Pipelines

The forum's Skid Road. DO NOT ENTER unless you're ready for a squabble.

Re: Pipelines

Postby alanjh595 » Mar 4th, 2018, 5:38 pm

Drip_Torch wrote:
Merry wrote:It is not in Russia's interest to see American and Canadian oil supply increase. So it's not such a stretch to think they'd try to find a way to keep North American oil development in check. And funding environmental groups would be one good way to try to do that. As would spreading disinformation via social media.


How do we increase Canadian oil supply by creating a pipeline to tidewater, ostensibly, to ship that oil off shore? Hey, if it means I’m getting cheaper diesel at the pumps, I’ll put away the crayons and create the opposite of a protest song.

...whatever you call that.


I suggest that you read back about 20 pages and catch up. It's all there.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

Jflem1983 likes this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Guru
 
Posts: 6828
Likes: 2591 posts
Liked in: 3648 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Merry » Mar 4th, 2018, 5:38 pm

Drip_Torch wrote:How do we increase Canadian oil supply by creating a pipeline to tidewater, ostensibly, to ship that oil off shore?

IF the Russians were concerned about our oil production, it wouldn't be about the oil we use for domestic consumption. It would be oil we are selling on the world market in direct competition to the oil that they are selling. So yes, they WOULD have an interest in preventing our oil getting to tidewater.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 7765
Likes: 5690 posts
Liked in: 5373 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby Drip_Torch » Mar 4th, 2018, 5:47 pm

Merry wrote:
Drip_Torch wrote:How do we increase Canadian oil supply by creating a pipeline to tidewater, ostensibly, to ship that oil off shore?

IF the Russians were concerned about our oil production, it wouldn't be about the oil we use for domestic consumption. It would be oil we are selling on the world market in direct competition to the oil that they are selling. So yes, they WOULD have an interest in preventing our oil getting to tidewater.


Okay, I guess I confused supply with exports - or you did?

When I think of Canadian oil supply, I think of the Bakken Formation crude oil, from North Dakota, that was on its way to Irvine oil in Saint John, New Brunswick.

This leads me to the other point I don't understand with this whole TM2 pipeline argument... We've been shipping dilbut to China through the trans mountain pipeline for a few years now. KM loads out about 300,000 barrels per day. How many more barrels do we need to ship to China before the price goes up?

My pedestrian economics fails to understand the supply/demand equation being used here.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Übergod
 
Posts: 1586
Likes: 375 posts
Liked in: 933 posts
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby Drip_Torch » Mar 4th, 2018, 7:30 pm

alanjh595 wrote:
Drip_Torch wrote:How do we increase Canadian oil supply by creating a pipeline to tidewater, ostensibly, to ship that oil off shore? Hey, if it means I’m getting cheaper diesel at the pumps, I’ll put away the crayons and create the opposite of a protest song.


I suggest that you read back about 20 pages and catch up. It's all there.


I didn't find anything answering my question - Would TM2 prevent another Lac-Mégantic rail disaster? But, that wasn't a complete waste of time. In fact, what I see 20 something pages back are all sorts of reasons why TM2 might exacerbate the rail safety situation.

I agree with those posters on here that see the need to increase the Canadian supply side of the equation. I even agree with those posters that see the need to find new markets for Canadian exports.

What I don't see is how TM2 works towards accomplishing any of that. All I see are the trappings of extractivism, and the paradox of plenty.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Übergod
 
Posts: 1586
Likes: 375 posts
Liked in: 933 posts
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby seewood » Mar 4th, 2018, 7:41 pm

Drip_Torch wrote:I even agree with those posters that see the need to find new markets for Canadian exports.


Perfect, I believe that is the premise of the new pipeline.
I am not wealthy but I am rich

3 people like this post.
seewood
Übergod
 
Posts: 1202
Likes: 2658 posts
Liked in: 1225 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 1:08 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby The Green Barbarian » Mar 4th, 2018, 7:52 pm

Cactusflower wrote:Before this goes off the rails completely (pun intended) and we never get back to the topic, I'd just like to let HG know I'm waiting for his response to my question: 'Why was the NGP considered NFG, but not the KMX?'


and I'm waiting for your answer to my question.
"Socialists sure are a lot dumber today than they were when I was alive" - John Stuart Mill

JT - he's been ready since 2015, to be the puppet of Gerald Butts and the Laurentide Elite.

rustled likes this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29390
Likes: 12882 posts
Liked in: 17392 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby Smurf » Mar 4th, 2018, 8:16 pm

CF doesn't answer questions just asks them and demands answers.

