On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 OK, risk assessment: west, earthquake zone, many rivers to cross, a lot of inaccessable area east, none of the above, or at least not so much Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 OK, risk assessment: west, earthquake zone, many rivers to cross, a lot of inaccessable area Yet you can't demonstrate Earthquakes negatively affecting both TAPS and Trans Mountain..........What percent of the proposed route is inaccessible? east, none of the above, or at least not so much There would be no rivers (or not much) on a eastward pipeline? I thought you said you can read maps Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 To add (since you like maps) So you're saying there isn't any significant rivers along the proposed Eastern route Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Yet you can't demonstrate Earthquakes negatively affecting both TAPS and Trans Mountain..........What percent of the proposed route is inaccessible? There would be no rivers (or not much) on a eastward pipeline? I thought you said you can read maps Yep. Been reading them for 40 years or so. That's how I know the differnce between mountains and prairies. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Yep. Been reading them for 40 years or so. That's how I know the differnce between mountains and prairies. But clearly not rivers....... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 But clearly not rivers....... How many earthquakes have you heard about in Manitoba lately. Or landslides in Nova Scotia. Now then, how many ships arrive from Saudi to deliver foreign oil to NB? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 How many earthquakes have you heard about in Manitoba lately. Or landslides in Nova Scotia. How many earthquakes and landslides have caused ruptures on TAPS and Trans Mountain? Now then, how many ships arrive from Saudi to deliver foreign oil to NB? I have no idea......how many ships will deliver oil transported through Energy East to Europe and the US Eastern Seaboard? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 How many earthquakes and landslides have caused ruptures on TAPS and Trans Mountain? I have no idea......how many ships will deliver oil transported through Energy East to Europe and the US Eastern Seaboard? I don't have those numbers at my fingertips but, a little logic here should work. If we go west, all of it goes offshore. If it goes east, a bunch of it goes to sate east coast consumption so we don't have to buy it from Saudi etc.Of course we may ship some, but numbers are numbers. And at the end of the day, it's our oil isn't it? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 I don't have those numbers at my fingertips but, a little logic here should work. If we go west, all of it goes offshore. If it goes east, a bunch of it goes to sate east coast consumption so we don't have to buy it from Saudi etc.Of course we may ship some, but numbers are numbers. And at the end of the day, it's our oil isn't it? Logic? Backers of Energy East want us to believe that this pipeline plan is mainly about getting cheap western oil to eastern refineries. But, as a new report shows, Energy East is an export pipeline – not a made-in-Canada energy solution. It is intended to export vast quantities of unrefined tar sands oil. How much oil? Energy East will have a staggering capacity of carrying 1.1 million barrels per day. Of that, between 750,000 to 1 million barrels would likely be exported unrefined via tankers. Care to refute that? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Logic? Care to refute that? Sure. Get this. The Tar sands produces x amount. It seems your link seems to think there is more if it goes east rather than going west. How dumb is that? That x amount can go either way. If it goes west , NB will still have to import oil from Saudi etc. If you think about it, going east inevitibly will reduce ship movements. Quite simple. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Sure. Get this. The Tar sands produces x amount. It seems your link seems to think there is more if it goes east rather than going west. How dumb is that? That x amount can go either way. If it goes west , NB will still have to import oil from Saudi etc. If you think about it, going east inevitibly will reduce ship movements. Quite simple. Or even more simply. If you take a barrel of oil from tarsands and send it west, it all goes in a ship somewhere else. If you send it east, some of it gets burned in Canada and then the rest might get shipped somewhere. As far as Enbridge is concerned, "it's all about the money" Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Sure. Get this. The Tar sands produces x amount. It seems your link seems to think there is more if it goes east rather than going west. How dumb is that? Huh? Where did you garner that? If it goes west , NB will still have to import oil from Saudi etc. If you think about it, going east inevitibly will reduce ship movements. Quite simple. How will it reduce ship movements if the oil is being exported out of Canada? Or even more simply. If you take a barrel of oil from tarsands and send it west, it all goes in a ship somewhere else. If you send it east, some of it gets burned in Canada and then the rest might get shipped somewhere. As far as Enbridge is concerned, "it's all about the money" Huh? The vast majority of the oil through the proposed Energy East line, as reported in the link I provided, will be exported offshore........And do you suggest TransCanada isn't interested in making money? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Huh? Where did you garner that? How will it reduce ship movements if the oil is being exported out of Canada? Huh? The vast majority of the oil through the proposed Energy East line, as reported in the link I provided, will be exported offshore........And do you suggest TransCanada isn't interested in making money? Let me make it REALLY simple. Take a gallon of oil. It goes west it goes offshore. Send it east, a portion get's burned in Canada,then maybe the remainder goes elsewhere. oK, some gets used in Canada or none gets used in Canada. After that it's just about money going into oil company pockets. BTW do you work for one of them? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Let me make it REALLY simple. Take a gallon of oil. It goes west it goes offshore. Send it east, a portion get's burned in Canada,then maybe the remainder goes elsewhere. oK, some gets used in Canada or none gets used in Canada. After that it's just about money going into oil company pockets. BTW do you work for one of them? That's where your naivite comes into play. Your "Oil Company pockets" are actually my RRSP - and hundreds of thousands of other Canadians like me whose retirement funds contain a portion of those shares. I'll bet even the Canada Pension Plan and other Provincial, Municipal and Union pension plans have a good allotment of Energy shares. And hey, profits create taxes that fund our social net. So how about recognizing that our government - and the industry - have made - and continue to make great strides in making an already safe industry even better - planning for just about any "what if" scenario that can be imagined. Let's hold their feet to the fire but start to change the attitude from one of impediments to one of solutions and effective monitoring. What will it take to make you understand the direct link of a healthy economy to the compassionate social safety net that we deliver to our citizens? Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) That's where your naivite comes into play. Your "Oil Company pockets" are actually my RRSP - and hundreds of thousands of other Canadians like me whose retirement funds contain a portion of those shares. I'll bet even the Canada Pension Plan and other Provincial, Municipal and Union pension plans have a good allotment of Energy shares.I would hope they've dumped Northern Gateway shares by now!209 conditions is as good as a 'no'. And hey, profits create taxes that fund our social net. So how about recognizing that our government - and the industry - have made - and continue to make great strides in making an already safe industry even better - planning for just about any "what if" scenario that can be imagined. Let's hold their feet to the fire but start to change the attitude from one of impediments to one of solutions and effective monitoring. What will it take to make you understand the direct link of a healthy economy to the compassionate social safety net that we deliver to our citizens?True ... but soiling your own nest to buy better furniture is a losers' game. IE Environmental destruction increases health, social and environmental costs. Losers' game. . Edited June 25, 2014 by jacee Quote
Topaz Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 As far as going East, I heard that either gas or oil pipes run under golf courses in Ontario and I think the subway in Toronto, is that true?? Quote
jacee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 As far as going East, I heard that either gas or oil pipes run under golf courses in Ontario and I think the subway in Toronto, is that true??On top of a subway.Lovely eh? http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/torontopipeline/2014/01/30/mississauga_home_to_riskiest_spot_on_aging_pipeline.html At the Finch subway station, the pipeline runs less than two metres below the sidewalk and 60 centimetres above the subway structure, cinched between the stairwell of the Bishop Ave. entrance and escalators leading to the Metrolinx terminal. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) 209 conditions is as good as a 'no'. True ... but soiling your own nest to buy better furniture is a losers' game. IE Environmental destruction increases health, social and environmental costs. Losers' game. . Those are emotional statements that add absolutely nothing to the debate. If the 209 conditions are met - would you reluctantly accept Northern Gateway? If your position is "No" - no matter what safeguards are put in place.....then you may as well not participate in the discussion. Edited June 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Those are emotional statements that add absolutely nothing to the debate. If the 209 conditions are met - would you reluctantly accept Northern Gateway? If your position is "No" - no matter what safeguards are put in place.....then you may as well not participate in the discussion. Thanks for sharing. . Quote
waldo Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 That's where your naivite comes into play. Your "Oil Company pockets" are actually my RRSP - and hundreds of thousands of other Canadians like me whose retirement funds contain a portion of those shares. I'll bet even the Canada Pension Plan and other Provincial, Municipal and Union pension plans have a good allotment of Energy shares. And hey, profits create taxes that fund our social net. So how about recognizing that our government - and the industry - have made - and continue to make great strides in making an already safe industry even better - planning for just about any "what if" scenario that can be imagined. Let's hold their feet to the fire but start to change the attitude from one of impediments to one of solutions and effective monitoring. What will it take to make you understand the direct link of a healthy economy to the compassionate social safety net that we deliver to our citizens? Simple, speaking of naivete, are you risk averse... to the carbon bubble? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Simple, speaking of naivete, are you risk averse... to the carbon bubble? Not sure what your point is - except to demonstrate how important the energy sector is to the health of the world economy. Quote Back to Basics
Derek 2.0 Posted June 26, 2014 Report Posted June 26, 2014 Let me make it REALLY simple. Take a gallon of oil. It goes west it goes offshore. Send it east, a portion get's burned in Canada,then maybe the remainder goes elsewhere. oK, some gets used in Canada or none gets used in Canada. After that it's just about money going into oil company pockets. BTW do you work for one of them? You seem of the assumption that the rate of production is a zero sum game, well being pegged at the current rates…..likewise your notion that oil burned in Canada is “better” then oil burned in China or Western Europe…..that’s an oblivious disregard of basic economics, fore oil’s price is determined by the market as a whole. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 26, 2014 Report Posted June 26, 2014 You seem of the assumption that the rate of production is a zero sum game, well being pegged at the current rates…..likewise your notion that oil burned in Canada is “better” then oil burned in China or Western Europe…..that’s an oblivious disregard of basic economics, fore oil’s price is determined by the market as a whole. Not at all. Wherever it's burned it will do environmental damage. However, I think we do have cleaner technology here than say in China so maybe a bit less impact. Also why should we buy it from Saudi when we have our own? That makes absolutr no sense. Unless of course all your concern is the value of your shares in Syncrude. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 26, 2014 Report Posted June 26, 2014 Not at all. Wherever it's burned it will do environmental damage. However, I think we do have cleaner technology here than say in China so maybe a bit less impact. Also why should we buy it from Saudi when we have our own? That makes absolutr no sense. Unless of course all your concern is the value of your shares in Syncrude. You’ve demonstrated clearly the workings of the world petroleum market and basic economics makes no sense to you….I don’t dispute that...........As has been repeated to you several times, the (three) refineries at the terminus points of Energy East are near capacity already, as such, for Canadians to benefit from the piped bitumen, it would have to be exported to be refined, then shipped back to Canada……..unless refining capacity was increased, but of course, this would have follow on effects for consumers. Quote
PIK Posted June 26, 2014 Report Posted June 26, 2014 You have Obama bragging that he has put in more pipelines, open up more land for oil, fracked till heart content and nothing said. But here is canada we are not allowed to do anything to help out our own citizens because of a handful of ass holes with pockets loads of foreign money. What gives? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
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.