BC Election issues

[The Green Barbarian]

No surprises there. Let me help you:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environment

That doesn't help, as it gives no context. Both you and George's responses are (no surprise) completely and utterly worthless. And I wasn't talking to either of you anyway.

[neilsimon]

No surprises there. Let me help you:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environment

That doesn't help, as it gives no context. Both you and George's responses are (no surprise) completely and utterly worthless. And I wasn't talking to either of you anyway.

This is a public forum, of course you are talking to us, to everyone in fact. If you want to have a private conversation, there is a PM system.

[The Green Barbarian]

This is a public forum, of course you are talking to us, to everyone in fact. If you want to have a private conversation, there is a PM system.

Anyway, Hobby, could you answer the question instead of the Insane Clown Posse that is trolling me right now? What is this sound ideological reason you speak of? I am curious.

[hobbyguy]

The Greens ideological reason for wanting to kill the K-M pipeline is environmentalism. That is, after all, their core principle. That makes it sound from their perspective and matches with their ideals.

Whether or not that core ideology is pragmatic or achievable or encompasses a large enough context to be realistic is another discussion.

I personally do not agree with all that the hard core environmentalist stance encompasses. It is a question of balance.

I also happen to believe that there is a strong possibility that K-M will be unable to get enough final commitments from shippers to cover the most contentious part of the expansion project - tankers. It is more likely that the project will morph into one where the bulk of the additional capacity will go directly by pipeline to refineries like Cherry Point. That's where the current demand is. Volumes out of Alaska supplying the Pacific northwest refineries are in decline. They want Alberta product.

IF the K-M morphs the direction I see it potentially going, then economics - not ideology - will drive a balance that is better than what we are currently looking at. Some increased tanker traffic, but not near the original forecast, better marine safety, and pipelines feeding Albert product directly to the refineries. The end result would be little or no net tanker traffic increase in the region as a whole (Orcas etc. don't even know international boundaries exist.).

Even if the K-M proceeds close to original plan, the enhanced marine safety we are getting out of the deal, coupled with the north coast tanker ban (going through parliament now), is a big win for BC. And we get $50 million + per year to help with other projects/services/programs. Construction jobs are a bonus, but if you add up the enhanced marine safety jobs, and the direct K-M jobs, it is a plus as well (if not a big number).

That's where I see the hard line environmentalists going off the rails. Not taking a broad enough perspective. Black and white ideological approaches almost always fail to do that. In this case, I think the environmentalists have most likely already won, but they can't see it because of ideological blinders.

[The Green Barbarian]

The Greens ideological reason for wanting to kill the K-M pipeline is environmentalism. That is, after all, their core principle. That makes it sound from their perspective and matches with their ideals.
.

I guess I will just never understand this way of thinking. Killing a pipeline just means that now the oil has to be hauled via train/truck/donkey cart. Killing a pipeline doesn't help the environment in any way.

[maryjane48]

theres no need to move unrefined oil anywhere . its done . better refine here and sell to ourselves .

[Merry]

If new refineries were built in Alberta do you honestly think the Eco-nuts and NIMBY's would then drop their opposition to pipelines?

I think not.

[Jx3]

theres no need to move unrefined oil anywhere . its done . better refine here and sell to ourselves .

I'm absolutely no expert on the petroleum industry so I'll avoid expressing any strong opinions one way or the other however I have genuinely wondered why we don't refine it and sell it here.

It doesn't seem to make much sense to me to import oil from the middle east while exporting our own oil. Perhaps Alberta oil isn't used for making of gasoline and diesel fuel? Honestly don't know.

[Muzza]

theres no need to move unrefined oil anywhere . its done . better refine here and sell to ourselves .

I'm absolutely no expert on the petroleum industry so I'll avoid expressing any strong opinions one way or the other however I have genuinely wondered why we don't refine it and sell it here.

It doesn't seem to make much sense to me to import oil from the middle east while exporting our own oil. Perhaps Alberta oil isn't used for making of gasoline and diesel fuel? Honestly don't know.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ne-It.html

The cost of a new refinery is pegged at $10 billion, and would take years to construct. A new one hasn't been built in Canada since 1984, or in the United States since 1976, although new refineries are in the works in Michigan and Illinois. A couple of years ago, British Columbia newspaper mogul David Black raised a few eyebrows when he proposed to build a $25-billion refining complex in Kitimat, using feedstock moved through a pipeline built with supportive native groups -- many of whom oppose the current Enbridge proposal.

Another major issue is excess refining capacity. While Canada only refines about a quarter of the oil it produces, it refines more oil than it consumes. That means any newly constructed refineries would be refining oil for export, not for internal consumption.

Note that I heard that there may be a refinery being built in Alberta......

[Muzza]

theres no need to move unrefined oil anywhere . its done . better refine here and sell to ourselves .

But, but, but..... you keep saying oil is dead. So why would you want to build a refinery??

[maryjane48]

use up our own supply until electric takes over . once electric semis start being used half the demand is gone .

[Jx3]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ne-It.html

The cost of a new refinery is pegged at $10 billion, and would take years to construct. A new one hasn't been built in Canada since 1984, or in the United States since 1976, although new refineries are in the works in Michigan and Illinois. A couple of years ago, British Columbia newspaper mogul David Black raised a few eyebrows when he proposed to build a $25-billion refining complex in Kitimat, using feedstock moved through a pipeline built with supportive native groups -- many of whom oppose the current Enbridge proposal.

Another major issue is excess refining capacity. While Canada only refines about a quarter of the oil it produces, it refines more oil than it consumes. That means any newly constructed refineries would be refining oil for export, not for internal consumption.

Note that I heard that there may be a refinery being built in Alberta......

Thanks Muzza.

One thing still sticks out for me however; if we are refining more oil than we are consuming why are we still importing oil?

[Jx3]

use up our own supply until electric takes over . once electric semis start being used half the demand is gone .

Electric semi's are one thing, I'll be impressed when I see an electric jet.

[maryjane48]

https://www.nasa.gov/langley/ten-engine ... light-test

[maryjane48]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... es-flight/


electric turbo fan