-1=e^ipi Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think it would at least make sense to be able to get our oil to the refining capacity we already have. A sensible proposal would have been to build a pipeline east. Right now Canada imports most of the oil we use from Venezuela, and its refined in Ontario. A pipeline to the east would allow us to stop ALL oil imports which would achieve energy independance. It would also reduce the amount we export which would take some of the upward pressure off our currency which is making it harder other Canadian industries to survive. You mean like reverse line 9? Even that is taking years! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/enbridge-s-line-9-pipeline-reversal-plan-not-ok-d-by-montreal-1.2764660 According to the radical environmentalists, reversing the flow of a pipeline to the direction that it was originally meant to flow in the first place is unacceptable. Why not do all 3? Ship oil east, west and south. Obama? No, we've done it to ourselves. That too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 You mean like reverse line 9? Even that is taking years! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/enbridge-s-line-9-pipeline-reversal-plan-not-ok-d-by-montreal-1.2764660 According to the radical environmentalists, reversing the flow of a pipeline to the direction that it was originally meant to flow in the first place is unacceptable. Why not do all 3? Ship oil east, west and south. That too. That would be the best option but as stated FIPA will not change that fact, it will just make taxpayers pay for the loss of these projects. If the treehuggers are going to have their way anyways why pay the investor for the lose from your own wallet? It just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 You mean like reverse line 9? Even that is taking years! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/enbridge-s-line-9-pipeline-reversal-plan-not-ok-d-by-montreal-1.2764660 According to the radical environmentalists, reversing the flow of a pipeline to the direction that it was originally meant to flow in the first place is unacceptable. so... apparently, "radical environmentalism" to you, is the mayor of Montreal, speaking as head of the Montreal Metropolitan Community (MMC), stating that Enbridge has failed to meet 2 key criteria outlined by the MMC committee mandated as the planning, coordinating and funding body that represents 82 communities in the greater Montreal region. That's your "radical environmentalism"? so... the mayor of Montreal highlighting Enbridge has failed to meet its obligation in several critieria points, most particular 2 key criteria points... that's your "radical environmentalism"? so... Enbridge failing to provide the following... that's your "radical environmentalism" responding to Enbridge not providing the following: - Detailing its plan to protect waterways touched by Line 9. - Outlining its emergency plan in case of a spill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 Denis Coderre looks a lot like Rob Ford. They should just pump the oil to the Quebec border, then ship it by train into Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 so... apparently, "radical environmentalism" to you, is the mayor of Montreal, speaking as head of the Montreal Metropolitan Community (MMC), stating that Enbridge has failed to meet 2 key criteria outlined by the MMC committee mandated as the planning, coordinating and funding body that represents 82 communities in the greater Montreal region. That's your "radical environmentalism"? so... the mayor of Montreal highlighting Enbridge has failed to meet its obligation in several critieria points, most particular 2 key criteria points... that's your "radical environmentalism"? so... Enbridge failing to provide the following... that's your "radical environmentalism" responding to Enbridge not providing the following: - Detailing its plan to protect waterways touched by Line 9. - Outlining its emergency plan in case of a spill. Strawman. The main point was that it's taken so long. Also, all this red tape required to reverse the direction of the flow of line 9 when the flow has been reversed in the past is ridiculous. If the pipeline is already fine the way it is, it should need to pass all these obstacles just to make the pipeline flow in the direction it was originally intended to flow in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Strawman. The main point was that it's taken so long. Also, all this red tape required to reverse the direction of the flow of line 9 when the flow has been reversed in the past is ridiculous. If the pipeline is already fine the way it is, it should need to pass all these obstacles just to make the pipeline flow in the direction it was originally intended to flow in. responding to your direct words is not a strawman. Let's be clear here... you see no difference in pipeline flow/impact between conventional oil and tarsands dilbit? . Edited September 19, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 responding to your direct words is not a strawman. Let's be clear here... you see no difference in pipeline flow/impact between conventional oil and tarsands dilbit? Of course there is a different. But not enough to justify giving every municipality veto power over issues of national interest. Especially in this case when the pipeline has been around for decades and has been reversed before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Of course there is a different. But not enough to justify giving every municipality veto power over issues of national interest. Especially in this case when the pipeline has been around for decades and has been reversed before. so you acknowledge there's a difference in flow/impact to a pipeline carrying tarsands dilbit... but you think requiring Enbridge to provide risk assessments on that difference (in the form of detailing its plan to protect waterways touched by Line 9 and outlining its emergency plan in case of a spill)... that is, as you stated, "radical environmentalism"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 so you acknowledge there's a difference in flow/impact to a pipeline carrying tarsands dilbit... but you think requiring Enbridge to provide risk assessments on that difference (in the form of detailing its plan to protect waterways touched by Line 9 and outlining its emergency plan in case of a spill)... that is, as you stated, "radical environmentalism"? A simple risk assessment or cost benefit analysis should be done either by Enbridge or the federal government (preferably the federal government; Enbridge isn't exactly the most trustworthy corporation). That would take like 1 government bureaucrat a week to do. Maybe a few more people to assess the report. But that's completely different from delaying the reversal of line 9 for years, and giving veto power to all the municipalities along the way + other special interest groups. The system we have now is horribly inefficient and costly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Just the fact it takes 31 years to get out of the damn thing should scare the bayjeezus out of any thinking person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Just the fact it takes 31 years to get out of the damn thing should scare the bayjeezus out of any thinking person. The fact that so many people would rather Canada have more poverty concerns me more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Not wanting to "sell the farm" does not have anything to do with anybody wanting poverty. BTW, look at the amount of poverty in China compared to Canada and get back to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Not wanting to "sell the farm" does not have anything to do with anybody wanting poverty. BTW, look at the amount of poverty in China compared to Canada and get back to me. Truth rings clear. China cares not for our people nor our environment or even their own for that matter and when it comes down to it would probably rather see you die than see a barrel of oil be wasted. I would much rather see investment from a nation with a weaker economy that holds our values then a stronger economy that doesn't even care for their own peoples values no matter how long that takes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 PMO 'short-pant kids' purge more than 100 critical comments from the Conservative party's Facebook page... comments critical of the Canada-China FIPA agreement. oh dear... leader! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Why is the PMO doing partisan campaign work, shaping the social media message of the Conservative Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.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.