Alberta may cut off oil to BC

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Citation request please. And please ensure it’s current 

 

Quote

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/chinese-investment-alberta-oil-deals/article35061644/

Under the radar: China's stealthy return to Alberta's oil patch - The ...
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/...on.../chinese-investment...oil.../article35061644/

May 19, 2017 - It shows that, far from disappearing, Chinese investment in Canada's oil patch has shifted from high-cost oil sands projects, which had been the target of blockbuster deals by the state-owned giants, to smaller acquisitions that garner few headlines.

 

 

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

8 hours ago, Reg said:

From what I understand, there is a quantifiable difference between the carbon molecule that is from burned fossil fuels and a naturally occurring carbon molecule. What is rapidly increasing in our our atmosphere is carbon from burned fossil fuels.

I think carbon dioxide is CO2 regardless of the source. 

Releasing it into the atmosphere the way we are is new. 

[Accountability Now]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

 

Your first link is paywalled and your second link is broken. However even the part you quote states they have moved from being a major player

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Your first link is paywalled and your second link is broken. However even the part you quote states they have moved from being a major player

You know how it is when dealing with dictators, if you're in for a penny you're in for a pound and Canada is definitely into dictatorships - we can't get enough of them.

Climate change will be the least of our grand-kid's problems in the future.

Edited April 20, 2018 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

On 4/18/2018 at 3:06 PM, taxme said:

Well, I guess that if you do not want to see all the beauty that BC has to offer disappear well than maybe we should stop all future growth and construction in BC, right? I mean in order to grow and build more homes and businesses we have to cut and clear trees in order to take advantage of what BC has to offer , right? I guess also that we should stop building new roads and bridges in order to not destroy any more of the beauty that BC has to offer, right? The people that are opposed to the pipeline are the same old tired fools that are against any every kind of growth or project in BC. Those fools want to send BC back into the stone age and live like the Indians did before the Europeans came along. Those same fools can't seem to figure out that the homes that they live in or the cars that they drive meant that some of the BC beauty had to be cleared away. Some people's stupid kids. 

I agree with everything you say except your mistaking wisdom for foolishness and your lack of knowledge of the quality of life for the first nations of BC before the Europeans arrived.

[Queenmandy85]

57 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Climate change will be the least of our grand-kid's problems in the future.

I hardly think so. You are grossly under-estimating the catastrophe that climate change is going to cause.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I hardly think so. You are grossly under-estimating the catastrophe that climate change is going to cause.

No I'm pointing out that trying to deal with climate change will be all that much harder in the dystopian oligarchal future we're steering towards.

It's becoming increasingly clear that action on climate change will probably need to be violent if it's going to have any chance of being effective.

[Queenmandy85]

Worse violence will come if we don't try to mitigate the degree of change. China already sees the danger, as does most of the rest of the developed world. The US is currently slow to react but they will soon. 

The lack of education in many areas is an impediment. The sooner the world converts to nuclear power, the better we will all be. Oil and coal are too valuable to burn.

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Worse violence will come if we don't try to mitigate the degree of change. China already sees the danger, as does most of the rest of the developed world. The US is currently slow to react but they will soon. 

The lack of education in many areas is an impediment. The sooner the world converts to nuclear power, the better we will all be. Oil and coal are too valuable to burn.

The trouble is that oil and coal produce more profits faster than nuclear power.  Worse violence is pretty much guaranteed no matter which way we go now.

[cannuck]

16 hours ago, Reg said:

From what I understand, there is a quantifiable difference between the carbon molecule that is from burned fossil fuels and a naturally occurring carbon molecule. What is rapidly increasing in our our atmosphere is carbon from burned fossil fuels.

carbon is atomic, molecular structures are carbon compounds.  There are an infinite number of carbon compounds formed from degradation of hydrocarbons, but CO and CO2 represent the primary method of moving carbon through the carbon cycle back into biological forms - by once more becoming hydrocarbons.  The atmosphere is one path, and the ocean is by far the largest carbon sink, I believe followed by flora.  "burning" of fossil fuels is about as natural as any other rapid oxidation, nothing "artificial" about it.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I agree with everything you say except your mistaking wisdom for foolishness and your lack of knowledge of the quality of life for the first nations of BC before the Europeans arrived.

Just what kind of quality of life did the Indians have before the Europeans came along? Did they have running water or electricity running thru their tents or long houses? Did they have cars and ATV's to drive around in? Just asking?

The Europeans have done wonders for the Indians and all they ever get is flak. This needs to stop. I am pretty sure that the first nations are not going to give up using and driving white people's toys and go back to the good old days, uhmm? 

[taxme]

8 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I think carbon dioxide is CO2 regardless of the source. 

Releasing it into the atmosphere the way we are is new. 

And the trees all over the world will love us all for all that CO2 that we feed them.  

[Queenmandy85]

24 minutes ago, taxme said:

Just what kind of quality of life did the Indians have before the Europeans came along? Did they have running water or electricity running thru their tents or long houses? Did they have cars and ATV's to drive around in? Just asking?

The Europeans have done wonders for the Indians and all they ever get is flak. This needs to stop. I am pretty sure that the first nations are not going to give up using and driving white people's toys and go back to the good old days, uhmm? 

The Europeans didn't have cars, running water or electricity either. First Nations  also didn't have smallpox, influenza, the common cold, or alcoholism. They could drink straight from the river. You couldn't do that in London or Paris. They had a stable population and enough to eat most years. Life wasn't perfect, but it was a darn sight better than now. 

If we continue to remove nature, what will future generations of Canadians have? 

[cannuck]

We could all live off of the land, in caves, teepees, etc...IF we didn't have 7 or so billion people around here.   Those days have gone, and I don't think ANYONE laments that.   However, if you think that is a good idea, the vast majority of Canada is virtually uninhabited, and you can go out into the bush and build a squatters cabin and do just that.   AND, you can drink right from the river.  So if it is such a good thing, why don't you (or any but a tiny handfull of Canadians) do just that?   

BUT:  just remind me - what fantastic innovations the have made the world a better place came from one of our First Nations?  Please show me the immense libraries of knowledge that they had from their way of life.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I hardly think so. You are grossly under-estimating the catastrophe that climate change is going to cause.

They "think" is going to cause. Remember all these world ending prophecies is based on theories. 

[Queenmandy85]

As the proportion of CO2 and Methane increase in an atmosphere, they inhibit the re-radiation of energy from the surface. This is not a theory. You can test it in any under-graduate chemistry or physics lab. The results are predictable and measurable. You should have learned this in your Grade 12 physics and chemistry class. The fact that you didn't is an indication your science teachers should have been fired.

The world will not end. The problem is not just the temperature rise. The earth has been hotter before. The problem is the speed of change. Previous warm periods occurred over tens of thousands of years. This time, it is being compressed into a few centuries. The natural systems that mitigate these increases in GHG's, cannot keep up at this rate.

Cannuck, I did not advocate we all go back to the old days. I was merely responding to a suggestion that First Nation societies were worse off before contact. The idea that a society needs all these "fantastic innovations" to thrive, is incorrect. However, that is a tangent. The issue is the dispute over the Trans-mountain pipeline.

The pipeline will allow us to get a better price for our petroleum. It will provide revenue to governments. Governments will need all the revenue it can get to wean us off burning coal and oil to generate energy. Oil and coal, along with iron ore, are the three pillars of our technological civilization. Oil is essential for lubrication. Iron ore and coal are essential for manufacturing steel. You cannot make a turbine without steel and it won't run without lubrication. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply energy for 8 - 12 billion people. Nuclear power is. It will at least give us the bridge to get off fossil fuel power generation until we can use thorium and maybe fusion, although fusion is not very promising at the moment. We have the opportunity to provide the fantastic innovations Cannuck spoke of to the world. 

People are mistakenly focused on the short term. They see the climate conditions changing over the next few decades. It doesn't seem that bad. But what we are doing now will effect future generations several centuries out. Their conditions will be an unimaginable by comparison. What we do now, over the next 50 - 100 years, will determine if that future is heaven or hell.

Our inspiration should be those men in England and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, who built the canals that fired up the industrial revolution. While the impact was the start of rapid global warming two centuries later, the lesson is the fact that they made immense investments with no expectation of a return in their lifetimes. They did it for future generations.

Wow, give me one cup of coffee and I will drivel on for hours. Have a good weekend. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

14 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

They "think" is going to cause. Remember all these world ending prophecies is based on theories. 

Just for the sake of argument, what have we got to lose by reducing carbon emissions? We spend money to up grade our electrical and transportation system. We secure employment in western Canada and central Canada. You can always get more money. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Queenmandy85
Too much coffee

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just for the sake of argument, what have we got to lose by reducing carbon emissions? We spend money to up grade our electrical and transportation system. We secure employment in western Canada and central Canada. You can always get more money. 

Our economy, apparently we'll destroy it if we take action on climate change. Presumably we can survive the destruction of our environment but not our economy. Economics trumps everything including logic or common sense.

[Accountability Now]

On 4/20/2018 at 8:16 AM, eyeball said:

You know how it is when dealing with dictators, if you're in for a penny you're in for a pound and Canada is definitely into dictatorships - we can't get enough of them.

Well Canadian companies own 80% of the oilsands, this much is certain. Who are the actually owners of those shares or the investors behind the scenes is too much for me to care about. The reality is that your Chinese boogeyman theory in regards to the oil sands is unfounded.

Of course, if I were you I would be more concerned with the money laundering and real estate issues being caused by the Chinese gangs in Vancouver (https://globalnews.ca/news/4155822/vancouver-model-david-eby-money-laundering/)

Or do you prefer to worry about legitimate business investors in legal operations verses the gang activity?

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Well Canadian companies own 80% of the oilsands, this much is certain. Who are the actually owners of those shares or the investors behind the scenes is too much for me to care about. The reality is that your Chinese boogeyman theory in regards to the oil sands is unfounded.

Of course, if I were you I would be more concerned with the money laundering and real estate issues being caused by the Chinese gangs in Vancouver (https://globalnews.ca/news/4155822/vancouver-model-david-eby-money-laundering/)

Or do you prefer to worry about legitimate business investors in legal operations verses the gang activity?

I worry about dealing with dictators in a way that makes them stronger, that's all there is to it.

[Queenmandy85]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Our economy, apparently we'll destroy it if we take action on climate change. Presumably we can survive the destruction of our environment but not our economy. Economics trumps everything including logic or common sense.

The mass production of small nuclear reactors, the mining and refining of fuel and the global sales will be an enduring boost to the economy. Add to that , the rebuilding and electrification of the rail system will further ensure a vibrant economy. It will also inject more funds into the sciences in education. 

We have a global problem with a lack of positive vision. 

[Accountability Now]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I worry about dealing with dictators in a way that makes them stronger, that's all there is to it.

Sure but lying about the amount of their involvement doesn’t help

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The mass production of small nuclear reactors, the mining and refining of fuel and the global sales will be an enduring boost to the economy. Add to that , the rebuilding and electrification of the rail system will further ensure a vibrant economy. It will also inject more funds into the sciences in education. 

We have a global problem with a lack of positive vision. 

In a sense, the real problem is the lack of accountability - the inability to oversee what the government is doing or not done as the case may be.  This is why nuclear energy is so dangerous, we can't trust regulators to do their jobs because we can't trust their political masters and more too the point the operators of nuclear plant that constantly lobby them.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Sure but lying about the amount of their involvement doesn’t help

I didn't lie at all, what I said is true, China is clearly amongst the biggest investors in fossil fuels in Alberta, just like they are in BC.  And as per my post above this one, what are we to make of the allegedly stealthy quiet nature of China's involvement in the oil patch?   Who really knows how involved China's dictators are involved?  Its very difficult to believe this stealthiness isn't as much a result of official desire in our own government to keep China's involvement as invisible as possible.

I can't wait until the same pack of scheming bastards overseeing and regulating our fossil fuel economy start overseeing and regulating our move towards a nuclear economy. 

Quote

Under the radar

Five years after Ottawa put the brakes on a surge of foreign investment, China is back. A new wave of Chinese investors is quietly snapping up a host of energy companies in the wake of the industry slump. Jeff Lewis, Jeffrey Jones and Nathan VanderKlippe report on a stealthy takeover binge in the oil patch

 

Why do you call yourself Accountability Now anyway?  Is it to demand accountability from the governed to their government? It's hard to believe you really mean the other way around - I know don't recall you doing much but supporting the status quo as far as our relationship with 'our' betters goes.   This is also evidenced by your repeated appeals that everyone should follow the law and constitution and other tools the government has at its disposal to ram this pipeline thru to the coast.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

On 21/04/2018 at 9:45 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Just for the sake of argument, what have we got to lose by reducing carbon emissions? We spend money to up grade our electrical and transportation system. We secure employment in western Canada and central Canada. You can always get more money. 

We could cut carbon emissions in half tomorrow if we just stopped shipping stuff and people round and round the planet, reducing carbon producing energy just to replace it with another form of heat will not fix global warming. 

Replacing petroleum with nuclear energy has a whole bunch of issues that also need to be addressed. Handling, storage and disposal of the fuel and waste are a couple of very important ones. Also, is water vapor considered a greenhouse gas? There is allot of evaporation from these plants.