified, should we have no new development?

[rikster]

The key problem I see is convincing the public it’s safe for oil tankers to navigate the Hecate strait. That looks like to me what the big stumbling block will be

Don't think they would travel thru Hecate Strait, more likely Dixon Entrance which is the common route for American tankers, commercial vessels and ferries ...

Still has challenges but with modern technology and the use of pilots touch wood there have been no major incidents since the Nathan E Stewart incident in 2016 and as mentioned that incident was a vessel with an overworked crew and poor technology on board, not to mention that it didn't have a pilot on board...

[rikster]

Since no risk can be properly quantified, should we have no new development?

Oil tankers have been around since the mid to late 1800's, not only on the Pacific Ocean but around the world so there is a wealth of data insurers can use to access the risk and price the project...

What they need now is a consortium of players to work thru the various steps to learn if the project is viable or worth taking on....