Northern BC economy - oil and gas?

I was involved in the UNBC Northern Land Use Institute - Northern Coastal Information and Research Program (offshore oil and gas - OOG) - for 2 years I was absolutely STEEPED in OOG issues.

I participated in meetings in several communities surrounding the Queen Charlotte Basin, a familiarity tour of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and researched/submitted to the Public Review Panel of the moratorium on offshore oil and gas.

Key points I learned:

  1. Hecate Strait is NOT “offshore” - the fisheries conducted there are called “inshore”

  2. There is no Pacific Accord - which would HAVE TO include First Nations signatories - we cannot make the same mistake made by the Labrador Inuit who were shut out of the Atlantic Accord

  3. The offshore industry does NOT send greenhorns out to offshore rigs/floating operations - remember the Ocean Ranger - crew for those operations can be flown in for their month shift, then flown back home…to Brazil, South Africa, Calgary, where ever they live

  4. Guysborogh County (Nova Scotia) has learned that the industry will appeal and fight any property taxes from land based operations

  5. OOG industry uses its own version of the English language, as set out in the Prov/Fed agreements derived from the Atlantic Accord - “local” means you have had a post office box for 6 months

  6. The Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board says that they will not allow seismic testing when there are marine mammals in the area, during spawning season, over nursery areas and over migratory routes…which describes nearly every square meter of the Hecate Strait.

  7. The Royal Society of Canada’s Science Review had two main conclusions:

Conclusion 1) Provided an adequate regulatory regime is put in place, there are no science gaps that need to be filled before lifting the moratoria on oil and gas development. – note: “adequate regulatory regime” requires a Pacific Accord

Conclusion 2) The present restriction on tanker traffic in transit along the West Coast of North America from entering the coastal zone should be maintained for the time being. – note: since most spills happen in transit, less so in extraction

8 ) Very few (if any) local jobs, minimal revenue returns (only what can be negotiated between Prov/Fed/First Nations), complete lack of baseline science, oh…and a well understood FACT that oil and gas is NON-RENEWABLE and VERY COSTLY.

  1. Then there are the 70% PLUS of the BC population opposed…

LINKS - for anyone interested in looking into it for themselves…I have more too 8)

…don’t EVER just take someone’s word for it…think for yourselves.

For any interested in the results of the UNBC program and its efforts to ‘increase the knowledge base’ on the issue of OOG please check out this site.

Royal Society of Canada reports: … 115#report

Want more?

Land based oil and gas is a completely different animal than marine based oil and gas.

Do you want to bet intact ecosystems on this hope?

Do you know is/was the financial impact/benefit on the provincial coffers on the East Coast as a whole from royalties, drilling rights etc.? Thanks

Those are royalties from production of oil, not from exploration. 

It was difficult to even get anyone to drill and explore off Newfoundland in the early 1980s.  PetroCanada and the Federal government had to foot the bill, since oil companies weren’t really interested in doing exploration.

BC won’t get any of the revenues from oil production, either.  Offshore is a federal jurisdiction. 

But first you’ll have to find oil.  The world-class geologists I’ve spoken to about it think that there’s no chance at all that there’s any oil – it’s geologically very different than the East Coast.

So yeah, have the debate or whatever, but don’t think that if a moratorium is lifted that it means a bunch of money will be coming into BC.  It took Newfoundland more than 25 years to see a dime, and they have a boatload of oil.

Regarding what PaperPusher said, are you saying that OOG wouldn’t create jobs for people with requisite skill in our region, and wouldn’t require support from nearby communities to function?


So if there isn’t any oil, what’s the harm of exploring for it? Federal jurisdiction yes, but that revenue is shared with the provinces isn’t it? Like any science there will be those that say there is and there isn’t, so who do you believe? Thanks

Federal jurisdiction yes, but that revenue is shared with the provinces isn’t it?[/quote]

See the recent election, where the Conservative premier of Newfoundland asked Newfoundlanders to vote for Anybody But Conservative, since the Federal Government reneged on a written promise to share revenue.

Also, see the 1980s Supreme Court case, where both Newfoundland and BC asked the Supreme Court to determine exactly who gets any offshore oil revenue.  The Supreme Court answered that it’s a federal jurisdiction.  Period.

So no, it’s not shared.  Any oil belongs to the people of Canada, not to the people of BC.

That’s what I intend to do.  :smiley:

I appreciate your info and it is helpful.  I obviously do not have the background in the issue as you do but there are also those who support the idea of lifting the moratorium due to the positive effect it could have on the economy.

I stand by my initial point that the BC Liberals are trying to get our economy going but are hampered by environmental issues and the problems that they inherited from the previous government.

  1. Of course it’s differnt but they require support services just the same.

  2. Thats not my decision to make.  If it can be done safely and in an environmentally sound way while giving the economy a shot in the arm than sure, I’m all for it.

