Moonlight Graham Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Heres a rule that works, the one who characterizes the other as 'unpatriotic' is always the one who is unpatriotic . Ok, but what if they really are unpatriotic? Like, if I say "Hey, that guy who burned the Canadian flag and peed on the Parliament Buildings last night is really unpatriotic". Does that make me unpatriotic? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 government advocating for approval of the project before/while the process is in motion goes well beyond your narrowed 'process improvement' threshold. Yes, quite clearly, quite obviously, Cabinet will make the final decision. However, if that Cabinet decision is seen to be aided/supported by a process subjugated by the government (most notably by it's cabinet ministers), the merit of that decision must... and will be weighed accordingly. The govt is publicly stating a national strategy, and something that should have been initiated perhaps 15 yeasrs ago: expansion of energy marketing beyond a single customer. Would you prefer that they sat on their thumbs as is the usual Canadian practice while events run over us? There is another option that is more expensive, but also feasible: shipping oilsands products by largely existing pipelines or in new lines in existing right of ways to Montreal, and from there by tanker to new markets in Europe and/or Asia. Nobody could object to that, since the tankers already run the routes for decades and the pipleines have been in the ground for nearly as long. Plus, all those jobs for Quebec....... Quote The government should do something.
Scotty Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Heres a rule that works, the one who characterizes the other as 'unpatriotic' is always the one who is unpatriotic . That include when Jean Chretien and Paul Martin characterized the Reformers as unpatriotic because they wanted to clarify what the governments response would be in the event 50.1% voted to separate? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Complete nonsense. One who opposes business or oil pipelines for the environment is only advocating for what they believe . In the end (if they were to get thier way) the result is a cleaner Canada. The pipeline is going to go through. It might not go through in precisely that location, but A pipeline is going to take that oil to the west coast for shipment to Asia. The opponents of this particular route would be better advised to recommend a better, safer one, ie, one further south, as opposed to simply opposing ALL pipelines headed for the coast. There is simply too much at stake for this to be allowed to be blocked by a bunch of people who quite literally do not care about the economics involved, or that oil is the only thing driving our economy right now. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Would you prefer that they sat on their thumbs as is the usual Canadian practice while events run over us? nonsense - whatever view one takes on the actual 'efficiencies' within the current NEB panel's undertaking, they have advised of a ruling within 2013... is there such "urgency" surrounding your 'events run over us' hyperbole, that the government couldn't hold cautious reserve on such overt announcements being made, particularly this last weeks? Quote
Rick Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 No doubt he seeks to portray himself as a jar-headed troll, in contrast to hippies and art students. And here I was thinking he was a right wing communications assistant... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 nonsense - whatever view one takes on the actual 'efficiencies' within the current NEB panel's undertaking, they have advised of a ruling within 2013... is there such "urgency" surrounding your 'events run over us' hyperbole, that the government couldn't hold cautious reserve on such overt announcements being made, particularly this last weeks? It sounds like we agree that a 2013 deadline for the NEB to finish their work is appropriate, as does the govt. It is entirely within the govts purview to make it plain that the schedule will not be altered or delayed by anybody. Quote The government should do something.
dre Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Attacks on patriotism by dullards are pretty common these days over just about every issue. They have it all backwards though... its a compliment. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 The pipeline is going to go through. It might not go through in precisely that location, but A pipeline is going to take that oil to the west coast for shipment to Asia. The opponents of this particular route would be better advised to recommend a better, safer one, ie, one further south, as opposed to simply opposing ALL pipelines headed for the coast. There is simply too much at stake for this to be allowed to be blocked by a bunch of people who quite literally do not care about the economics involved, or that oil is the only thing driving our economy right now. On the first part I agree. On the second I do not . Quote
eyeball Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) The pipeline is going to go through. It might not go through in precisely that location, but A pipeline is going to take that oil to the west coast for shipment to Asia. The opponents of this particular route would be better advised to recommend a better, safer one, ie, one further south, as opposed to simply opposing ALL pipelines headed for the coast. Where the hell does Alberta get off telling the nation to go piss up a rope when comes to an NEP, only to turn around and insist that same nation get out of their way when it comes to shipping their precious oil to the world beyond it? There is simply too much at stake for this to be allowed to be blocked by a bunch of people who quite literally do not care about the economics involved, or that oil is the only thing driving our economy right now. There is simply too much at stake for this to be allowed to go ahead by a bunch of people who quite literally do not care about the ecosystems involved, or that these ecosystems are the most important things that sustain our society. Edited January 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
sharkman Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) There is simply too much at stake for this to be allowed to go ahead by a bunch of people who quite literally do not care about the ecosystems involved, or that these ecosystems are the most important things that sustain our society. I take issue with this mindset, and too often we see this kind of rhetoric in describing people of this particular industry. It may have been partly true 20 or 30 years ago, but certainly not now. First of all, education of those who enter the industry has greatly improved and our knowledge of what is harmful has helped shape the technologies involved. Second, Canada has some of the toughest legislation protecting the environment in North America. So to just sit back and reach for the same tired old generalizations on the oil industry in Canada today is lazy. At the end of the day, the east is going to buy oil and use it. Far better that they buy oil from a source that is being responsible to the environment than countries that still rape the land with no concern for the consequences. And it's the same career protestors that run from pipeline to pipeline or project to project making all of the noise that they can because they are so sadly misinformed. Edited January 11, 2012 by sharkman Quote
dre Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) We should refine the oil right there in Northern Alberta... Place is already wrecked anyhow and Alberia was a dump even before they ever got into the oil business. Emissions are an issue with refinement, but those are emissions are going to happen whether refinement happens here or somewhere else. The only diference is where the jobs get created. There may even be less emissions if we do it here because we would be building based on the newest technology and designs. Once its refined we can move it around more easily, and use it to supply the east coast so that we can stop buying more than half our oil from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Venezuela. We should tackle our own domestic needs before we even talk about any export pipelines. Like I said... its only Alberta that we would be further trashing, and they seem to like the filth anyways. Refine the oil 50 feet away from the freaking processing plants. Not only do you save a costly extra step of shipping that oil to a larger refinery, but you eliminate the huge risk of an ecological disaster during this stage, and reduce overall emissions. Make plastic, gasoline, and other petrochemicals right at the oil patch. Edited January 11, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Make plastic, gasoline, and other petrochemicals right at the oil patch. I have no idea if feasible or not But I wonder if the climate is such a nature that they could do it there. All those pipes etc exposed in the frigid air from Oct to April.....I dont know, could they? Quote
dre Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I have no idea if feasible or not But I wonder if the climate is such a nature that they could do it there. All those pipes etc exposed in the frigid air from Oct to April.....I dont know, could they? I dont know. Im not an expert on petroleum refining, but if you back up and look at the picture what we are doing seems illogical, and it seems like the way to create as FEW jobs as possible with this industry, and I think it also makes emissions worse. Heres a real basic breakdown of what oil gets refined into... Each item has the ammount of gallons of each product you can get out of a barrel of crude oil. gasoline 19.5 distillate fuel oil (Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel) 9.2 kerosene-type jet fuel 4.1 residual fuel oil (Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation and for electric power generation) 2.3 liquefied refinery gasses 1.9 still gas 1.9 coke 1.8 asphalt and road oil 1.3 petrochemical feedstocks 1.2 lubricants 0.5 kerosene 0.2 other 0.3 I bet you that Canadians would gladly have some of these jobs, instead of giving money to Chavez, or regimes like Saudi Arabia where women are still the property of men much like a toaster or a pipe wrench are here. Edited January 11, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 I dont know. Im not an expert on petroleum refining, but if you back up and look at the picture what we are doing seems illogical, and it seems like the way to create as FEW jobs as possible with this industry, and I think it also makes emissions worse. The illogic is not lost. Apart from the funding , and I think CDN gas co's can afford it, there could well be another reason, the climate for why they dont refine it here. NIMBY-ism aside. Quote
dre Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) The illogic is not lost. Apart from the funding , and I think CDN gas co's can afford it, there could well be another reason, the climate for why they dont refine it here. NIMBY-ism aside. Very few refineries are have been built in North America in the last few decades. Part of the reason is that the profit margins are lower than they are for mining and exploration. Part of it is that nobody wants to live near one. We seem to have an "out of site out of mind" mentality about some of these things. Edited January 11, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Apart from the funding , and I think CDN gas co's can afford it, there could well be another reason, the climate for why they dont refine it here.It is quite simple: it would take 10-20 billion to build the capacity that Houston has and if the built it they would still need pipelines to get the refined product to market. A pipeline is only a fraction of that cost. If the pipelines are blocked they will ship the product on trains which is more expensive but still cheaper than building refining capacity. Quote
Wilber Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I dont know. Im not an expert on petroleum refining, but if you back up and look at the picture what we are doing seems illogical, and it seems like the way to create as FEW jobs as possible with this industry, and I think it also makes emissions worse. Heres a real basic breakdown of what oil gets refined into... Each item has the ammount of gallons of each product you can get out of a barrel of crude oil. gasoline 19.5 distillate fuel oil (Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel) 9.2 kerosene-type jet fuel 4.1 residual fuel oil (Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation and for electric power generation) 2.3 liquefied refinery gasses 1.9 still gas 1.9 coke 1.8 asphalt and road oil 1.3 petrochemical feedstocks 1.2 lubricants 0.5 kerosene 0.2 other 0.3 I bet you that Canadians would gladly have some of these jobs, instead of giving money to Chavez, or regimes like Saudi Arabia where women are still the property of men much like a toaster or a pipe wrench are here. So how many pipelines do you build to ship all those different things? You can't send them all down the same pipe. While the Finance Committee is looking into how much money is coming from foreign environmental groups to fight this thing, I wonder if they will also look into how much money is coming from foreign multinationals like Exxon, Shell, BP and CNOOC to promote it. Ya think? Edited January 12, 2012 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
dre Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 So how many pipelines do you build to ship all those different things? You can't send them all down the same pipe. While the Finance Committee is looking into how much money is coming from foreign environmental groups to fight this thing, I wonder if they will also look into how much money is coming from foreign multinationals like Exxon, Shell, BP and CNOOC to promote it. Ya think? You dont need pipelines to ship most of those things. Gasoline has a way higher engery density than oil, or natural gas. Its not as big a deal to move refined products around. Products like grease are packaged in tubes and small containers for the consumer and shipped the same way other products are shipped. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
fellowtraveller Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 I have no idea if feasible or not Not. What is feasible and should be done is to upgrade the bitumen into synthetic crude in Alberta, and that is what happens right now to about 60% of oilsands production. There are upgraders in both Fort McMaurray and the Industrial Heartland near Edmonton. There are also a few refineries near Edmonton that supply the region with finsihed products. I beleive Shell is the only company that is entirely localized, from mining to upgrading to refining to retail sales all except mining from their Scotsford complex. The oil companies own the product after they dig it up, and they choose to pipeline it out as bitumen to US refineries, which are operating under capacity. Those refineries have to build upgraders to handle bitumen, but they are expansions rather than new builds. It does not work economically to ship finished products like gasoline vast distances, that is why Saudi ships crude to refineries around the globe rather than cans of 10W30. Quote The government should do something.
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 You dont need pipelines to ship most of those things. Gasoline has a way higher engery density than oil, or natural gas. Its not as big a deal to move refined products around. Products like grease are packaged in tubes and small containers for the consumer and shipped the same way other products are shipped. 80% of a barrel of oil is refined into either gasoline or fuel oil. A large refinery produces millions of liters per day of each product. How else are you going to ship it? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Peeves Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 I take issue with this mindset, and too often we see this kind of rhetoric in describing people of this particular industry. It may have been partly true 20 or 30 years ago, but certainly not now. First of all, education of those who enter the industry has greatly improved and our knowledge of what is harmful has helped shape the technologies involved. Second, Canada has some of the toughest legislation protecting the environment in North America. So to just sit back and reach for the same tired old generalizations on the oil industry in Canada today is lazy. At the end of the day, the east is going to buy oil and use it. Far better that they buy oil from a source that is being responsible to the environment than countries that still rape the land with no concern for the consequences. And it's the same career protestors that run from pipeline to pipeline or project to project making all of the noise that they can because they are so sadly misinformed. Luddites all. I'm all for protecting the environment, ecology and safety and health. Lets dispense with anything other than wind, water, tides and solar. And of course life as we know it. Quote
jacee Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Enbridge subsidiaries reported 175 pipeline leaks in U.S. since 2002: data Life as we know it ... Why is it they still can't do their job right? Oh ya, skimping on safety for profits ... in the most profitable business there is. Ya, that breeds trust! Edited January 16, 2012 by jacee Quote
huh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Posted January 17, 2012 Enbridge subsidiaries reported 175 pipeline leaks in U.S. since 2002: data Life as we know it ... Why is it they still can't do their job right? Oh ya, skimping on safety for profits ... in the most profitable business there is. Ya, that breeds trust! How many of those leaks had significant impact on the environemnt or peoples health after they were remediated? Quote
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2012 Report Posted January 19, 2012 Native Chiefs overturn deal with Enbridge on Gateway Pipeline Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.