Gas Prices

[Doug]

Originally Posted by libtard

Our refining capacity together with refined products from Alberta made us a net exporter of gasoline in 2017. We exported 6,000 barrels per day to the US. Any more questions?

By that logic, TMX will make BC a net exporter of dilbit.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Doug

By that logic, TMX will make BC a net exporter of dilbit.

A glut of dilbit wouldn’t decrease the prices at the pump and clearly a glut of gasoline won’t either so no reason to support TMX. Doesn’t benefit us at all

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

Our refining capacity together with refined products from Alberta made us a net exporter of gasoline in 2017. We exported 6,000 barrels per day to the US. Any more questions?

Source. I think you just read this in one of Robyn Allan's garbage articles - I think we can put her in the 'wrong about everything' bin and ignore anything she says in future, as the NEB figures you were just given disprove her.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Source. I think you just read this in one of Robyn Allan's garbage articles - I think we can put her in the 'wrong about everything' bin and ignore anything she says in future, as the NEB figures you were just given disprove her.

Add it to the long list of sources Albertans refuse to acknowledge because they disagree with it?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

Add it to the long list of sources Albertans refuse to acknowledge because they disagree with it?

No I just disagree with things that are factually incorrect, and everything from her has been so. She appears to be the source of all of your random criticisms and literally every one has been wrong. Every. Single. One. If you want to be taken seriously, find some actual evidence for your claims. Are the NEB's figures not good enough?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by libtard

Our refining capacity together with refined products from Alberta made us a net exporter of gasoline in 2017. We exported 6,000 barrels per day to the US. Any more questions?

I found this hard to believe without a credible source.

Who were clowns hanging from Second Narrows Bridge today?

[milomilo]

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-...wn-there-s-no-supply-shortage-1.23213782

Here's the 'source'. Not credible though, god knows how she made the figures this time.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I found this hard to believe without a credible source.

Who were clowns hanging from Second Narrows Bridge today?

Global BC indicated they were GreenPeace professionals already trained in the art of protest and blockade. Global BC even featured commentary by a pro Pipleline Economist who indicated that GreenPeace was actually using the event for photo-ops and to gain donations (to pay CEO salary). Probably the whole operation was backed by George Soros.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Probably the whole operation was backed by George Soros.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Who were clowns hanging from Second Narrows Bridge today?

People who put a lot of faith in nobody crawling up the arch with bolt cutters.

They are all down at this point but their supporters are greeting (read: bailing them out of jail because I'll be amazed if they get anything more than a slap on the wrist) them at the RCMP detachment.

[jollyburger]

Good time for Alberta to turn off the pipeline.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not going to argue that TMX will make much difference to your gas prices - it probably won't as so much of the cost at the pump is tax. But it will allow more refined product to flow from Alberta to Vancouver because there's another 600,000 barrels of space.

Read Rachel Notley's lips:

..For the longest time, Albertans and Canadians were stuck with the status quo, building nothing. Because Alberta had only one customer for our energy — the United States — we were stuck receiving a discounted price for our oil...'
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/rachel-notley-trans-mountain-op-ed/

If you are seeking higher prices for oil, it follows that the refineries that supply BC will be paying a higher price. Nobody is building TMX to flood the Lower Mainland with cheap oil.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Because when they build a new line they also have to operate it? Or do you think operational costs don't increase? Do you think that after TransLink buys a bunch of new buses they don't have to hire new drivers?

Come on man, I enjoy your posts here, don't change that by being a dick and talking to me like I'm stupid.

I know operational costs increase, but SkyTrains have much lower operational costs and they make up the bulk of the spending (or at least rationale) behind these tax increases when major projects are announced. Overall, as transit supporters, we should recognize that transit agencies looking for more funding every time they need to build something new is inherently unsustainable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Read Rachel Notley's lips:

..For the longest time, Albertans and Canadians were stuck with the status quo, building nothing. Because Alberta had only one customer for our energy — the United States — we were stuck receiving a discounted price for our oil...'
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/rachel-notley-trans-mountain-op-ed/

If you are seeking higher prices for oil, it follows that the refineries that supply BC will be paying a higher price. Nobody is building TMX to flood the Lower Mainland with cheap oil.