:smiley: :smiley:

It does not matter what we think, you may be for it; or against it, the big oil companies don’t care!, when the time is right oil and gas will be flowing from the ocean floor. :cry:
It does not matter there is a moratorium in place as its not feasible to drill yet!

So you can all argue about why they should drill or why they cant drill in the end it will not matter.
And By the way Oil and Gas exploration all ready has taken place in the QCI Basin  back before the  moratorium was put into place… :astonished: :astonished:

Only 2% of Oil released into the Ocean is done so because of human error. If it’s flowing, we might as well grab it.

Start your argument again when oil is back at $150 bbl.
The oil sands are gonna shut down if it sinks any lower.

not to be rude man but you are dead wrong on that  i work in the oilsands and there is no way oil is shutting down up there.

first off, when Albian Sands (Shell) started producing light sweet crude from sand extract ion the 60’s, the cost to do it was 3 times what it is now, and oil was less then 20 dollars per barrel.  what all the complaining and whinning is about is that investors are seeing less return on what they put in.  if you head to the area i work in (the heart of it all) there are some major operations.  Jackpine, Muskeg River, Sunrise (where I am) Firebag, Horizon, Voyager, and Aurora.  Those are the major oilands sites.  NONE of them have shut down, or even cut production. 

The only major issue was Suncor postponing it’s Voyager Upgrader facility, and laying off the workforce for it.  Considering Oil is a third of what it was in the summer, one upgrade being postponed is nothing.  The tarsands generate too much oil to shut down, an exapmple is Albian’s Muskeg River mine, it alone produces 450, 000 barrells per day, from one mine. 

Inspite of feras, and what people see on the news, drilling, expoloration, and production in northern Alberta is wide out, and as freeze up comes (when drilling rigs move in) all compaines are going full tilt, and every rig i know is going to be up and running, and on top of all that, all rig workers were given a minimum 5 dollar an hour raise last month.  so Alberta and it’s oil, are open for business.

Im pretty sure the big money is in natural gas not oil, I belive even in alberta they make more royalties from natural gas than both oil sands and regular oil combined.

Another question to ask is how many oil tanker spills would it take to ruin the fishing in the straight for good?

I think that the oil companies are very good at looking out for their own interests. Maybe we should be a little better at looking after ours.  :smiley:

Only 2% of Oil released into the Ocean is done so because of human error. If it’s flowing, we might as well grab it. [/quote]

Interesting number - can you substantiate it?

I know that only a small portion of oil released to the ocean annually is from oil exploration/extraction - but there are also chronic ship-sourced spills from bilges etc - then there is the land based sources from storm drains and such. Oh - and releasing oil into the oceans during oil exploration/extraction, pumped bilges, and land based sources are ** not considered human error - they are planned spills **.

There are also natural seeps of oil into the ocean - but human sourced oil leaks don’t replace those seeps - they add to them. How much more do you think our oceans can handle? Even top oceanographic experts do not know where the point of no return is. The ocean has an amazing capacity to buffer pollution - but at some point it will become a SOURCE of carbon, no longer able to be a SINK for carbon.

Sure they do. The hotels and restaurants will be happy to house and feed workers en route to and from the rigs - water taxis and helecopter services too.

Forgive me - but I disagree that this is even possible. Oil is being extracted the world over to provide energy - thus increasing carbon in the atmosphere - thus altering global climate patterns faster than they would change on their own.

Considering how many other ways we can create energy I feel this is not acceptable. Imagine entire economies fueled by renewable energy sources!!

As for it not being “my decision to make” - I whole-heartedly disagree. This coast, these waters and all the fish in them, are ** COMMON PROPERTY**. If it isn’t your decision to make - then whose is it? For one, I am not willing to abdicate my responsibility to corporate profit.

Any numbers I would have packed away in my storage locker would be several years old now. One thing to bear in mind is that royalties are tied to PROFIT - not flat rates. This is - again - where the corporate language needs to be watched VERY carefully as important words have legally binding meanings…words such as “profit”. If a company makes LESS PROFIT than previously - they call it a LOSS. Also, they would want to make back the money on their expenses towards research and exploration.

It’s all just ‘good’ business.

And, as MiG pointed out, any royalties go to the Feds - who can then, out of the goodness of their hearts - give payments to the Prov.

[quote=“Kid Havoc”]
I think that the oil companies are very good at looking out for their own interests. Maybe we should be a little better at looking after ours.  :smiley: [/quote]


Hey - how do I bold my fonts so that I can stop using CAPS for emphasis. I don’t want everyone to think I am yelling.  :smile:

Surround the text you want to be bold with

For example:

I ** like ** cheese 


I like cheese.

More here: … ost#bbcref

Thanks MiG - but I am lactose intolerant. Even if I ** like ** cheese, it does ** not like ** me.

:smiley: I do ** like ** learning a new trick tho - thanks!

But how do I input the unicode interrobang character?