Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[Argus]

Totally agree.

What's the air in Germany like? I don't think the Germans would be building coal fired plants without ensuring the pollution controls on them were the best available.

[Argus]

If you keep it here - that means it gets refined here. You can make gasolene, kerosene, fuel oil, motor oil and various other products - and guess what - they all have to travel by rail or truck to get to their various markets. It's called the law of unintended consequences - so think it through a bit more.

Also, shipping Bitumen by rail is fairly safe since it's a lot less likely to blow up than gasoline or kersosine or what have you.

[Argus]

I have.

And plastics, huge medical (etc) industry in plastics.

They use existing shipping methods and don't require the environmental destruction of new pipelines and most won't explode rail cars and towns.

It provides more employment for Canadians.

.

But who is going to pay the tens of billions of dollars to build the refineries? And btw, refineries are not exactly nice places to live near either.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

Also, shipping Bitumen by rail is fairly safe since it's a lot less likely to blow up than gasoline or kersosine or what have you.

Not necessarily.

crude-that-exploded-in-lac-megantic-was-mislabelled-regulator-says

And ... how many rail cars of dilbit does it take to make one car of refined or manufactured product?

Keep it here!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

And I wonder who is fronting tides america /canada.

Why wonder now...and why wonder about a pitiful $55,000 compared to the BILLIONS of dollars invested by American and other foreign interests ? Funny how that works, huh ? So Canada is going to build pipelines and refineries to reap profits from ALBERTAN bitumen ? I will believe that when somebody shows me the money, not somebody else's money.

[PIK]

And I wonder who is fronting tides america /canada.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/17/first-nations-chief-received-55000-from-tides-foundation

And who is giving to tides??

[PIK]

Why wonder now...and why wonder about a pitiful $55,000 compared to the BILLIONS of dollars invested by American and other foreign interests ? Funny how that works, huh ? So Canada is going to build pipelines and refineries to reap profits from ALBERTAN bitumen ? I will believe that when somebody shows me the money, not somebody else's money.

We should be building more refineries, but try and get that passed in this country. Outside influences are at work and the sad part is alot of canadians have no clue to what is going on.

[PIK]

Not necessarily.

crude-that-exploded-in-lac-megantic-was-mislabelled-regulator-says

And ... how many rail cars of dilbit does it take to make one car of refined or manufactured product?

Keep it here!

.

So you agree we need pipe lines that are safer for transporting. About time you came to your senses..

[Guest Derek L]

We should be building more refineries, but try and get that passed in this country. Outside influences are at work and the sad part is alot of canadians have no clue to what is going on.

Where do you think the oil companies come from?

[PIK]

Where do you think the oil companies come from?

Not talking oil companies.

[Guest Derek L]

Not talking oil companies.

Why? If one is to discuss non Canadian actors opposed to the oil sands/pipelines, then one also must bring up international actors in favour of it’s further development……in fairness of course.

[TimG]

Why? If one is to discuss non Canadian actors opposed to the oil sands/pipelines, then one also must bring up international actors in favour of it’s further development……in fairness of course.

Sure. On one side you have international companies willing to invest billions in Canada and create many jobs. On the other you have opportunists who will fund a few political advocates but if they get their way they take their money and disappear. Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[Guest Derek L]

Sure. On one side you have international companies willing to invest billions in Canada and create many jobs. On the other you have opportunists who will fund a few political advocates but if they get their way they take their money and disappear.

I never said there was anything wrong with international investment in the Alberta oilsands and pipelines, but to not mention the international nature of the whole debate is dishonest.

[jacee]

So you agree we need pipe lines that are safer for transporting. About time you came to your senses..

NO NEW PIPELINES

NO NEW SHIPPING

I think Fort Mac & Edmonton would be good locations for refining and manufacturing.

The east could use the jobs, but the East-West line is too old and weak and dangerous for dilbit, and goes through heavily populated areas and fragile watersheds.

.

[Guest Derek L]

NO NEW PIPELINES

NO NEW SHIPPING

I think Fort Mac & Edmonton would be good locations for refining and manufacturing.

So how would all this new refined product get to market? You’d prefer utilizing existing pipelines and rail infrastructure?

[jacee]

Sure. On one side you have international companies willing to invest billions in Canada and create many jobs. On the other you have opportunists who will fund a few political advocates but if they get their way they take their money and disappear.

A little respect for the dialogue please, TimG?

The best solutions arise from considering multiple viewpoints.

Conservationists conserve environments that sustain people. That's their function, not making money. Like oil companies, they are now international in scope and increasingly well funded.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Disrespecting other viewpoints causes backlash against the oil industry.

.

[TimG]

Disrespecting other viewpoints causes backlash against the oil industry.

ROTFL - you suddenly think that "dialog" is important?!? Enviros care about one thing and one thing only: blocking industrial development. They don't want compromise or dialog. They want people to do what they tell them. Most companies, OTOH, are more than willing to work with whatever rules the government sets out for them. They will argue against rules that are inconvenient but accept the need for them as long as the cost does not make the project uneconomic. Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

So how would all this new refined product get to market? Youd prefer utilizing existing pipelines and rail infrastructure?

I'm no expert, but I think we need to have the public discussion without trashing each other. I appreciate your comment above re honesty about "iinternational" investment.

You are thinking 'fuel' products, and I am thinking reduce reliance on fossil fuels and focus on other manufactured products.

http://www.earthsciweek.org/forteachers/2007/productspetroleum_cont.html

Common Products That Use Petroleum:

Plastics

Ink

Paint

Shoe Polish

Nylons

Roof shingles

Novelty

Candy

Cosmetics

Candles

Vaseline

Bug Killer

Ammonia

Tires

Asphalt

Crayons

Paper cups

Wax paper

etc etc

I see Canada, for example, specializing in providing quality plastic products for the medical industry.

.

Edited January 20, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

ROTFL - you suddenly think that "dialog" is important?!? Enviros care about one thing and one thing only: blocking industrial development. They don't want compromise or dialog. They want people to do what they tell them. Most companies, OTOH, are more than willing to work with whatever rules the government sets out for them. They will argue against rules that are inconvenient but accept the need for them as long as the cost does not make the project uneconomic.

They they they ... you don't speak for they.

That's the approach that makes you part of the problem not the solution, and increases opposition to the oil industry.

Oldthink, TimG ... oldthink.

Hey! Is this your house? Do kids play there?

http://www.nofrackingway.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/foo.jpg

Edited January 20, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

You are thinking 'fuel' products, and I am thinking reduce reliance on fossil fuels and focus on other manufactured products.

There is no shortage of feed stock for the plastics industry. If the oil sands was not developed the plastics industry would find other sources. There is absolutely no scenario where it would make economic sense to put valid added industry in Alberta simply because there is a lot of feed stock.

What you don't seem to understand is comparative advantage. Every country or region has to focus on their comparative advantage if they want to succeed. In most of northern Canada with low population densities, bad weather and long distance to market the comparative advantage will always be resources. Nothing will ever change that.

Ontario and Quebec were close to the US midwest and that gave them a comparative advantage when the US dominated the manufacturing industry because geographical proximity matters to manufacturing supply network. That is no longer the case because a lot of manufacturing is moving to the Southern US, Mexico and China and Ontario and Quebec are seeing their manufacturing base deteriorate as a result.

Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[Guest Derek L]

I'm no expert, but I think we need to have the public discussion without trashing each other. I appreciate your comment above re honesty about "iinternational" investment.

You are thinking 'fuel' products, and I am thinking reduce reliance on fossil fuels and focus on other manufactured products.

.

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels might sound warm and fuzzy, but it doesn’t change the fact that Canadians drive cars fuelled by hydrocarbons , and will continue to do so into the decades ahead…….Stifling the Alberta oilsands will not change this truism.

[guyser]

ROTFL - you suddenly think that "dialog" is important?!? Enviros care about one thing and one thing only: blocking industrial development. They don't want compromise or dialog. They want people to do what they tell them. Most companies, OTOH, are more than willing to work with whatever rules the government sets out for them. They will argue against rules that are inconvenient but accept the need for them as long as the cost does not make the project uneconomic.

the continued characterization that one side is utterly unholy and seeks to destroy and the other is virtuous and will willingly play along (while re-writing the rules) is symptomatic of all your posts .

Palpably pathetic

[On Guard for Thee]

 

ROTFL - you suddenly think that "dialog" is important?!? Enviros care about one thing and one thing only: blocking industrial development. They don't want compromise or dialog. They want people to do what they tell them. Most companies, OTOH, are more than willing to work with whatever rules the government sets out for them. They will argue against rules that are inconvenient but accept the need for them as long as the cost does not make the project uneconomic.

 

Unfortunately those "rules" you speak of that industry is supposed to abide by, have and are disappearing at a great rate under the Harper government who seem to have the attitude that any science that doesn't provide some sort of economic advantage must be buried. I'm sure coal fired power plants in China are economic, but who wants to have their eyes water every time they step out of the house?

[jacee]

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels might sound warm and fuzzy, but it doesnt change the fact that Canadians drive cars fuelled by hydrocarbons , and will continue to do so into the decades ahead.Stifling the Alberta oilsands will not change this truism.

Yes it will.

-green-car-sales-rise-

Last month's US sales of hybrids, battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and diesels jumped 30 percent from May 2012 numbers to more than 60,000, perhaps because Americans are gearing up for higher summer gas prices by buying more fuel efficient cars. Plug-in vehicle sales rose even faster, at a 69 percent clip

[guyser]

On Guard for Thee, on 20 Jan 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:

   

Unfortunately those "rules" you speak of that industry is supposed to abide by,

...like cleaning up the spill, making good on all they should...but never do, thats always left to either the public in general or the govt.

Never fails to amaze me

Edited January 20, 2014 by Guyser2