The government of British Columbia says it will not support construction of Enbridge's (ENB)...

The government of British Columbia says it will not support construction of Enbridge's (ENB) Northern Gateway project unless it receives a bigger slice of ~C$81B in overall tax revenue the pipeline expects to generate in its first 30 years of operation. The demands would apply to any company hoping to build heavy oil pipelines through B.C., including KMP’s plan to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline.

From other sites
Comments (9)
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16260) | Send Message
    Typical liberal shortsightedness.


    Deny the jobs, deny the capital investment, deny the ancillary economic effects, deny the sales taxes, deny the value-added taxes. Just hold the project hostage unless the government hacks can exact their direct pound of flesh.


    Now, of course, any sane country, like the U.S. should be, but isn't, would immediately invite Enbridge to build their pipeline through Washington and to the port of Seattle, and Enbridge could tell BC to whistle Dixie. But, of course, liberal ideologues all think and act alike, so there's no respite.


    Dumb and dumber.
    23 Jul 2012, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (474) | Send Message
    While I generally agree with you this isn't liberal tactics this is supply and demand free market economics at work. It's simply a government using it this time.


    B.C. knows that the project needs to go through their territory...well it'll cost the company X dollars to use their land if the price becomes too high than they can move the pipeline to an area that's willing to accept the project for less money.


    The ancillary economic affect should have no bearing on the actual negotiation of the project. Like the negotiation of a trade in of a vehicle should have no bearing on the negotiation of a new car purchase.
    23 Jul 2012, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16260) | Send Message


    We'll just have to disagree.


    There's no reason whatsoever for a government to have to stand in the way of what otherwise would be normal commerce. I can only assume that there are existing specific laws applying to permits and taxation, and the government should be entitled to whatever that says, not a penny more or less. Their actions smack of blackmail, trying to torpedo the project, if their "tribute" isn't paid.


    Frankly, I find it disgusting. I only wish there was some other province or state that would make them pay for their hubris.
    23 Jul 2012, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
    The situation is a little more complex if one had read the article:


    1) You forget that governments reflect the will of their people. What if the majority of BC'ers don't want the pipeline? So what about "states" rights?


    2) If anyone had read the article there is a concern about setting aside enough money to make sure that the taxpayer is not on the hook for any spills.


    So I would say with BC exercising their state rights and protecting the taxpayer, they are exercising the proper conservative attitude.
    24 Jul 2012, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3121) | Send Message
    This was purportedly an issue over "spill prevention"....I'm sure there's more to it than that, such as extracting pork.
    23 Jul 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • PeakOiler
    , contributor
    Comments (299) | Send Message
    Finally govt's are getting smarter, realizing that there is a huge cost associated with a long term pipeline, ie. the clean up costs, the mediation costs, the political costs, the prevention costs, and that someone has got to pay for it on an ongoing basis. So, make the money grubbing corporations pay, and I'm all for that. Otherwise who pays? You do, I do, your kids do, and all the taxpayers of B.C. and Canada. Force the corporations to find better, more effective, more efficient ways to move their product to market or to port. It's a win-win for everyone.
    23 Jul 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2868) | Send Message
    NY state businesses are leaving in droves, California studios go out of state to makes hundreds of movies and TV series, closing coal plants, no oil pipelines for us, take you dirty nasty business someplace else and guess what they do, and they do pay their fair share, except to other states and countries more business friendly and yes sadly the children and tax payers of the USA will pay for such foolish government folly by losing their lively hood, losing the tax revenue and losing hope. Yes all the USA should look like Detroit with only the government to turn to. Your right the government is "finally getting smarter" and their doing it at our expense. you are a wise man Peak it is a win win for everybody.
    23 Jul 2012, 07:12 PM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
    Argue all you want but you are seeing the ugly head of socialism rising on the horizon in both Canada and USA via undue taxation and onerous regulations. Is it any wonder that we have millions unemployed?
    24 Jul 2012, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
    What a bunch of ignorant claptrap from our friends, the free-market religious fundamentalists. I live in Alberta, where we have seen a number of large and expensive oil spills in the last few months. BC, by a majority, do not want oil pipelines, and more importantly for them, oil tankers on their coast. It is not unreasonable, considering the proven lies of the pipeline operators in Alberta and the failure to take responsibility for their negligence, for the Government of BC to demand more even money than they might need. this would be fair because of the Bull S estimates that are given for cleanup costs by recalcitrant pipeline companies, when pitching their pipelines. Alberta oil will not be piped down into the USA, and then to the coast. The whole point is to bypass the USA altogether, for better or for worse. It is hardly utopian to ask for companies to pay when their safety systems fail, and not the taxpayers. The oil companies also resist some form of collective insurance fund, so what is a province to do?


    Ancillary effects are all theoretical until they occur, and should not be counted on the balance sheet of a deal. That is part of the problem with our (Canada and the US) finances of late. Counting too many line-items as revenue when it really doesn't exist. These companies want to make money, and happily they will. They have to pay for their problems, though.


    Disclosure, I am long pipelines in Alberta, though not ENB in particular.
    24 Jul 2012, 06:06 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs