Pipelines

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

Re: Pipelines

Postby The Green Barbarian » Feb 19th, 2018, 8:45 am

butcher99 wrote:
Figures from the Pembina institute.
http://www.pembina.org/blog/fifty-years ... -reclaimed


LOL - more "oil sands porn" from the propaganda-producing liars at the Pembina Institute. How much money did these bozos receive from the Tides Foundation to distribute lies and propaganda to brainless mush-heads?

Folks, it's no coincidence that the same math-challenged lunatics that were against Site C are also against the KM pipeline. These people get their "information" from Tides Foundation-funded outlets, and because they are naive and can't do math, they buy into the lies. This "Fake news" they are swallowing whole-sale is prepared for a specific reason, to keep Canada perpetually tied to the US. It's been proven over and over again that a small amount of well-funded nutbars can tie up economic projects for long periods of time, for absolutely no reason, other than that these people are nuts, and horribly gullible.

Kudos to disinformation organizations that find such willing, gullible, stupid, and determined people in Canada to do their evil dirty work. And of course, the rest of us are just too nice to tell these gullible morons to shut up, and get lost. We let them do this dirty evil work. We let them delay projects like Site C and KM and waste hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, for no reason whatsoever. No more I say. Enough is enough.
Last edited by The Green Barbarian on Feb 19th, 2018, 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
- Dr. Don Boys
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 27650
Likes: 11782 posts
Liked in: 15599 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby butcher99 » Feb 19th, 2018, 8:46 am

Smurf wrote:Far from loosing the battle. Just proving the fact that you don't really care about the coastal waters that are already being destroyed and it has been going on for years. It seems you are still trying to ignore it and your silence has been deafening. You just want to say "NO" to everything. At least the pipelines and ships will have world class protection and spill response.


Comparing Victorias dumping of raw sewage to a bitumen spill is ridiculous. Victoria could dump their raw sewage for ever and it would do little harm to the environment. No, I do not think they should dump it. It needs to be cleaned up.
I say it would do little damage for a couple reasons. Number one, where it is dumped there is a huge tidal movement of water that literally flushes (pun intended) every thing out to sea.
#2. The sewage is actually a source of food for marine life.

Yet still, that needs to be cleaned up. Victoria needs a treatment plant and I don't think you will find many people who do not agree. It should have been done 30 years ago at least. I know it has been talked about for many years more than that.

Now compare that to heavy oil. A heavy oil spill will sink and kill everything. It will never flush away and it cannot be cleaned up.
So Alberta, Just show us how it can be cleaned up and everything will be fine. That is all the BC Government asked you for.

2 people like this post.
butcher99
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2911
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 512 posts
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 9:52 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Pipelines

Postby The Green Barbarian » Feb 19th, 2018, 8:47 am

butcher99 wrote:
Now compare that to heavy oil. A heavy oil spill will sink and kill everything. It will never flush away and it cannot be cleaned up.
So Alberta, Just show us how it can be cleaned up and everything will be fine. That is all the BC Government asked you for.


just like Site C, all you are doing is lying. Just ridiculous.
Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
- Dr. Don Boys

Urbane likes this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 27650
Likes: 11782 posts
Liked in: 15599 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pipelines

Postby butcher99 » Feb 19th, 2018, 8:55 am

Old Techie wrote:
So while you anti everything types gripe, and stomp your feet, until you get your way, it's all well and good, that raw sewage flows directly into your "pristine" waters, forget about that for now, and focus on what may never happen, as you type your vitriol, on keyboards that required oil to produce.

Yup somewhat typical NIMBY types.


Raw sewage compared to heavy oil? You think you can compare them?

The raw sewage that is dumped from Victoria is literally flushed out to sea due to tidal action. Yes a treatment station needs to be built no argument. However at present Victorias sewage problem does not pollute the pristine waters of Victoria. In fact, it feeds sealife. Now compare that to a heavy oil spill that kills everything and would close every beach possibly for years. We are just to ignore that because it might not happen?
Focus on what needs to be cleaned up rather than what may never happen? So we just ignore everything until a catastrophe and then we fix that while we wait for the next? That is your plan?

Just explain how it is to be cleaned up if it occurs. That is all that the BC Government is asking for.

