49366
48364

Transportation of petroleum products

Which method of transportation do you prefer and why?

1) Pipeline
47
94%
2) Railway
0
No votes
3) Tanker
0
No votes
4) Other - please explain
3
6%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby Old Techie » Aug 31st, 2017, 11:28 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Sep 1st, 2017, 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic
"Fools multiply when wise men are silent!" - Nelson Mandela

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2295
Likes: 1872 posts
Liked in: 3140 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby lesliepaul » Sep 1st, 2017, 12:01 am

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Sep 1st, 2017, 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic

Smurf likes this post.
lesliepaul
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 963
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 761 posts
Joined: Aug 7th, 2011, 12:56 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby spooker » Sep 1st, 2017, 5:11 am

So, if you're promoting the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to get more bitumen out of the ground and ship it to other countries are you also a person that doesn't believe climate change is caused by human industry?

Or, if you want to see the expansion but also believe that humans accelerated climate change how does one position square with the other?

The "zealots" exist on both sides ... either trying to stop continued "easy" use of oil ... or saying that you can't fight the status quo ... our minds were made up before we got here, the poll just gave us an excuse to scream out our position ... I can still have a beer with you as long as we don't talk about this subject, I hate getting frustrated ... (but I still keep posting here so I must like frustration subconsciously)
--
Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato
User avatar
spooker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 797
Likes: 662 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:18 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, CA

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby rustled » Sep 1st, 2017, 7:35 am

spooker wrote:So, if you're promoting the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to get more bitumen out of the ground and ship it to other countries are you also a person that doesn't believe climate change is caused by human industry?

Or, if you want to see the expansion but also believe that humans accelerated climate change how does one position square with the other?

The "zealots" exist on both sides ... either trying to stop continued "easy" use of oil ... or saying that you can't fight the status quo ... our minds were made up before we got here, the poll just gave us an excuse to scream out our position ... I can still have a beer with you as long as we don't talk about this subject, I hate getting frustrated ... (but I still keep posting here so I must like frustration subconsciously)


What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?

Smurf likes this post.
rustled
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4333
Likes: 5415 posts
Liked in: 4361 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby spooker » Sep 1st, 2017, 9:06 am

rustled wrote:What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?


I'm not saying that bitumen has to go away right now ... but why increase capacity if we're going to be transitioning away from it?

It sounds more like a race ... get the product there faster before we transition ... producers are reading the writing on the wall and want to exploit the "car is everything generation" before the market closes ...
--
Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato

2 people like this post.
User avatar
spooker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 797
Likes: 662 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:18 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, CA

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby rustled » Sep 1st, 2017, 9:49 am

spooker wrote:
rustled wrote:What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?


I'm not saying that bitumen has to go away right now ... but why increase capacity if we're going to be transitioning away from it?

It sounds more like a race ... get the product there faster before we transition ... producers are reading the writing on the wall and want to exploit the "car is everything generation" before the market closes ...

I understand what you're suggesting about those profiting from fossil fuels hurrying to make their profit. Interestingly, several have been diversifying into renewables. They see what's coming, too.

Realistically, it looks like the transition will take decades. Pushing to get it done more quickly has caused energy poverty in several jurisdictions, has negatively impacted the grid's ability to deliver consistent energy during peak demand, and has had significant unintended negative consequences for the environment. We've learned from this. It is unlikely moving the transportation sector away from fossil fuels will happen in the near future.

Meanwhile, our current pipelines are no longer meeting current need. Thinking globally, unless we move toward nuclear our increasing population will drive the need for more energy, and realistically those needs cannot yet be met everywhere with renewables.

During transition, we can rely more heavily on rail and train to meet current need. I suspect this would burn more fossil fuels to transport it this way, but more importantly we'd be taking a far greater risk with the environment, and with people's lives as we saw in Lac Megantic. That was a very unusual occurrence, thank goodness, but we should also consider the lives lost in traffic accidents involving transport as well. And the cost of maintaining and upgrading transportation infrastructure.

To me, it simply seems practical to use pipelines.

Smurf likes this post.
rustled
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4333
Likes: 5415 posts
Liked in: 4361 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby spooker » Sep 7th, 2017, 7:27 am

--
Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato
User avatar
spooker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 797
Likes: 662 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:18 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, CA

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby Bsuds » Sep 7th, 2017, 7:40 am

User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
 
Posts: 40986
Likes: 7175 posts
Liked in: 8990 posts
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 9:46 am

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby spooker » Sep 7th, 2017, 7:56 am



True ... but I posted to the relevant thread first? :200:
--
Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato
User avatar
spooker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 797
Likes: 662 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:18 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, CA

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby Cactusflower » Sep 7th, 2017, 11:04 am

Bitumen balls.......whatever will CAPP come up with next to expand the tar pits? There's enough bitumen in storage now to pave a couple of Trans Canada Hwys plus all of the neglected B.C. roads. Perhaps they should think about using those reserves first? China is well on its way to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy anyway. Doubt if they'll be paying more than the bare minimum for AB bitumen in the meantime.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1519
Likes: 675 posts
Liked in: 327 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby maryjane48 » Sep 7th, 2017, 11:07 am

Cactusflower wrote:Bitumen balls.......whatever will CAPP come up with next to expand the tar pits? There's enough bitumen in storage now to pave a couple of Trans Canada Hwys plus all of the neglected B.C. roads. Perhaps they should think about using those reserves first? China is well on its way to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy anyway. Doubt if they'll be paying more than the bare minimum for AB bitumen in the meantime.

not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.
Weed .coming to store near you :)

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16603
Likes: 10312 posts
Liked in: 2586 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby GordonH » Sep 7th, 2017, 11:41 am

maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.


I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 18302
Likes: 1826 posts
Liked in: 5742 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 6:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby maryjane48 » Sep 7th, 2017, 12:16 pm

GordonH wrote:
maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.


I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ

*removed* [icon_lol2.gif] i wasnt aware if we got oil from states it would have to be shipped. we do have pipelines going south
Last edited by ferri on Sep 7th, 2017, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Making it personal
Weed .coming to store near you :)

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16603
Likes: 10312 posts
Liked in: 2586 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby GrooveTunes » Nov 3rd, 2017, 3:04 pm

All posts are my opinion unless otherwise noted.
User avatar
GrooveTunes
Übergod
 
Posts: 1929
Likes: 280 posts
Liked in: 384 posts
Joined: Feb 19th, 2006, 7:37 pm

Re: Transportation of petroleum products

Postby GordonH » Nov 3rd, 2017, 3:54 pm

maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.

GordonH wrote:I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ

maryjane48 wrote:*removed* [icon_lol2.gif] i wasnt aware if we got oil from states it would have to be shipped. we do have pipelines going south


Well, sweet crude you mentioned usually comes into US via oil tanker from an OPEC country. So you want them unload in US then pipe it up to Canada.
Even if Canada could process it, why not just reroute the tankers.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 18302
Likes: 1826 posts
Liked in: 5742 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 6:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

PreviousNext

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Btfsplck, hobbyguy, LordEd, maryjane48, my5cents and 12 guests