ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 Today, in the Huffington Post, Canada's most reasonable and logical parliamentarian systematically dismantles the arguments in favor of pipelines that are intended to carry diluted bitumen. In response to the claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport bitumen, May points out that diluting the bitumen (making dilbit) and shipping it through a pipeline is actually less safe than transporting raw bitumen in railway cars. But if bitumen is not diluted and shipped by rail, it is safe as houses. It is warmed enough to fill a rail car, where it solidifies until its final destination, and is warmed again to be removed. Should a rail car of solid bitumen come crashing off a hilltop and land in a stream below, there it would lie in a lump. In response to the idea that we need to get dilbit to tidewater to save jobs: The mantra that "we must get bitumen to tidewater" is No. 1 in the hit parade of industry claims. It goes completely against Peter Lougheed's plans for the oil sands to insist on the export of raw product in a pre-crude state. Exporting raw product, whether raw logs or raw bitumen, ships out jobs. The major labour unions oppose pipelines for this reason. In response to the myth that pipelines are intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil Enbridge's submission to the NEB said the west-east section of its twin pipeline would ship diluent purchased from Saudi Arabia to mix with bitumen in order to ship dilbit the other way in the east-west section. Why is it Canada has not one refinery capable of processing bitumen? It is fascinating that MacKay's article makes no mention of the falling price of a barrel of oil. The market is slowing development in the oil sands far more than a lack of pipelines. Low oil prices make bitumen production a non-profit activity. And finally, a response to the untrue claim that the International Energy Agency says that demand for fossil fuels will keep increasing Actually, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is one of those organizations buttressing the case to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible. The IEA has determined that to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change, at least two-thirds of all known reserves of fossil fuels must remain in the ground until at least 2050. Conclusions: 1. We need more parliamentarians like Elizabeth May 2. We don't need Energy East or any of the pipelines that propose to ship dilbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 I actually agree with her when it comes to bitumen. We should be exporting oil like other oil producing countries, not bitumen. However, I suspect her stand on the refineries needed to convert it to oil would be the same as on bitumen itself. A big no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think her position is much the same as mine. We need to get off of oil for the sake of our future. But if we're going to produce oil, then let's produce oil, not bitumen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) I actually agree with her when it comes to bitumen. We should be exporting oil like other oil producing countries, not bitumen. However, I suspect her stand on the refineries needed to convert it to oil would be the same as on bitumen itself. A big no.Well we can't do that as long as people like May obsess about CO2 emissions because upgrading to SCO in Alberta would make those emissions higher. Exempt all refining operations from CO2 emission restrictions and you would likely see more interest. Otherwise, it is more economical to ship bitumen to a country that does not care about emissions. Edited February 25, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) In response to the claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport bitumen, May points out that diluting the bitumen (making dilbit) and shipping it through a pipeline is actually less safe than transporting raw bitumen in railway cars.So she is in favour of making the crude by rail the primary means of moving crude? Will she support the creation of a new rail corridor to carry crude or does she think the existing rail traffic should be simply pushed off to make room for crude? Frankly, nothing May has to say about the risks associated with anything has any credibility. In response to the idea that we need to get dilbit to tidewater to save jobs:A hypocritical statement from someone who thinks CO2 emitting industries like bitumen upgraders should be shutdown. As long as Alberta is attacked for CO2 emissions there will be an incentive to refine elsewhere and make those emissions someone else's problem. Lastly, if no one believes that SCO pipelines would not be blocked by the same people for the same reason. If May really want SCO production in Alberta she should emphatically support the development of SCO pipelines. In response to the myth that pipelines are intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oilNow this is just nonsense. Some imported product is used to facilitate the transport of oil sands crude and that means it does not reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Nonsense. Every barrel that refined in Montreal or NB is a barrel that does not need to be imported and it reduces our dependence. And finally, a response to the untrue claim that the International Energy Agency says that demand for fossil fuels will keep increasingThis is wishful thinking. World oil demand reaches new highs each year. The price is only falling because of all of the new supplies. Maybe new tech will appear to reduce global oil demand but there are no signs of it coming. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 How does Elizabeth May get from Ottawa to BC?I wonder how big her carbon footprint is with all her frequent flyer miles. We will need oil for a very long time like it or not.Why not Canadian oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 How does Elizabeth May get from Ottawa to BC?I wonder how big her carbon footprint is with all her frequent flyer miles. Is this the best you can come up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Most of her argument is nonsense. Besides, how does she justify more C02 produced using rail vs a pipeline? Regardless, May wouldn't know the first thing about private sector job growth or running a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 She did great debating herself though! Bravo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerve Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Today, in the Huffington Post, Canada's most reasonable and logical parliamentarian systematically dismantles the arguments in favor of pipelines that are intended to carry diluted bitumen. In response to the claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport bitumen, May points out that diluting the bitumen (making dilbit) and shipping it through a pipeline is actually less safe than transporting raw bitumen in railway cars. In response to the idea that we need to get dilbit to tidewater to save jobs: In response to the myth that pipelines are intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil And finally, a response to the untrue claim that the International Energy Agency says that demand for fossil fuels will keep increasing Conclusions: 1. We need more parliamentarians like Elizabeth May 2. We don't need Energy East or any of the pipelines that propose to ship dilbit. What makes more money to sell.... raw or diluted? What is the ROI? What I am wondering is what makes more money, selling by pipeline or selling by railline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Most of her argument is nonsense. Most of ALL of her arguments are nonsense. It's a rare day when she makes a cohesive argument that withstands even the mildest scrutiny. Today is not one of those days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 How does Elizabeth May get from Ottawa to BC? Given load factors and increasing fuel efficiency, air travel is becoming more environmentally friendly all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Most of her argument is nonsense. I usually don't agree with her, but, go ahead, take it apart piece by piece. Besides, how does she justify more C02 produced using rail vs a pipeline? CO2 is important. So is environmental pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 I usually don't agree with her, but, go ahead, take it apart piece by piece. Expecting more than a silly one liner drive-by? Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Tim G gets it right in post 5, but were someone to give me the job of sorting this mess, I could not do so at current prices (that will eventually go back up). In a world with realistic oil prices that could cover life-cycle costs, the solution would be to make SCO in AB with mandatory carbon capture (sequestration). But, from the experience of Sask Power at Boundary Dam, that is VERY expensive, and in reality - as pointed out - we must compete with countries that don't really care about emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 She isn't a serious person, her press gallery dinner speech proved that, she should simply be ignored. How many people have been killed in oil train accidents, how many in oil pipeline accidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 I guess if you can't debate her points, attacking her as a person must make you feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) I guess if you can't debate her points, attacking her as a person must make you feel better.I addressed her points individually. The main problem with her argument is she claims there are better ways to get the oil out of Alberta but no reasonable person believes that she would support efforts to get the oil out in the ways she suggests because her arguments are just a smoke screen for what she really wants to say which is "close down the oil sands". We need a word to describe these kids of duplicitous arguments. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Again, don't take her arguments at face value, just make up what you think she means to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Again, don't take her arguments at face value, just make up what you think she means to say.Why should she be taken at face value given her public stance on all things related to fossil fuels? If she really wants to be constructive the onus is on her to litter her criticism with points like 'I would support a project that...' or similar phrasing. The absence of such conciliatory wording leaves only one conclusion: she is being duplicitous and will oppose any project that moves the oil out of Alberta. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why should she be taken at face value given her public stance on all things related to fossil fuels? If she really wants to be constructive the onus is on her to litter her criticism with points like 'I would support a project that...' or similar phrasing. The absence of such conciliatory wording leaves only one conclusion: she is being duplicitous and will oppose any project that moves the oil out of Alberta. Clearly, absolutely, undoubtedly correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why should she be taken at face value given her public stance on all things related to fossil fuels? If she really wants to be constructive the onus is on her to litter her criticism with points like 'I would support a project that...' or similar phrasing. The absence of such conciliatory wording leaves only one conclusion: she is being duplicitous and will oppose any project that moves the oil out of Alberta. Perhaps if you actually read the article you would see what she is doing is simply pointing out the misinformation presented by the likes of Peter Mackay and Joe Oliver on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why should she be taken at face value given her public stance on all things related to fossil fuels? If we're all just going to make stuff up (i.e., not accept things at face value), then what's the point of the discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Perhaps if you actually read the article you would see what she is doing is simply pointing out the misinformation presented by the likes of Peter Mackay and Joe Oliver on the subject. By posting her own misinformation, you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) If we're all just going to make stuff up (i.e., not accept things at face value), then what's the point of the discussion? Anyone who thinks its cheaper and safer to move oil by rail than by pipeline is gobsmackingly stupid or insane. Period. End of story. Why in hell would anyone need to debate that? Edited February 26, 2016 by Argus 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.