EDIT TO ADD:

Also loves to ask everyone else to do the work for her/him and actually expects us to do it.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 9480
Likes: 15615 posts
Liked in: 5973 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Pipelines

Postby Cactusflower » Mar 4th, 2018, 9:01 pm

hobbyguy wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:Before this goes off the rails completely (pun intended) and we never get back to the topic, I'd just like to let HG know I'm waiting for his response to my question: 'Why was the NGP considered NFG, but not the KMX?'


You are trolling again. And showing your complete ignorance of the real issues.

1) the TMX is an existing route and will create no further damage to wildlife corridors etc.
2) the TMX expansion improves existing pipeline safety
3) the TMX tanker shipments come from an existing terminal, with existing support infrastructure such as traffic control
4) the TMX tanker route is far less stormy and is a simpler to navigate route
5) the TMX comes with an enhanced marine safety regime, which includes heretofore unavailable salvage tug capacity
6) the TMX comes with enhanced marine safety for the entire coast
7) the TMX tanker route is through waters shared with the US and where the US has had thousands of tanker transits without incident, AND the US maintains significant emergency back up - which provide a third level of safety assurance
8) the TMX comes with $1 billion in direct payments to the BC government coffers
9) the TMX will support refinery jobs in BC.
10) the TMX increases the possibilities of gasoline from Edmonton getting to Vancouver (and thus makes life more affordable there).

There are many more differences, all of that has been discussed - but it seems there has been a failure to comprehend (wilful?) on the part of the plastic kayakers.


I'm back, and I resent your implication that I'm ignorant of the issues, and fail to comprehend. Therefore, I'll take the time to address each of your points:
1) The new route doesn't precisely follow the old route.
2) The NGP would have had the same safety measures as the KMX.
3) The Westbridge terminal and its 'support infrastructure' is nothing to write home about.
4) Burrard Inlet, with its 3 bridges (don't forget that infamous railway bridge), Georgia Strait with its myriad of islands, not to mention the highly populated areas, is less dangerous to navigate than the northern route? I don't think so.
5) I'd like to see evidence of this 'enhanced marine safety regime'. So far it's similar to Christy Clark's LNG pipe-dream.
6) See #5
7) With Trump at the helm, I won't be holding my breath while looking to the US for assistance.
8) How much did the BC government stand to profit due to direct payments from the NGP?
9) Not bleepin' likely. The dilbit from the KMX is destined for China, not B.C. refineries.
10) See #9.

And furthermore, I've never ridden in a kayak, plastic or otherwise, and I don't intend to in the future.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4202
Likes: 1975 posts
Liked in: 829 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby hobbyguy » Mar 5th, 2018, 12:19 am

^^ your response is peanut chucking. Typical BC NDPer. Research every point I make and you will see that you are wrong. I have, but you can't be bothered as usual so you crank out a bunch stuff and nonsense.

Yes, kayaking requires balance.
Dimples - "just not ready"

rustled likes this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 8971
Likes: 2571 posts
Liked in: 9754 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Smurf » Mar 5th, 2018, 5:14 am

CF had to have help to find the difference between refining and upgrading so I am certain she/he has not done the research to back up anything said in the last post. If anything has been done someone is probably coaching and just not doing a good job.


Drip_Torch you are just not understanding what people are saying. No one has said the KM pipeline would have prevented the Lac-Mégantic or any other rail disaster.

Would the trans mountain twin have prevented the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster?


What we are saying is that out of the transportation methods available it is by far the safest method to get the products to the west coast for the foreseeable future. Those products are going to get there somehow so why not the safest way because a lot of the trip will be through BC and would that not be the best for us???????????? Also as has been said Russia and the US would love to see us out of the world market because it would make their exports more valuable. As a side benefit it would hurt our economy and make us desperate and much easier to deal with. In other words we would be losers big time. Petroleum might not be the way of the future but it is the way for a long time to come.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

7 people like this post.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 9480
Likes: 15615 posts
Liked in: 5973 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Pipelines

Postby The Green Barbarian » Mar 5th, 2018, 7:27 am

Cactusflower wrote:
I'm back, and I resent your implication that I'm ignorant of the issues, and fail to comprehend. .


You say this, and then you show that HG is actually 100% correct, you are ignorant of the issues, and fail to comprehend. Back to the Tides Foundation hand-book.
"Socialists sure are a lot dumber today than they were when I was alive" - John Stuart Mill

JT - he's been ready since 2015, to be the puppet of Gerald Butts and the Laurentide Elite.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29390
Likes: 12882 posts
Liked in: 17392 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby Cactusflower » Mar 5th, 2018, 9:34 am

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4558459
Okay, I get it. The pipeline pushers are determined to silence any detractors. So I wasn't surprised to see this article in the CBC news this morning. I know I won't receive an answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyway: Why has Transport Canada found it necessary to have an aircraft scanning the B.C. coast for oil spills if there's no danger of spills from oil tankers, as the pipeline pushers are advocating ad nauseam?

I will ask my other question as soon as I've done the necessary research.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4202
Likes: 1975 posts
Liked in: 829 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Jflem1983 » Mar 5th, 2018, 9:38 am

Cactusflower wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-oil-spills-are-spotted-in-b-c-1.4558459
Okay, I get it. The pipeline pushers are determined to silence any detractors. So I wasn't surprised to see this article in the CBC news this morning. I know I won't receive an answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyway: Why has Transport Canada found it necessary to have an aircraft scanning the B.C. coast for oil spills if there's no danger of spills from oil tankers, as the pipeline pushers are advocating ad nauseam?

I will ask my other question as soon as I've done the necessary research.



K so my dad drilled in the oceans for 40 years. I was born overseas . Etc. He says. They find oil like that. A ship or a plane sees a dark spot. A slick. Thats where the jack up rig gets brought.

Maybe transport canada is looking for an offshore deposit.
Could be a good thing for BC.

If not. They are likely doing what they can to allease constant whiners . Some people want us to live in caves again u know. Plus they hate guns. So i have no idea how they expect to survive but thats not my problem
Now they want to take our guns away . That would be just fine. Take em away from the criminals first . Ill gladly give u mine. "Charlie Daniels"

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"

rustled likes this post.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Guru
 
Posts: 5785
Likes: 12256 posts
Liked in: 3240 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 10:38 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby The Green Barbarian » Mar 5th, 2018, 10:08 am

Cactusflower wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-oil-spills-are-spotted-in-b-c-1.4558459
Okay, I get it. The pipeline pushers are determined to silence any detractors.


I don't see anyone attempting to silence anyone. All people want are actual facts, not fear-mongering garbage and lies as scripted for you to disseminate by the Tides Foundation. You've been told this before but of course never listen - stop lying and people might be more willing to listen to you.

So I wasn't surprised to see this article in the CBC news this morning. I know I won't receive an answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyway: Why has Transport Canada found it necessary to have an aircraft scanning the B.C. coast for oil spills if there's no danger of spills from oil tankers, as the pipeline pushers are advocating ad nauseam?


Why do the RCMP wear bullet-proof vests?

And BTW - you aren't winning anyone over with the "pipeline-pusher" stupidity. It's as dumb as calling people who dare question anything about the man-made climate change hypothesis "deniers". All you do is entrench people against you who already find your over-the-top sanctimony completely disgusting.

I will ask my other question as soon as I've done the necessary research.


How about answering questions (truthfully, though I know that's impossible) instead of asking them? You are the one that wants to cost the economy of Canada billions of dollars.
"Socialists sure are a lot dumber today than they were when I was alive" - John Stuart Mill

JT - he's been ready since 2015, to be the puppet of Gerald Butts and the Laurentide Elite.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29390
Likes: 12882 posts
Liked in: 17392 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby hobbyguy » Mar 5th, 2018, 10:39 am

Cactusflower wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-oil-spills-are-spotted-in-b-c-1.4558459
Okay, I get it. The pipeline pushers are determined to silence any detractors. So I wasn't surprised to see this article in the CBC news this morning. I know I won't receive an answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyway: Why has Transport Canada found it necessary to have an aircraft scanning the B.C. coast for oil spills if there's no danger of spills from oil tankers, as the pipeline pushers are advocating ad nauseam?

I will ask my other question as soon as I've done the necessary research.


Ignorance of the facts on display by the little green and orange book faction again.

There have been precisely zero tanker spills in BC waters. There have been spills from container ships, barges, tugs, ferries, fishing vessels, freighters ... but none from oil tankers.

The patrol aircraft is looking for, among other things, freighters et al that cheat on the oily ballast discharge rules etc. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13617-menu-2138.htm

Your "research", as is typical is just latching onto random picayunes, and then twisting them to your narrow "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots" "I'm against everything" little green and orange book ideology.
Dimples - "just not ready"

5 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 8971
Likes: 2571 posts
Liked in: 9754 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests