Shady Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 So then your "government jobs program" statement was false. Thanks. Government jobs program in that it needs government approval. Come'on man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Government jobs program in that it needs government approval. Come'on man.not just approval. Lots of money, lots of staff. A communications staff to explain how and why it all went wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 With Canada in need of Jobs, i would have thought that most Canadians would be happy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 With Canada in need of Jobs, i would have thought that most Canadians would be happy....Highly doubtful that Canadians will be employed building a pipeline thru the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 No but they have to build it to the border, and could be a contender to assist in building in the US....there is still other pipe lines that are being considered the one to BC, and the one into the maritimes..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Harper is lining up plan B in the event Keystone is not approved by Obama. He has said recently that if Obama does not approve it, the next President will because it makes economic sense. I seem to recall that NAFTA has language that allowed USA preferential treatment for access to Canadian energy in return for Canadian access to US markets. I wonder what happened to that? Ambassador Gary Doer has also said recently that if the pipeline isn't built, the same oil will go to the same places in the US via rail. Edited February 11, 2014 by overthere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Harper is lining up plan B in the event Keystone is not approved by Obama. He has said recently that if Obama does not approve it, the next President will because it makes economic sense. economic sense... for who/what countries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 economic sense... for who/what countries? Canada. Under NAFTA, the tradeoff is continental access to energy security(US benefit) vs access to markets(Canadian Benefit). You are not required to have equal benefit to both countries in every economic sector or for every project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Canada. Under NAFTA, the tradeoff is continental access to energy security(US benefit) vs access to markets(Canadian Benefit). You are not required to have equal benefit to both countries in every economic sector or for every project. so... not economically sensible for the U.S. then. You specifically said economic sense. The energy security blanket talking point has run its course, both from the standpoint of just where from and what amounts the U.S. was actually importing, and more recently in terms of the U.S.' own self-sufficiency. But don't forget the economics for China in terms of its direct investments versus anticipated export returns (via Gulf Coast shipping). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 The oil's going to be shipped down to the gulf either way. Greenies are gonna have to decide whether it'll be by pipeline, or rail or truck. In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. But they care about the environment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. purely for S&G's... cite your source for that claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Some of us also care about the economy because of the way it relies on the natural capital of the ecosystems that oil will be transported through. Transporting it west in my direction for example will move oil through 1000 fish bearing water-courses on its way to market. There is not a single mega-project that has taken place in and around salmonid bearing watersheds in my province that has not had an adverse impact on these often irreplaceable aquatic ecosystems. There is also the natural capital of the marine ecosystems oil will pass through once it reaches the coast to consider. Another key feature of moving oil east is that more environmentally responsible markets exist in that direction. While it may be inevitable that the oil is going to reach market doesn't preclude the fact there will or should be a demand that it be used and handled in the most environmentally, economically and ethically responsible manner possible. There is simply less at stake moving it east or south than west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. purely for S&G's... cite your source for that claim. *** bump *** . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 The oil's going to be shipped down to the gulf either way. Greenies are gonna have to decide whether it'll be by pipeline, or rail or truck. In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. But they care about the environment! And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation. Will Gateway end up morphing into thousands of rail cars and supertankers in Prince Rupert or Vancouver?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation. you're agreeing with the guy who refuses to cite/support his claim? Supposedly, if you accept the BigOil claim concerning "tight margins", some analysis suggests rail transport will most certainly have an impact on those margins... hence development; i.e., the scale of development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 you're agreeing with the guy who refuses to cite/support his claim? Supposedly, if you accept the BigOil claim concerning "tight margins", some analysis suggests rail transport will most certainly have an impact on those margins... hence development; i.e., the scale of development.I'll cite it. When I do, does that mean you'll change your opinion about the pipeline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 I'll cite it. When I do, does that mean you'll change your opinion about the pipeline? ooohhhh! The suspense is too much... please, please Shady! Don't tease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Will Gateway end up morphing into thousands of rail cars and supertankers in Prince Rupert or Vancouver?. If it's approved, (decision is expected in July), it sounds like a refinery may be built in Kitimat, then the oil will be sent out in tankers through our pristine waters. A sad day for British Columbia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Hopefully, demand in the u.s. for oil from Canada will continue to drop and China's economy will continue to go sideways, then we won't have as much oil being transported through our beautiful west coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Since British Columbia enjoys the benefits of bitumen and petroleum distillates, it can also share in some of the risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Hopefully, demand in the u.s. for oil from Canada will continue to drop and China's economy will continue to go sideways, then we won't have as much oil being transported through our beautiful west coast. If that happens our economy and standard of living will also drop and go sideways. I'm crossing my fingers!!!! Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Since British Columbia enjoys the benefits of bitumen and petroleum distillates, it can also share in some of the risks. Canada and the world better come enjoy the benefits that BC has to share, like wild salmon for example, while they still exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't think we can feed the world with wild salmon, but there are many other benefits too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Canada and the world better come enjoy the benefits that BC has to share, like wild salmon for example, while they still exist. Meh...if BC cared so much about their "pristine environment", then the commercial fisherpersons wouldn't have already effed things up so badly and raw sewage wouldn't still be discharged into the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.