Are Liberals trying to destroy the resource industry?

[Argus]

21 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Oil is a finite resource. It will run out. All we can do is try to make it last as long as possible.

As for the original post, the government of Quebec is not on board with the Energy East pipeline. The BC government is not on board with Trans Mountain. It is better to go with the american option where the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Canadian and US governments are all in favour. It makes good business and good politics.

This country is criss-crossed in pipelines and it was never an issue for government before. Only in the last decade or so did it suddenly become a fashionable cause of the Left - which has no problem driving cars and heating their homes with fossil fuels, nor using the tax money the fossil fuel industry provides but is indignant at the thought of a pipeline coming within a hundred miles of THEM. Well, this is in the national interest, and if we had a federal government with a spine or any interest in the national interest (as opposed to their own short-term political interests) they'd ensure pipelines got pushed through.

[Queenmandy85]

Never the less, if a province opposes a project, is it right to impose it on them? Does Alberta outweigh BC and Quebec? If a project you were against were opposed by Quebec and BC, would you still feel the same way?

There are other resources besides oil. For someone working in the oil industry, there are other jobs out there, other resources, other non-resource Service, industries. We need to be flexible. In my working career, I surveyed for the Forest, was a mortgage and loans officer for a major bank, drove a taxi, and spent 25 years as a peace officer. I've worked in two provinces and the Yukon. We go where the work is and do what needs to be done.

If  we can't export our oil, we turn to something else. We have uranium, gold, we are world leaders in banking and nuclear technology. We have incredible opportunities in computer engineering and science. 

Losing sleep over having Trudeau as Prime Minister is a waste of energy. It is unlikely he will be defeated until 2020, so we have to make the best of the way things are. Life is too full of opportunities to spend a moment worrying about things we cannot change and focus on taking advantage the opportunities that are all around us.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Queenmandy85
Spelling correction

[Zul-Fiqar786]

Trudeau is a great Prime Minister. I won’t mind if he remains PM for the next couple of decades. Sure is better than that racist Harper. Also, Ontario and more specifically GTA is all that matters to me. I could care less about the rest of the country and their mundane regional issues. The future of Canada is the GTA, it must continue to grow and prosper and I’m glad to say things are looking good for us. Alberta doesn’t concern me, the most racist and White nationalist province home to Rebel Media. Quebec is even worse.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Zul-Fiqar786 said:

Trudeau is a great Prime Minister. I won’t mind if he remains PM for the next couple of decades. Sure is better than that racist Harper. Also, Ontario and more specifically GTA is all that matters to me. I could care less about the rest of the country and their mundane regional issues. The future of Canada is the GTA, it must continue to grow and prosper and I’m glad to say things are looking good for us. Alberta doesn’t concern me, the most racist and White nationalist province home to Rebel Media. Quebec is even worse.

Spoken like a true Torontonian!

[-1=e^ipi]

On 9/10/2017 at 3:31 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

You cannot operate an electric vehicle, a Candu reactor or any other machine without a lubricant (oil).  Then there are the thousands of other products derived from petroleum. When Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia run out of oil, it will be worth as much as people can pay.

You can invest revenues from oil produced today into the stock market to potentially get a higher return than waiting to utilize that oil in the future.

 

Really, the optimal path of resource extraction is to follow Hotelling's Rule, modified by externalities of course.

Hotelling's Rule has been known since 1931.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

[Queenmandy85]

How does profit in the stock market now, produce food, transport food to 10 - 15 billion people, provide those people with shelter and energy when we run out of oil and coal in the near future. (There is no such thing as a "foreseeable future"). The object is to feed and shelter people for as long as possible.

How does the experience of Easter Island fit into Hotelling's rule.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

12 hours ago, Zul-Fiqar786 said:

Trudeau is a great Prime Minister. I won’t mind if he remains PM for the next couple of decades. Sure is better than that racist Harper. Also, Ontario and more specifically GTA is all that matters to me. I could care less about the rest of the country and their mundane regional issues. The future of Canada is the GTA, it must continue to grow and prosper and I’m glad to say things are looking good for us. Alberta doesn’t concern me, the most racist and White nationalist province home to Rebel Media. Quebec is even worse.

Thank you for your input.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

On 9/11/2017 at 8:18 AM, Hydraboss said:

Trudeau certainly would eliminate oil and gas employment if it meant he would be reelected.  

Is that not the point of democracy? Governments do what the people want in order to get re-elected. 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Never the less, if a province opposes a project, is it right to impose it on them?

Absolutely. The federal government has a right and a duty to protect and push forward economic programs which cross provincial boundaries but which are in the national interest. The parochial interests of nymby's can't be allowed to stand in the way of the national interest.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How does profit in the stock market now, produce food, transport food to 10 - 15 billion people, provide those people with shelter and energy when we run out of oil and coal in the near future.

We aren't going to run out of oil in the near future, or in the far future either. Fifty years from now oil will mostly be used as a lubricant and in making products, not in producing energy.

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Is that not the point of democracy? Governments do what the people want in order to get re-elected. 

If they're self-serving political whores who don't care about the welfare of the country, yes.

[Bonam]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

If they're self-serving political whores who don't care about the welfare of the country, yes.

Err, isn't that in the very definition of what a politician is? Can you name any that this description doesn't apply to?

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Err, isn't that in the very definition of what a politician is? Can you name any that this description doesn't apply to?

I don't think Harper was that bad. He did a capable, workmanlike job as PM. Nothing to sing any great praises of, but he clearly did care about the welfare of the country. 

[Queenmandy85]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Absolutely. The federal government has a right and a duty to protect and push forward economic programs which cross provincial boundaries but which are in the national interest. The parochial interests of nymby's can't be allowed to stand in the way of the national interest.

When you put it that way, it is in the national interest to eliminate the production of green house gases as soon as possible. 

5 hours ago, Argus said:

If they're self-serving political whores who don't care about the welfare of the country, yes.

If they are concerned about what the voters want, then that is in the national interest. That is democracy. 

In the final analysis, nobody listens to us on a forum like this. We are not representative of the electorate. We mostly inhabit the extremities of the spectrum. Governments are very limited on what they can do. Do they really want to listen to a militant Monarchist like me?

Edited September 12, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

When you put it that way, it is in the national interest to eliminate the production of green house gases as soon as possible. 

It's in the interests of the country to destroy our economy? I'm not seeing it.

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

If they are concerned about what the voters want, then that is in the national interest. That is democracy. 

The voters want? You know, I've watched Liberal and NDP politicians and spokesthingees talking about climate change for many years now. The perception they all leave - without exception over that entire time - is that without a powerful anti-climate change policy on Canada's part the world will be destroyed. And that it won't cost anything at all! Yes, that's right! Not a single cent! Oh, some corporations, rich fat cats, will pay a little, but that's it!

The voters want it? Let's see your precious climate loving politicians go to the polls and say "In order to fight climate change I am going to impose a tax that will quadruple the cost of your gas and home heating oil. Vote for me!"

See how that goes over. The voters have been lied to with remarkable consistency by climate change activists. They haven't been told that no matter what Canada does it will be insignificant as far as climate change goes, and they haven't been told just how much it will cost to have any real impact on Canada's CO2 emissions. Nor will they be.

[Queenmandy85]

Part of the resistance to pipelines is the possibility of a spill such as the Husky spill. Another source of concern is climate change. I read your view and then I read what Stephen Hawking has to say. Obviously, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am smart enough to believe Hawking. 

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Part of the resistance to pipelines is the possibility of a spill such as the Husky spill. Another source of concern is climate change. I read your view and then I read what Stephen Hawking has to say. Obviously, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am smart enough to believe Hawking. 

Did Hawking say that unless Canada imposes huge climate change taxes the world is doomed? Place quote.

A million miles of pipeline criss-cross this continent, and occasionally there's a spill, which is cleaned up. Do you want to go from place to place by horse and buggy? Want to heat your home by a woodstove? No? Then we need oil for the foreseeable future.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Part of the resistance to pipelines is the possibility of a spill such as the Husky spill. Another source of concern is climate change. I read your view and then I read what Stephen Hawking has to say. Obviously, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am smart enough to believe Hawking. 

Pipelines still safetst and most environment friendly.

 

[Queenmandy85]

Hawking said climate change is a serious problem. I apologize that I do not have a quote. I also believe Gwynne Dyer and Dr. Suzuki. I am not saying you are wrong. The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that is the way to bet.

I would hate to see a spill in the valleys of BC. They can't undo all of the damage a spill causes.

I would be happy to go from place to place on electrified rail and heat my home with electricity generated by nuclear power. I would be happy to see Candu reactors manufactured in Canada and sold around the world. 

[Queenmandy85]

6 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Pipelines still safetst and most environment friendly.

 

Nuclear power ( either uranium or thorium) is far safer and more environmentally friendly.

[drummindiver]

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Nuclear power ( either uranium or thorium) is far safer and more environmentally friendly.

Are you strictly talking about power?

Hard to get your car to go on nuclear (yet).

Did he specify AGW?

How does your house get built? Trains, cars, tvs etc? Using nuclear? While you and I agree, NIMBYism excludes NP on as large a scale as you would like.

 

Dr Suzuki is a multimillionaire hypocrite. I can provide cites if requested.

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Hard to get your car to go on nuclear (yet).

Rebuild the rail system and electrify it. I don't have much faith in a cheap, viable electric car but we'll see. 

Resistance to NP is an indictment of the education system. As I said before, nobody in government really gives a crap what I think. But to paraphrase the movie version of the Sundance Kid, "I've got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals."

Hopefully we will have enough snow on Granite and Kimberley for skiing for the rest of my life.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Rebuild the rail system and electrify it. I don't have much faith in a cheap, viable electric car but we'll see. 

Resistance to NP is an indictment of the education system. As I said before, nobody in government really gives a crap what I think. But to paraphrase the movie version of the Sundance Kid, "I've got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals."

Hopefully we will have enough snow on Granite and Kimberley for skiing for the rest of my life.

Electric cars are a sure thing at this point. "Cheap and viable" are vague enough terms that one can always argue about whether they've been met but in many other countries electric models are already very popular. Within 10 years, electric cars that cost cheaper and have comparable range to similar gasoline models will be a given, and charging infrastructure will be prevalent. However, charge times will likely remain an issue (it won't be as fast to fully recharge your battery as it is to refill your gas tank). But more electric cars only strengthens the case for nuclear power - we'll need a lot more energy to charge all those cars. 100% conversion of cars and trucks to electric would increase electricity demand by ~50% over current levels. But nuclear faces essentially insurmountable opposition from all levels of the public and government.

Fortunately, electric cars work fairly well with a grid powered by a larger fraction of solar energy, since they function as distributed energy storage. Drive your car to work in the morning, plug it in to charge during the day while its sunny, drive it home, plug it in there and its your battery for the night. Right now it'd be hard to load balance the power grid with more than 10-15% of the power coming from intermittent renewables like wind and solar. If 100% of cars were electrics and we had a "smart grid" that knew to charge those cars when power is abundant and to use their batteries to supplement generation when power is low, we could probably up that fraction from 10-15% to 30-50%. That means most/all new generation needed to accommodate the power needs of electric cars could potentially be solar/wind. 

Overall, converting all land transporation from gas/diesel to electric and using renewables for that extra generation would lower worldwide GHG emissions by ~25%. Converting freighter ships to use nuclear reactors similar to navy ships would cut another ~5%. After that, you have to go after base load power generation (coal and natural gas).

Edited September 13, 2017 by Bonam

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Resistance to NP is an indictment of the education system. As I said before, nobody in government really gives a crap what I think. But to paraphrase the movie version of the Sundance Kid, "I've got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals."

You are absolutely correct, nuclear power is the best option we have available for producing substantial amounts of reliable power, with the least carbon footprint. In terms of air pollution, the reactor produces only steam. Nuclear waste from reactors can be safely stored, and their materials (depleted uranium, other activated metals) are of great potential value in the future. Breeder-reactor technology is improving, and there is considerable interest in fusion reactor research, some being done in Canada.

[Grand Mal]

19 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You are absolutely correct, nuclear power is the best option we have available for producing substantial amounts of reliable power, with the least carbon footprint. In terms of air pollution, the reactor produces only steam. Nuclear waste from reactors can be safely stored, and their materials (depleted uranium, other activated metals) are of great potential value in the future. Breeder-reactor technology is improving, and there is considerable interest in fusion reactor research, some being done in Canada.

There's a better option, though it's not available to everyone. Out here in BC our electricity is hydro, which basically is solar. The sun lifts all those water droplets out of the ocean and drops them on the mountains. As they run downhill back to the ocean we make them turn turbines and generate electricity. Works so well we sell electricity to Americans. True, there's issues around disrupting the river flow and providing access for migrating fish and whatnot but they're relatively easily dealt with. Relative to nuclear waste and hydrocarbon combustion byproducts, I mean.

But, as I said, it's not an option that's available to everyone yet. And, actually, I suspect that some of the schemes for using tidal flow will be more interesting for large-scale electricity generating, with no waste or byproducts.