Seeking Alpha

Christy Clark’s Liberal Party won an upset victory in British Columbia, defeating a New...

Christy Clark’s Liberal Party won an upset victory in British Columbia, defeating a New Democratic Party that had been leading in the polls for almost two years, suggesting stronger than expected voter approval for the Northern Gateway oil pipeline. NDP leader Adrian Dix had vowed to block plans by Enbridge (ENB) and Kinder Morgan Partners (KMP) to ship more oil across the Canadian province.
From other sites
Comments (10)
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13542) | Send Message
     
    At least the electorate is sane somewhere.
    15 May 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • frankpeel@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    The electorate may be sane now but
    it has not always been sane in BC.

     

    All electorates are sane sometimes
    and nuts also sometimes.

     

    The electorate is us. We are sometimes
    sane and sometimes not.

     

    That's what makes markets.

     

    And don't give me Switzerland where I
    lived for decades.

     

    It's just like all the others except in a different way.
    15 May 2013, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • mr putter
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Well , let's see, how many of us have seen elected officials
    change their stance, "after" they get in office??

     

    So......I wouldn't jump off the cliff just yet....
    15 May 2013, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Dwaub
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    What kind of sanity is it that cheers the mining of ever dirtier and more polluting petroleum in a world climate fast changing to conditions where those claiming their sanity can no longer live?

     

    This week, the world marked the passage, upward, of the benchmark 400 ppm atmospheric CO2, the highest it's been since the dinosaurs. We are fast heading toward a climate only dinosaurs can live in, and you claim this sanity?
    15 May 2013, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • CincinnatiRick
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    This site is about investment, not politics. Your histrionics should be taken to a venue where they will be appreciated. Did you possibly confuse "SA" with "Salon"?

     

    Canadians understand their interest in moving the bounty of their tar sands to market. Since there appear to be political obstacles to it moving south to the US, it will instead flow to the Far East. This can be done through the constricted pipeline facility currently available and by rail. But it is far more economical and environmentally friendly to construct additional pipeline capacity. And why shouldn't the citizens of the Canadian Provinces, including BC, reap some of the bounty? What are you willing to pay them to forego the largesse coming their way to allow you to indulge your crusade? Nada.
    15 May 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • llerrad
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The Enbridge pipeline suggest that a refinery be built at the port of loading. That would mean if there was a rupture in the pipeline all the heavy oil would sink to the bottom of the fish spawning beds.
    Now if the refinery was built on Alberta and a rupture occurred it would be lighter oil and float to the top until the leak was arrested.

     

    I'm an advocate of all three pipelines and lets get some of that refinery profit flowing to B.C. -- After all it's lighter oil that is more friendly and it runs through B.C. so why should Alberta reap all the profits? Just because lighter oil works better.

     

    Get that natural gas line to Kitimat going NOW!
    15 May 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Sumflow
    , contributor
    Comments (3641) | Send Message
     
    Trying to stop that oil from getting out is like trying to stay a little bit pregnant.
    30 May 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • FXMarketMan
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    @CincinnatiRick Your rhetoric is just that. When the pipelines spill over, and they will- all marine life will be affected. So to pocket your so called earnings- which by the way will never make their way out of the oil tycoon coffers you suggest we go ahead and destroy - not like we have already torn apart the fabric of ocean running through B.C. (Look at damn salmon)... Instead of pursuing alternative energy - Folks like you cheer these MNC's to continue their personal CEO onslaught of the world. If anything, these MBA's from the Ivy leagues, and our corporations are the ones to blame. We value education, but fault when it comes to developing spiritual and moral values to uplift society -which makes such academic and "development" success meaningless. In other words, you champion the devil which you shun but endorse anyways!
    12 Jun 2013, 02:05 AM Reply Like
  • CincinnatiRick
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    I believe, as Dweeb above, you have blundered into the wrong venue, confusing the acronym "SA" with "Salon." Your fact-free histrionics will be well received there. Here is the link: http://www.salon.com. I hope you are able to resolve that bunch in your panties...have a nice day!
    12 Jun 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Sumflow
    , contributor
    Comments (3641) | Send Message
     
    FXMarketMan :> We value education<

     

    The anti-oil sands campaign — activists call them “tar sands” to evoke ugly images — was devised by Rockefeller in a “coordinated campaign structure” to act as its public face, according to a leaked PowerPoint presentation shown below.

     

    See: http://bit.ly/14w8HVf
    12 Jun 2013, 04:17 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector