Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[TimG]

Whos cleaning up Lac Megantic?

So? Lac Megantic was a fluke. No rail accident of that scale is likely to happen again. That said, all regulation must be based on statistical analysis which means there will *always* be outliers that occur in spite of good regulation.

The statistical nature of the problems means your anecdotes do not answer my question.

I asked for examples of regulations that were removed and evidence that rule helped.

[Guest Derek L]

Wow...1%...that will be impressive ! No more Ford F-150 pickups will be needed.

I’ve got a 3500 Duramax and due to the caustic nature of bio-diesel, wouldn’t dream of putting that crap into the tank…

Outside of little diesel hybrid trickle-chargers, further future fuel efficiency with diesel engines required to generate large amounts of horsepower will have to look towards propane or LNG injectors for an even greater and cleaner burn.

[bush_cheney2004]

Possible the dumbest thing you have posted in a long time.

Well done.

So, you paid property taxes, you can now start a dump in your backyard, after all, you paid taxes. The city/govt will come and clean it up with no charge to you.

I didn't post anything about property taxes. That's your input and dodge from the question of government complicity in the extraction, refining, transport, and retail sale of petroleum and bitumen distillates. You have no answers, just the usual personal attack.

[jacee]

Really? All I did is say environmental groups are only interested in blocking development. They have no interest in seeing any project move forward under any conditions. That does not make them evil unless one sees such obstructionism as evil.

What I was doing is calling jacee out on her silly talking points that environmentalists are only trying to be reasonable. If they were trying to be reasonable they would be making an effort to say that they want to see the development move forward provided the proper protections are in place (A position I can support). We don't get that. Get get demands to uncategorically reject the pipeline. This makes my statement a statement of fact.

We reject pipelines and shipping, the industry experts explore alternatives ... that's called constructive discussion.

Stereotyping and trashing all 'environmentalists' isn't constructive.

Aren't you just a bit environmentalist Tim?

Aren't we all?

[Guest Derek L]

We reject pipelines and shipping, the industry experts explore alternatives ... that's called constructive discussion.

And that's why you'll lose and be further marginalized…….any good ideas your side might have will be drowned out by the unrealistic and unaffordable lines in the (oil)sand you draw.

[bush_cheney2004]

I’ve got a 3500 Duramax and due to the caustic nature of bio-diesel, wouldn’t dream of putting that crap into the tank…

And both the U.S. and Canada have economies that ride on a backbone of diesel powered trucks and trains, not hybrid grocery getters.

[jacee]

Do you think the rate of growth will stay constant?

There is a 50% growth in the market each year. That is significant and by pretending otherwise only shows that you're not realistic.

True.

And the rate of converting to hybrids will increase exponentially at about the 30% saturation point.

Hybrid will be THE vehicle in a few short years.

.

[Guest Derek L]

And both the U.S. and Canada have economies that ride on a backbone of diesel powered trucks and trains, not hybrid grocery getters.

Exactly.......and one could also add mass transit systems........I’ve no doubt that at some point that will gradually change to “something else”, but not in the near, decades, term.

Till then, if the trucks and trains stop rolling in North America......Planet of the Apes time

[guyser]

So? Lac Megantic was a fluke. No rail accident of that scale is likely to happen again. That said, all regulation must be based on statistical analysis which means there will *always* be outliers that occur in spite of good regulation.

Isnt that nice. An outlier.

But are they paying any amount? No? oh my.,....they must be outliers. Why are they paying? Why hasnt the govt cashed in a minor $5M bond? It may be peanuts, but im sure Lac Meg would love $5M dropped on them tomorrow.

Was Love Canal a fluke?

Stat analysis is what my business is based on. So no need to try that angle.

Why do Prof Engineers (until recently IIRC) have an unlimited tail on liability? Same with other prof s?

Why Does BP , owners of first CDN Place demand in excess of $10M in liability, even if renting 500 sf? Stats will clearly show there is no way any of the losses from the co leasegin/renting will ever get that close. Why would that be? Youve reasoned that stats make it an outlier, yet there it is, demanded by a landlord before one box crosses the threshhold.

The statistical nature of the problems means your anecdotes do not answer my question.

I asked for examples of regulations that were removed and evidence that rule helped.

And you ask in such a closed limited form, only to suit yourself in a singular minor point, that it wasnt worth looking into.

The broader picture is much better, and of course you know that, but narrow it down for purposes that are clear, enviros want to destroy everything.

[TimG]

We reject pipelines and shipping, the industry experts explore alternatives ... that's called constructive discussion.

Again - a silly talking point because you know that blocking shipping of the product means the industry shuts down which is your ultimate objective. Your fantasies about 'value added' production are fantasies designed to distract. It is possible that you actually believe they are plausible but that may simply be the cognitive dissonance working on your mind as your try to reconcile a desire to appear constructive while getting what you want which is an end to any activity which you think is dirty. Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

I didn't post anything about property taxes. That's your input and dodge from the question of government complicity in the extraction, refining, transport, and retail sale of petroleum and bitumen distillates. You have no answers, just the usual personal attack.

Here let me dumb it down for you.

Taxes, you used many forms, taxes are taxes. Doesnt matter which ones. Your point was somebody paid them so , let em off the hook

What I posted was an analogy. Go look it up.

My analogy was on par, some thing in which you dodged only because your post had no merit in the discussion.Still doesnt

[bush_cheney2004]

Here let me dumb it down for you.

No, you want to avoid the government's complicity in such things. Now that is "dumb".

[Hudson Jones]

Look at this old white man backing and promoting an electric hybrid truck: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25721122

Technology + environmentalism will trump your fear of change and all the foot dragging. All you will be left with is the scorn from the following generations who will blame you for slowing down progress and harming the environment.

[TimG]

But are they paying any amount? No? oh my.,....they must be outliers. Why are they paying? Why hasnt the govt cashed in a minor $5M bond? It may be peanuts, but im sure Lac Meg would love $5M dropped on them tomorrow.

No idea - but there must be a reason. The company is going under. But that does not change the fact that the unique geography is what made Lac Megantic so bad and a comparable accident is not likely to happen in the future.

Why Does BP , owners of first CDN Place demand in excess of $10M in liability, even if renting 500 sf? Stats will clearly show there is no way any of the losses from the co leasegin/renting will ever get that close.

The demand in this case is a reflection of the real estate market. In a different market the owner would not be able to make such a demand if they wanted their building rented. If the market was bad enough the owner might be forced to waive all liability insurance requirements.

In the case of resource development governments have to make choice - they either put some limit on liability or companies invest their money elsewhere and the country loses the jobs and revenue. It can be a game of chicken - like any price negotiation in a free market - but the chances of any government getting companies to take on unlimited liability is basically zero. The job of the government is to get the liability limit as high as it can be without killing the project.

[Guest Derek L]

Again - a silly talking point because you know that blocking shipping of the product means the industry shuts down which is your ultimate objective. Your fantasies about 'value added' production are fantasies designed to distract. It is possible that you actually believe they are plausible but that may simply be the cognitive dissonance working on your mind as your try to reconcile a desire to appear constructive while getting what you want which is an end to any activity which you think is dirty.

In this thread associated with a Canadian musician’s unrealistic dogma associated with North American energy security, I think it high time we put forth another Canadian balladeer to represent reality.

I nominate Alberta’s Corb Lund:

When the oil stops, everything stops

Thankfully the actual grown-ups in politics realize this, as such, the environmental lobby needs an honest reproach of their dogma, and would probably see much more attainable results if they actually worked with industry and Government to help ensure Canadian oil production and transportation is both the safest and cost effective, well also having the least possible impact on the environment, in the world…….Once that’s achieved, they can export such clean practices to other less environmentally concerned producers/consumers in the Middle East, Africa, South America, China and Russia.

[bush_cheney2004]

Look at this old white man backing and promoting an electric hybrid truck: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25721122

A lot more "old white men" (???) do this instead:

[guyser]

No, you want to avoid the government's complicity in such things. Now that is "dumb".

Oh FFS , keep up if ya can

Dumb is saying that when all along I argue the govts are complicit to a large degree in not going after the polluters and or not demanding sufficients reserves/bonds to pay out in an events.

good lord...

The govt is exactly the ones who should be requiring compensation limits thru Bonds provided by the carriers/builders/oil companies and so on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Dumb is saying that when all along I argue the govts are complicit to a large degree in not going after the polluters and or not demanding sufficients reserves/bonds to pay out in an events.

You still don't get it....government is more than just a passive regulator of such commerce. It is directly complicit and liable as a primary actor and benefactor of the energy biz. Making excuses and silly recommendations for bonding ignores the underlying complicity.

[jacee]

Exactly.......and one could also add mass transit systems........Ive no doubt that at some point that will gradually change to something else, but not in the near, decades, term.

bombardier-led-group-wins-us4-1-billion-rail-equipment-contract-for-queensland ... electric passenger trains

[guyser]

No idea - but there must be a reason. The company is going under. But that does not change the fact that the unique geography is what made Lac Megantic so bad and a comparable accident is not likely to happen in the future.

Flip flop flip flop....

Why not have a Bond issued for carriers of unsafe goods? Doesnt matter if they go under or not?

Unique geography my ass. Did it change a day before the disaster? Did a hill suddenly appear? Thats dodging the reality, the overseers didnt put enough thought into what could go wrong and mitigate the payouts by the taxpayers

The demand in this case is a reflection of the real estate market.

Not in this world it wouldnt. It wouldnt make a hill of beans difference in the leasing rate or % filled up.

In a different market the owner would not be able to make such a demand if they wanted their building rented. If the market was bad enough the owner might be forced to waive all liability insurance requirements.

But wait, stats (as you relied on previously) now mean nothing do they? Becuase you argued that stat analysis was the reason.....now it isnt? I see...

No owner waives liability, just dumb ones dont follow up

In the case of resource development governments have to make choice - they either put some limit on liability or companies invest their money elsewhere and the country loses the jobs and revenue. It can be a game of chicken - like any price negotiation in a free market - but the chances of any government getting companies to take on unlimited liability is basically zero. The job of the government is to get the liability limit as high as it can be without killing the project.

Utter bullshit Tim

Sorry, reality (and the oil co's bottom line) shows the amount of money is incredible. Any limits set are an incentive for more co's to come, but no limit shows theyd come anyway and find a carrier for the risk and pay the premium.

But this also points out that you have flip flopped on the Stats analysis angle once again. Now they limit liability do they?

Why? The Stats Analysis should show the limit as enough shouldnt it?

IOW, the Stats show a far greater limit should be in place, but we the govt have to put brakes on it.

Pick your argument and stick with it, cuz this one doesnt cut it

Edited January 21, 2014 by Guyser2

[Guest Derek L]

bombardier-led-group-wins-us4-1-billion-rail-equipment-contract-for-queensland ... electric passenger trains

Several things, to operate electric trains you have to already have the infrastructure in place and that costs a whole bunch of money……Second, with North America in particular, commuter/passenger trains make up a very small percent of rail traffic. Third, current and near term electric only locomotives don’t generate enough power to pull current sized freight trains, let alone traverse the Rockies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Third, current and near term electric only locomotives don’t generate enough power to pull current sized freight trains, let alone traverse the Rockies.

No worries...here is the new hybrid locomotive powered by lithium batteries and solar panels:

Edited January 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[jacee]

Again - a silly talking point because you know that blocking shipping of the product means the industry shuts down which is your ultimate objective. Your fantasies about 'value added' production are fantasies designed to distract. It is possible that you actually believe they are plausible but that may simply be the cognitive dissonance working on your mind as your try to reconcile a desire to appear constructive while getting what you want which is an end to any activity which you think is dirty.

You never do have any thoughts or ideas to present eh Tim?

Just slam and insult others.

Not useful.

I think this thread is done.

Edited January 21, 2014 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

No worries...here is the new hybrid locomotive powered by lithium batteries and solar panels:

I’m thinking a more viable approach for fuelling such a beast would be recycled hemp and the laughter of children

[TimG]

Why not have a Bond issued for carriers of unsafe goods? Doesnt matter if they go under or not?

Where did I say that bonds were not a useful instrument? I made it clear that regulation is necessary. But I don't agree that every regulation is useful. The only thing I asked was for evidence the regulations that Harper has cut served some useful purpose. So far I have gotten no response which proves that the original poster was spouting trite talking points without any understanding of the underlying issues.

But this also points out that you have flip flopped on the Stats analysis angle once again. Now they limit liability do they? Why? The Stats Analysis should show the limit as enough shouldnt it?

You seem to be missing the entire point - the statistical nature of the problem means that there will always be outliers and the question is who has to be liable for those outliers. When it comes to buildings in a sellers market the landlord will try to push that liability onto the tenets. In a buyers market the landlord will have to assume the responsibility themselves. Neither changes the nature of the statistics.

When it comes to resource development it is an open question how much liability companies will assume but I am sure they will not assume infinite liability or post bonds that have no connection to the statistical risk. So the question is how much can governments push without shooting themselves in the foot. It is the same problem that anyone with something to lose faces when they enter into a negotiation.

Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG