Castanet

I think it might be interesting to see where people stand and why. I believe we all know that we, the world, is too dependent on oil for it to go away for a long time. It is nice to dream it will but I highly doubt anyone alive today will see the elimination of the use of petroleum products. Transportation, planes, trains, automobiles, ships are only a small portion of the oil used in the world today. The petroleum industry is just too large and too important to society today to just go away. Because of this we are going to be transporting petroleum products in one form or another for decades. I suppose we could refine and produce all (most of) the products on the oilfield sites. I hope we all realize that dream will never happen. We cannot even get refineries built in Alberta.

I am 100% behind pipelines for transporting our oil wherever possible. I believe that they are by far the safest method of transportation available to us.

anyone opposing a pipeline needs to give their head a shake, or better yet, should move to North Korea or Cuba where they'd be more at home.

Smurf wrote:
I am 100% behind pipelines for transporting our oil wherever possible. I believe that they are by far the safest method of transportation available to us.

Yeup, pipelines are the way to go. I still believe the pipelines would be an easier sell if there was an upgrading refinery in Alberta that would provide well paying jobs year round and move the upgraded material by pipeline. Get it so the oil will at least float and not coat the bottom of any water course if compromised by a spill.
Sending it to Cherry point I thought was an option as well as they already have a deep sea tanker port. Might alleviate some fears of a spill in Van. harbor.

It is possible for someone to support pipelines and yet be against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion ...

How, why, when, would someone agree with pipelines and be against The Trans Mountain expansion. The product is going to get to the port somehow. How could they be against the expansion if they agree with pipelines.

Smurf wrote:How, why, when, would someone agree with pipelines and be against The Trans Mountain expansion. The product is going to get to the port somehow. How could they be against the expansion if they agree with pipelines.

Because there are better routes and less risky endpoints ... when you look at all the pipeline projects that are waiting to be built there is a lot of capacity that is coming online ... are we just trying to dump the product as quickly as possible without being assured that the market will stay at the same level or grow? It's not just about having more pipelines, it's about using them smartly ...

You don't believe that it is possible to keep environmental damage to a minimum twinning the lies. Also it keeps any possible problem in the same place instead of spreading it around. Where would you propose to run another pipeline and how many years/decades would it take to get all the approvals and agreements necessary.

EDIT TO ADD:

I was also talking all methods of transportation in general not just Trans Mountain as that is being discussed in another thread. I want to know what the people that are against pipelines propose as an alternative and why.

The only alternative is to leave the sludge in the Alberta tar sands, move into the 21st century and start creating an economy that includes clean energy production.

The NDP has been in power for an extremely short time. The BC Liberals have left one heck of a huge mess to clean up, and the BC Liberal supporters desperately want the NDP to fail, but the rest of us are willing to give them a chance to prove that B.C. doesn't need to be Alberta's whipping boy.

(Did you know that Syncrude is lobbying the Alberta Energy Regulator to give them until 2085 to try to clean up their tailings ponds?)

None of the above, go with 100% renewable resources.

Smurf wrote:How, why, when, would someone agree with pipelines and be against The Trans Mountain expansion. The product is going to get to the port somehow. How could they be against the expansion if they agree with pipelines.

spooker wrote:Because there are better routes and less risky endpoints ... when you look at all the pipeline projects that are waiting to be built there is a lot of capacity that is coming online ... are we just trying to dump the product as quickly as possible without being assured that the market will stay at the same level or grow? It's not just about having more pipelines, it's about using them smartly ...

I don't believe the Port of Prince Rupert actual deals with oil products, so that leave Westridge Marine Terminal.

So its either KM pipeline or rail tanker cars, to west coast. Keystone to the south once its actual gets finished, not sure if it re-started or not.

So far I have not seen one reasonable alternative to pipelines, which is pretty well what I expected. Pipelines are by far the best alternative for the transportation of the petroleum products which are so necessary in out modern day world. The future might be different, but that is a long way away.

You can't ignore common sense forever, Smurf. I've already told you the alternative to bitumen pipelines, trains, trucks, or horse and buggy: leave the bitumen where it is. The last thing we need is more GHG emissions polluting our atmosphere. Also, as you so conveniently ignore, tar sands corporations such as Syncrude are lobbying the AER to approve the 'attempted' clean-up of the hundreds of tailings ponds be delayed until 2085. Is this what you want our future generations to be faced with?

I must have missed your links proving there is such a lobby. Please post them as I am well past the stage of taking anything you say as fact.

Leaving the bitumen there is your personal solution. I have already told you I don't agree. I've told you why. We have different opinions but they do not overcome the fact that we will need petroleum products for many decades to come. We will just have to disagree.

No I don't want to see things left for future generations. I want them cleaned up in a timely fashion but have not seen any factual proof it is not happening, actual facts, have you. Please show me.

Here we are again with you saying things and giving no proof. I have shown a number of places where petroleum product will be neededfor ears to come. Do you have any proof of any way they will be gone in any short period of time. Anything????????

lasnomadas wrote: The last thing we need is more GHG emissions polluting our atmosphere.

Dr. Weaver disagrees with you. And is it really "the last thing we need?" Seriously? One of the worst cons pulled by the warmist cultists was getting people to swallow that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a harmless gas that plant life requires to live. So your statement is false, just from that part alone.

Using fairy tales and rhetoric to advocate for the destruction of billions of dollars to our economy is really sad, and also disgusting. What is your alternative to replace all of that energy and all of those jobs? Solar and wind power? Forget it. That's just not going to work. Hydro? Great! Let's get going on Site C. But until we can find cheaper alternatives, let's keep producing that oil sands oil.