Did you even read my post?

I already said I doubt it will make much difference to the price, and I couldn't care less as that is not the reason for building the pipeline. However there are refineries in Alberta that could send refined product.

Since BC pays the highest price for gas in North America, it cannot be the case that the current discount your refinery is getting for oil is making a difference. So it follows that having to buy oil at a fairer price won't lead to any increase in pump price for that reason alone.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Come on man, I enjoy your posts here, don't change that by being a dick and talking to me like I'm stupid.

I know operational costs increase, but SkyTrains have much lower operational costs and they make up the bulk of the spending (or at least rationale) behind these tax increases when major projects are announced. Overall, as transit supporters, we should recognize that transit agencies looking for more funding every time they need to build something new is inherently unsustainable.

I agree with you in theory. There is some "burst" spending that will need to happen as transit service increases. Overall transit does require a subsidy, however the overall level per capita should remain even after correcting for inflation, as the tax base should grow along with transit requirements.

I think in the medium term future, cost outlook is good, as electrification and automation will take out the two largest cost drivers for buses in particular. I also expect a positive impact to Translink's finances with the Broadway extension. We'll have something that is likely operationally profitable, replacing a subsidized bus route.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Did you even read my post?

I already said I doubt it will make much difference to the price, and I couldn't care less as that is not the reason for building the pipeline. However there are refineries in Alberta that could send refined product.

Since BC pays the highest price for gas in North America, it cannot be the case that the current discount your refinery is getting for oil is making a difference. So it follows that having to buy oil at a fairer price won't lead to any increase in pump price for that reason alone.

Why use the fake narrative of accessing asian markets though? The latest data shows exports to asia accounted for 0 percent, 100% going to the US

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree with you in theory. There is some "burst" spending that will need to happen as transit service increases. Overall transit does require a subsidy, however the overall level per capita should remain even after correcting for inflation, as the tax base should grow along with transit requirements.

I think in the medium term future, cost outlook is good, as electrification and automation will take out the two largest cost drivers for buses in particular. I also expect a positive impact to Translink's finances with the Broadway extension. We'll have something that is likely operationally profitable, replacing a subsidized bus route.

Actually the 99 is operationally profitable as well, but yeah, the Broadway subway will definitely be transformative despite that.

But yes, as you said, it makes sense to have bursts of spending from time to time, but in theory to me at least, operating costs should stay roughly in line with transit service/demand. I trust the powers that be, but just when they say "we need money for the Evergreen Extension," then it's built, and they ask for more money for the 10 year vision, it's hard to understand. Because visually, the tax is still being collected, while the Evergreen Extension is done. I'm sure it's more complicated than just that, but that's why I asked the question in the first place.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But yes, as you said, it makes sense to have bursts of spending from time to time, but in theory to me at least, operating costs should stay roughly in line with transit service/demand. I trust the powers that be, but just when they say "we need money for the Evergreen Extension," then it's built, and they ask for more money for the 10 year vision, it's hard to understand. Because visually, the tax is still being collected, while the Evergreen Extension is done. I'm sure it's more complicated than just that, but that's why I asked the question in the first place.

Well you can take a look at transit financials anytime. At a high level, the suburban routes bleed money like crazy. Wages and fuel make up the bulk of expenses. There's your answer.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well you can take a look at transit financials anytime. At a high level, the suburban routes bleed money like crazy. Wages and fuel make up the bulk of expenses. There's your answer.

Absolutely, but those are not the reasons given when funding increases are requested. Especially considering those are not the services being expanded. One would assume that existing services are running at some sort of equilibrium, and that new funding pays for new projects/services.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

Why use the fake narrative of accessing asian markets though? The latest data shows exports to asia accounted for 0 percent, 100% going to the US

I should really stop responding to this but oh well.

This really isn't hard to get your head around. By using your 'logic', since no LNG is going to Asia currently, it is impossible to export it in the future and the LNG plants being built are useless. Do you think that?

The 300,000 barrels are currently being used by local demand. Add an extra 600,000 barrels to that and some will be exported. And, as has been pointed out to you so many times, it doesn't matter anyway. All that matters is that we can sell it on the world market and get a fair price.