2 people like this post.
butcher99
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2911
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 512 posts
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 9:52 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Pipelines

Postby Merry » Feb 19th, 2018, 9:41 am

I've been trying really hard to find some unbiased research on this whole issue, and am finding it very difficult to do so. Most of the stuff opposed has been written by environmental activists with very one sided views, and most of the stuff in favour has been written by people with a vested interest in seeing fossil fuel projects proceed. So trying to get a balanced assessment of the pros and cons is difficult, if not impossible.

But it seems to me that, given the fact that our society is built on the use of the products of fossil fuels, those who are vehemently opposed to their development are in fact being very hypocritical. Most environmental activists have no problem using cell phones, tablets, cars, boats, planes, going ski-ing, going for a bike ride, watching TV or going to see a movie, or wearing clothes made from synthetic materials, etc. My point being that it's almost impossible in our modern world to avoid the use of products derived from fossil fuels. And as long as there is a demand for those products, the development of fossil fuels is going to continue.

So, if we're genuinely concerned about the environment, we need to go after the cause of the threat, not the result. Or in other words, if we reduce demand, projects such as the oil sands (and therefore the need for the pipelines and the tankers) would diminish. So with that in mind, I wonder why the activists aren't educating people about where all the products we use in our everyday lives come from? I bet it would be a real eye-opener for many to discover that most of the stuff they use in their everyday lives has its roots in fossil fuel development - even the lap top I'm using right now to type this message.

As a society we've got away from knowing how the things we use are produced, and its time we all got re-educated.
"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: 7296
Likes: 4980 posts
Liked in: 4625 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby butcher99 » Feb 19th, 2018, 9:45 am

The Green Barbarian wrote:
butcher99 wrote:
Figures from the Pembina institute.
http://www.pembina.org/blog/fifty-years ... -reclaimed


LOL - more "oil sands porn" from the propaganda-producing liars at the Pembina Institute. How much money did these bozos receive from the Tides Foundation to distribute lies and propaganda to brainless mush-heads?



OK, as usual all you do is spout off. You don't like those figures, show us some figures from someone else to dispute them. All you ever do is spout off. You never actually manage to put anything together to support your view. At least I looked for figures to back up my post.
All you can do is say you don't like the source. Well then, give us another source.

2 people like this post.
butcher99
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2911
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 512 posts
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 9:52 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Pipelines

Postby rustled » Feb 19th, 2018, 9:53 am

butcher99 wrote: The raw sewage that is dumped from Victoria is literally flushed out to sea due to tidal action. Yes a treatment station needs to be built no argument. However at present Victorias sewage problem does not pollute the pristine waters of Victoria. In fact, it feeds sealife. Now compare that to a heavy oil spill that kills everything and would close every beach possibly for years. We are just to ignore that because it might not happen?
Focus on what needs to be cleaned up rather than what may never happen? So we just ignore everything until a catastrophe and then we fix that while we wait for the next? That is your plan?

Just explain how it is to be cleaned up if it occurs. That is all that the BC Government is asking for.

It's interesting that when faced with an actual ongoing pollution problem which can be solved, that problem is downplayed and excused.

It seems as though today's environmentalist is all about the ideal. It's an image thing. They're all about the protest, the virtue signaling, telling others how to live their lives. But when there's a problem that can be solved, it's all excuses and denial and look,over there, oil!

You keep insisting someone should explain how an oil spill is to be cleaned up if it occurs, as though there's no plan in place. If that's all the BC Government is asking for, they're clearly not listening. The TMX project supplies a massive upgrade of equipment and manpower to address spills, not only those related to the TMX.

Last time we pointed this out, we were told it's actually all about the insurance.

Really, you do need to clarify what you want to see happen here. Is it to do our best to protect the environment while maintaining a decent standard of living?

Is it to keep Alberta's oil in the ground?

Or is it to keep bouncing from one intransigent demand to another until all investors give up, and the only place Alberta's oil can go is to the US?

2 people like this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 5372
Likes: 7929 posts
Liked in: 5952 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Cactusflower » Feb 19th, 2018, 10:00 am

Merry wrote:I've been trying really hard to find some unbiased research on this whole issue, and am finding it very difficult to do so. Most of the stuff opposed has been written by environmental activists with very one sided views, and most of the stuff in favour has been written by people with a vested interest in seeing fossil fuel projects proceed. So trying to get a balanced assessment of the pros and cons is difficult, if not impossible.

But it seems to me that, given the fact that our society is built on the use of the products of fossil fuels, those who are vehemently opposed to their development are in fact being very hypocritical. Most environmental activists have no problem using cell phones, tablets, cars, boats, planes, going ski-ing, going for a bike ride, watching TV or going to see a movie, or wearing clothes made from synthetic materials, etc. My point being that it's almost impossible in our modern world to avoid the use of products derived from fossil fuels. And as long as there is a demand for those products, the development of fossil fuels is going to continue.

So, if we're genuinely concerned about the environment, we need to go after the cause of the threat, not the result. Or in other words, if we reduce demand, projects such as the oil sands (and therefore the need for the pipelines and the tankers) would diminish. So with that in mind, I wonder why the activists aren't educating people about where all the products we use in our everyday lives come from? I bet it would be a real eye-opener for many to discover that most of the stuff they use in their everyday lives has its roots in fossil fuel development - even the lap top I'm using right now to type this message.

As a society we've got away from knowing how the things we use are produced, and its time we all got re-educated.


See my reply to GB on the 'Boycott' thread. I don't think anyone thinks we can stop producing oil; it's just that we don't need to mine bitumen in order to produce enough for domestic consumption. Notley and Trudeau should put their money where their mouths are and admit that Alberta should be ramping up its diverse methods of growing their economy instead of ramping up bitumen mining and adding more GHGs while pretending that their carbon tax is going to make everything okay. That's just ridiculous.

Alice in Vernon likes this post.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3382
Likes: 1597 posts
Liked in: 711 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby rustled » Feb 19th, 2018, 10:23 am

(Moved from Boycott thread per ferri's instructions):
rustled wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. Perhaps we can settle this once and for all. I don't believe we should be exporting diluted bitumen. I believe Alberta should be making the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, drilling for oil the conventional way, and selling it domestically. B.C. has its own source of fossil fuels, and as long as it is done SAFELY, it should be shipped to B.C. refineries to be processed and sold in B.C.

Please explain how you, personally, would deem it "safe".

ETA: Please also explain how you would make up for the economic impacts of shutting down the oil sands.

Cactusflower wrote:Come now, after all your comments promoting pipelines, you must know how they're being 'made safe'. And if you spent more time reading comments than posting them you'd know how Alberta could grow their economy without mining bitumen.

No, seriously. Are you able to give us a thoughtful response to either question?

Let's deal with the first. I'd like to know exactly what it will take for you to give a pipeline your blessing. You've obviously given a lot of thought to this, so you must be able to explain here. Let me put it this way:

If protesters simply don't want the pipeline you've deemed safe and invested in, and they complain there could be a spill that could do untold damage to the environment and block it or start boycotting something that's vital to your family's economic well-being to make you stop building it or using it, what exactly will you tell them about the pipeline to reassure them that a spill could never, ever occur?

Urbane likes this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 5372
Likes: 7929 posts
Liked in: 5952 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Merry » Feb 19th, 2018, 10:24 am

Cactusflower - I think your premise is that we should refine our bitumen before exporting it (correct me if I'm wrong). But when the idea of shipping product via pipeline to our under producing oil refineries in the east was proposed, the environmental activitsts were against that too.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 7296
Likes: 4980 posts
Liked in: 4625 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Cactusflower » Feb 19th, 2018, 10:40 am

Merry wrote:Cactusflower - I think your premise is that we should refine our bitumen before exporting it (correct me if I'm wrong). But when the idea of shipping product via pipeline to our under producing oil refineries in the east was proposed, the environmental activitsts were against that too.


I think the reason people were against Energy East was because the diluted bitumen was going to be shipped all the way from AB to the refinery in NB and then being exported instead of sold domestically. There's been plenty of spills that have happened even with upgraded pipes, and it's just not worth the risk if there's little or no benefit to the provinces the pipeline is traversing.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3382
Likes: 1597 posts
Liked in: 711 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby butcher99 » Feb 19th, 2018, 10:57 am

rustled wrote:It's interesting that when faced with an actual ongoing pollution problem which can be solved, that problem is downplayed and excused.

It seems as though today's environmentalist is all about the ideal. It's an image thing. They're all about the protest, the virtue signaling, telling others how to live their lives. But when there's a problem that can be solved, it's all excuses and denial and look,over there, oil!

You keep insisting someone should explain how an oil spill is to be cleaned up if it occurs, as though there's no plan in place. If that's all the BC Government is asking for, they're clearly not listening. The TMX project supplies a massive upgrade of equipment and manpower to address spills, not only those related to the TMX.

Last time we pointed this out, we were told it's actually all about the insurance.

Really, you do need to clarify what you want to see happen here. Is it to do our best to protect the environment while maintaining a decent standard of living?

Is it to keep Alberta's oil in the ground?

Or is it to keep bouncing from one intransigent demand to another until all investors give up, and the only place Alberta's oil can go is to the US?


So you think we should not worry about new sources of pollution until we clean up what is there already? Then when the future problems of today are real problems tomorrow and we clean them up then and then clean up the next?
How about we work on cleaning up todays problems today and worry about what could be major problems tomorrow today as well so we don't have to clean them up tomorrow.

It is not all about one thing. The insurance is not sufficient to clean up a spill off shore. Not even close. Once on a ship the pipeline company say it is not their problem.
It is not just the lack of insurance for off shore clean ups. It is that it cannot at present be cleaned up. Just ask the people in the US where there has been a heavy oil pipeline leak.

If Alberta really wants that oil out build a refinery in BC or in Alberta and refine it instead of sending raw materials offshore and then paying to import the finished product back into Canada. We could be self sufficient in oil if the industry did not keep shutting down refineries in Canada. Refine it here.

OR, Alberta could just say that they will have a plan in place and pay for the clean up of BC shores if a spill occurs. That would be a start. They and you are sure no spill will ever occur so why not give the guarantee that BC will not pay for the clean up but that Alberta will pick up the BC portion.

Cactusflower likes this post.
butcher99
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2911
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 512 posts
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 9:52 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Pipelines

Postby CapitalB » Feb 19th, 2018, 11:10 am

butcher99 wrote: So you think we should not worry about new sources of pollution until we clean up what is there already? Then when the future problems of today are real problems tomorrow and we clean them up then and then clean up the next?
How about we work on cleaning up todays problems today and worry about what could be major problems tomorrow today as well so we don't have to clean them up tomorrow.

It is not all about one thing. The insurance is not sufficient to clean up a spill off shore. Not even close. Once on a ship the pipeline company say it is not their problem.
It is not just the lack of insurance for off shore clean ups. It is that it cannot at present be cleaned up. Just ask the people in the US where there has been a heavy oil pipeline leak.

If Alberta really wants that oil out build a refinery in BC or in Alberta and refine it instead of sending raw materials offshore and then paying to import the finished product back into Canada. We could be self sufficient in oil if the industry did not keep shutting down refineries in Canada. Refine it here.

OR, Alberta could just say that they will have a plan in place and pay for the clean up of BC shores if a spill occurs. That would be a start. They and you are sure no spill will ever occur so why not give the guarantee that BC will not pay for the clean up but that Alberta will pick up the BC portion.



But preventative maintenance is expensive and makes the companies sad. We shouldn't expect them to pay for stuff that may never happen, or rather pay to make stuff never happen. Lets just wait till after and clean up the mess.
So much of the violent push-back on everything progressive and reformist comes down to: I can see the future, and in this future I am not the centre of the universe and master of all that I survey, therefore this future must be resisted at all costs.

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
CapitalB
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 769
Likes: 339 posts
Liked in: 482 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2017, 12:27 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby rustled » Feb 19th, 2018, 11:38 am

butcher99 wrote:
rustled wrote:It's interesting that when faced with an actual ongoing pollution problem which can be solved, that problem is downplayed and excused.

It seems as though today's environmentalist is all about the ideal. It's an image thing. They're all about the protest, the virtue signaling, telling others how to live their lives. But when there's a problem that can be solved, it's all excuses and denial and look,over there, oil!

You keep insisting someone should explain how an oil spill is to be cleaned up if it occurs, as though there's no plan in place. If that's all the BC Government is asking for, they're clearly not listening. The TMX project supplies a massive upgrade of equipment and manpower to address spills, not only those related to the TMX.

Last time we pointed this out, we were told it's actually all about the insurance.

Really, you do need to clarify what you want to see happen here. Is it to do our best to protect the environment while maintaining a decent standard of living?

Is it to keep Alberta's oil in the ground?

Or is it to keep bouncing from one intransigent demand to another until all investors give up, and the only place Alberta's oil can go is to the US?


So you think we should not worry about new sources of pollution until we clean up what is there already? Then when the future problems of today are real problems tomorrow and we clean them up then and then clean up the next?
How about we work on cleaning up todays problems today and worry about what could be major problems tomorrow today as well so we don't have to clean them up tomorrow.

It is not all about one thing. The insurance is not sufficient to clean up a spill off shore. Not even close. Once on a ship the pipeline company say it is not their problem.
It is not just the lack of insurance for off shore clean ups. It is that it cannot at present be cleaned up. Just ask the people in the US where there has been a heavy oil pipeline leak.

If Alberta really wants that oil out build a refinery in BC or in Alberta and refine it instead of sending raw materials offshore and then paying to import the finished product back into Canada. We could be self sufficient in oil if the industry did not keep shutting down refineries in Canada. Refine it here.

OR, Alberta could just say that they will have a plan in place and pay for the clean up of BC shores if a spill occurs. That would be a start. They and you are sure no spill will ever occur so why not give the guarantee that BC will not pay for the clean up but that Alberta will pick up the BC portion.

I'm not saying "don't work on prevention". I'm saying today's environmentalist is so fixated on preventing future pollution, however unlikely, they're not providing the political pressure we used to direct resources to cleaning up existing problems.

"Refine it here" requires investment in infrastructure. The same nimbyism comes into play with "no, not in Burnaby" or "no, not in _______". Where does the income come from for this investment? BC is has proven to be completely unwelcoming, and unwilling to honour cooperative agreements with Alberta, so who invests? BC is undermining the economy (ours and Canada's) with saying "no" to every development that comes along.

Where does the power come from for the refineries? How much nimbyism and "noooo" has to be overcome to generate the power? Who invests?

Where do the transmission lines go? How much nimbyism and "noooo" has to be overcome to get the power to the refineries? Who invests?

How is the refined product transported to market? How much nimbyism and "noooo" has to be overcome to get the product to market? Who invests?

Canada is resource-rich. Currently, we enjoy a reasonably decent standard of living by sharing our resources in the global market. How do we re-align ourselves with a "Canada first" attitude? What do we stand to lose by hoarding what we have? Do we lose more than we gain?

You are committed to telling us what you are against, and you're able to provide plenty of anecdotal information to support your case. That's the easy part, as Horgan has discovered. It's a lot more difficult to build a solid plan, consider all the contingencies, put the plan in place, deal with the unexpected, and be accountable for plan, its execution, and the outcomes.

Merry likes this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 5372
Likes: 7929 posts
Liked in: 5952 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Pipelines

Postby Merry » Feb 19th, 2018, 12:22 pm

Cactusflower wrote:I think the reason people were against Energy East was because the diluted bitumen was going to be shipped all the way from AB to the refinery in NB and then being exported instead of sold domestically. There's been plenty of spills that have happened even with upgraded pipes, and it's just not worth the risk if there's little or no benefit to the provinces the pipeline is traversing.

People need to get over the idea that there is no benefit to Provinces that a pipeline is traversing, because every time our Federal Government gets tax revenue it benefits us ALL. Not just the Province that generated the revenue in the first place.

I remember reading in a previous post that you stated you were a BC'er first, and a Canadian second. And I was shocked to read that, although I do recognize there are many folks who think the same way. However, that attitude is Canada's biggest threat.

Maybe it's because I've taken the time to visit this beautiful country of ours from coast to coast (the only province I have yet to see is Newfoundland, and I've never visited the Territories, but they're all on my bucket list), or maybe it's because I've lived in both the West and the East, or maybe it's because I have friends and relatives who live in many different parts of the Country, but I will ALWAYS consider myself to be a Canadian first and foremost, and proud of it.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 7296
Likes: 4980 posts
Liked in: 4625 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests