blackbird Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 (edited) The Liberal NDP government refused to build pipelines to eastern and western Canada and regulated the energy industry to the extreme. That meant Canada was not able to sell as much oil and natural gas to the rest of the world. Now when Trump imposes tariffs, we have no immediate alternative where we could have if we had built those pipelines and started shipping more oil and natural gas to the many countries in the world that want it. We will now pay a heavy price for the interference and blockage by the federal government to developing an international trade in the energy industry. "The Trudeau government cancelled the Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines, and they have refused to move forward with the many liquefied natural gas export proposals put before them. Those decisions, driven by Trudeau’s environmental zealotry, will now hurt our country in very concrete ways." Trump and his team are going to hit Canada hard and our governments have decapitated our ability to sell our energy products to foreign countries. LILLEY: Trump warns tariffs coming for Canada on Feb. 1 quote After the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister in the 2015 Canadian federal election, and the replacement of Conservative pro-pipeline MPs with Liberal Party of Canada MPs along the entire route of the pipeline in New Brunswick and part of the route in Quebec, the Canadian federal position became unclear. The Prime Minister had strongly condemned the Harper-era process of regulation, citing serious conflict of interest and mandate flaws,[36] and had also promised to "work with the provinces to map out a plan to reduce Canada's collective carbon footprint within 90 days of taking office by putting a price on carbon pollution." Other Harper-era approvals such as Northern Gateway had been sharply criticized [37] and even called a "farce" by some public officials objecting to the lack of oral cross-examination.[38] Northern Gateway was ultimately cancelled as well by the federal government in November 2016. unquote Energy East - Wikipedia It is time for Liberals and NDP to stop the denials. They are the cause of no pipelines and loss of many opportunities to sell natural gas and oil to foreign markets. Edited January 21 by blackbird Quote
DUI_Offender Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, blackbird said: The Liberal NDP government refused to build pipelines to eastern and western Canada and regulated the energy industry to the extreme. That meant Canada was not able to sell as much oil and natural gas to the rest of the world. Now when Trump imposes tariffs, we have no immediate alternative where we could have if we had built those pipelines and started shipping more oil and natural gas to the many countries in the world that want it. We will now pay a heavy price for the interference and blockage by the federal government to developing an international trade in the energy industry. "The Trudeau government cancelled the Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines, and they have refused to move forward with the many liquefied natural gas export proposals put before them. Those decisions, driven by Trudeau’s environmental zealotry, will now hurt our country in very concrete ways." Trump and his team are going to hit Canada hard and our governments have decapitated out ability to sell our energy products to foreign countries. LILLEY: Trump warns tariffs coming for Canada on Feb. 1 That's strange. The Conservatives were in power for an entire decade 2006-15, yet failed to build any pipelines when Canada was in it's biggest oil boom ever. 1 Quote
ironstone Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 According to this link, there was an expansion of the Alberta Clipper (Line 67) from Hardisty Alberta to Wisconsin that was approved in 2006 and completed in 2010(1081,km). Also completed in 2010 was was the Southern Lights pipeline from Manhattan Illinois to Edmonton (2556km). There is more: https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20180517/281646780791141 Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Aristides Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 Anything approved in 2006 was under the Martin government. Even TCP said current events had removed the business case for Energy East. Quote
Black Dog Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 2 hours ago, blackbird said: The Liberal NDP government refused to build pipelines to eastern and western Canada and regulated the energy industry to the extreme. Quote On August 31, 2018, the Government of Canada purchased the pipeline for $4.7 billion from Kinder Morgan through the creation of the Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC), in order to "keep the project alive". Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Queenmandy85 Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 3 hours ago, blackbird said: The Liberal NDP government refused to build pipelines to eastern and western Canada and regulated the energy industry to the extreme. That meant Canada was not able to sell as much oil and natural gas to the rest of the world. Now when Trump imposes tariffs, we have no immediate alternative where we could have if we had built those pipelines and started shipping more oil and natural gas to the many countries in the world that want it. We will now pay a heavy price for the interference and blockage by the federal government to developing an international trade in the energy industry. "The Trudeau government cancelled the Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines, and they have refused to move forward with the many liquefied natural gas export proposals put before them. Those decisions, driven by Trudeau’s environmental zealotry, will now hurt our country in very concrete ways." Trump and his team are going to hit Canada hard and our governments have decapitated out ability to sell our energy products to foreign countries. LILLEY: Trump warns tariffs coming for Canada on Feb. 1 If we keep selling (giving away) our petroleum resources there won't be any left for future generations. We have a debt owing to Canadians in the future because it is their oil and coal we are giving away and burning. What is your (Blackbird) plan to ensure our decendents will have sufficient fossil resources to survive? Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
blackbird Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: The Conservatives were in power for an entire decade 2006-15, yet failed to build any pipelines when Canada was in it's biggest oil boom ever. That is a lie. Look into the Northern Gateway Pipeline. It was going through the hearing stages under the Conservative government and when Trudeau came into power in 2015, he cancelled the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The Conservatives under Harper were supporting it. Trudeau killed it and put a tanker ban on the B.C. north coast. Quote
blackbird Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Black Dog said: The Trudeau government killed the NOrthern Gateway Pipeline after Trudeau was elected in 2015. They were forced to buy the TMX expansion project. But they killed the Energy East proposal and put a tanker ban on the north west B.C. coast. They refused to allow building of natural gas pipelines to eastern Canada. We could have been shipping natural gas to Europe for years. Quote
blackbird Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said: If we keep selling (giving away) our petroleum resources there won't be any left for future generations. We have a debt owing to Canadians in the future because it is their oil and coal we are giving away and burning. What is your (Blackbird) plan to ensure our decendents will have sufficient fossil resources to survive? We have massive supplies of natural gas and oil to last well into the future. It is stupid to claim we shouldn't develop it and create prosperity today for Canadians. There are also massive supplies of gas under the Arctic which has never been developed. Quote
blackbird Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 3 hours ago, Aristides said: Even TCP said current events had removed the business case for Energy East. Yes, TCP didn't want to publicly blame the Liberal and Quebec governments, but it was Quebec and Trudeau government that opposed building a pipeline to eastern Canada. So it was dropped. Liberals created a onerous application process that made it very difficult to proceed and Quebec refused to cooperate. Quote
Nefarious Banana Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: If we keep selling (giving away) our petroleum resources there won't be any left for future generations. We have a debt owing to Canadians in the future because it is their oil and coal we are giving away and burning. What is your (Blackbird) plan to ensure our decendents will have sufficient fossil resources to survive? Yeah Queenie, 'we have a debt owing to Canadians in the future' alright . . . $$$$$$ Quote
blackbird Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: That's strange. The Conservatives were in power for an entire decade 2006-15, yet failed to build any pipelines when Canada was in it's biggest oil boom ever. I prefer to believe Wikipedia which gives a detailed account of what happened. quote The project was endorsed by the Liberal Government of New Brunswick,[27] which claimed it would create over 2000 construction jobs in a province with 11% unemployment.[citation needed] Former Conservative Party of Canada Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper endorsed the project, as did the Government of Alberta.[28] This endorsement was renewed by the former NDP Premier of Alberta Rachel Notley[29] after her government's election in 2015. The Saskatchewan Legislature unanimously endorsed a motion supporting the pipeline in November 2014, and the Premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall called on Prime Minister Harper "to take leadership in supporting TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline".[23] Accordingly, the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick were in support. Wall and Notley had taken the position that Ontario and Quebec could not "veto" the pipeline.[30] The Maliseet First Nations raised concerns about the project during National Energy Board board hearings, but the six Maliseet first nations did not take a unified position on the project at that point, saying that they were reserving judgment pending the results of a traditional land use study and technical review.[31] TransCanada said that it would "strive to reach consent" with the First Nations to avoid and mitigate any possible adverse effects of the Energy East pipeline.[32] Wall's (but not Notley's) position was that provincial equalization could be withheld from provinces that did not support the project.[33] Ontario and Quebec had imposed approval conditions on Energy East [34] but had dropped climate change concerns [35] in December 2014. After the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister in the 2015 Canadian federal election, and the replacement of Conservative pro-pipeline MPs with Liberal Party of Canada MPs along the entire route of the pipeline in New Brunswick and part of the route in Quebec, the Canadian federal position became unclear. The Prime Minister had strongly condemned the Harper-era process of regulation, citing serious conflict of interest and mandate flaws,[36] and had also promised to "work with the provinces to map out a plan to reduce Canada's collective carbon footprint within 90 days of taking office by putting a price on carbon pollution." Other Harper-era approvals such as Northern Gateway had been sharply criticized [37] and even called a "farce" by some public officials objecting to the lack of oral cross-examination.[38] Northern Gateway was ultimately cancelled as well by the federal government in November 2016. unquote Energy East - Wikipedia Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) On 1/21/2025 at 3:00 PM, blackbird said: We have massive supplies of natural gas and oil to last well into the future. It is stupid to claim we shouldn't develop it and create prosperity today for Canadians. There are also massive supplies of gas under the Arctic which has never been developed. How far into the future? (I did not mention gas.) It is petroleum and coal that is the issue. You cannot operate machinery without lubrication. That means no rail transport, no electrical generation, ...the list goes on. We have less than 200 years of coal and oil left in Canada if we don't export it. When the coal runs out, we have no more steel. When the oil runs out, no more lubrication for electrical generation. We can build all the gas fired plants, nuclear reactors and LFTR thorium reactors we want, but with out oil to lubricate the generators, they won't work. The pumps that operate the cooling systems in the uranium reactors will sieze up. I hear a lot about the rights of the unborn, but if a person believes we have a duty to our Great-Great Grandchildren, pause for a moment and try to put yourself in their shoes. Edited January 23 by Queenmandy85 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: We have less than 200 years of coal and oil left in Canada if we don't export it. It's how little we have left if we DO export it that should be the real issue here. What is it about conserving that so many conservatives don't get? 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Queenmandy85 Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, eyeball said: It's how little we have left if we DO export it that should be the real issue here. What is it about conserving that so many conservatives don't get? If we stop burning it, and transition to nuclear power, and Thorium LFTR's, we can extend it for a few more centuries. Edited January 23 by Queenmandy85 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: If we stop burning it, and transition to nuclear power, and Thorium LFTR's, we can extend it for a few more centuries. Count on me to resist this until...well.. my signature line says it all. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Legato Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said: When the oil runs out, no more lubrication for electrical generation. We can build all the gas fired plants, nuclear reactors and LFTR thorium reactors we want, but with out oil to lubricate the generators, they won't work. The pumps that operate the cooling systems in the uranium reactors will sieze up. Ssynthetic esters, polyalphaolefins (PAOs), and silicone-based fluids and many vegetable based oils. Lubrication does not have to be petroleum based. 1 Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) 21 minutes ago, eyeball said: Count on me to resist this until...well.. my signature line says it all. We have to generate electricity some how and while thorium is the most effecient and cheapest option, it isn't ready yet. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. More people die in traffic accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have been killed in nuclear power accidents in the whole world in its 80 years of existence. (103 people +/-) Edited January 23 by Queenmandy85 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Queenmandy85 Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 15 minutes ago, Legato said: Ssynthetic esters, polyalphaolefins (PAOs), and silicone-based fluids and many vegetable based oils. Lubrication does not have to be petroleum based. I did not know that. Thank you. Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: More people die in traffic accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have been killed in nuclear power accidents in the whole world in its 80 years of existence. It's not just nuclear power stations, it's the mining and processing of nuclear materials and then nuclear waste management once they've been used that I'm mostly concerned about. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Legato Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: I did not know that. Thank you. Some synthetic lubricants can be better tailored for specific applications than petroleum based. However they tend to have a higher cost. I agree nuclear is the way to go. 1 Quote
blackbird Posted January 23 Author Report Posted January 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: We have less than 200 years of coal and oil left in Canada if we don't export it. It doesn't make any sense to worry about oil supplies 200 years from now. We don't even know if man will be on earth 200 years or 100 years from now. I am sure as time passes, mankind will deal with what resources they have and find new resources and ways to do things. I have never heard any politicians or anyone express concerns about how much oil will be in the ground in 200 years. We have enough problems in the world today to deal with without trying to worry about 200 years from now. When someone starts talking about the amount of resources 200 years from now you have wonder why they would even mention something like that. First of all, oil comes from many different places in the earth and there are places where the underground oil has not even been touched yet. There are under sea oil reserves off the north coast of B.C. that have not been touched. Nobody really knows how much there is in reserve. So how can you say we need to cut back to save it for future generations 200 years from now. That doesn't make much sense. If Canada doesn't produce and sell it, other countries will anyway. 8 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's not just nuclear power stations, it's the mining and processing of nuclear materials and then nuclear waste management once they've been used that I'm mostly concerned about. They can bury the nuclear waste deep in the earth. Edited January 23 by blackbird Quote
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) 12 minutes ago, blackbird said: They can bury the nuclear waste deep in the earth. Sure they could but not without a sort of oversight and monitoring of regulators and contractors that would make Orwell himself blush. Trusting something so dangerous to the sort of regulatory oversight we're accustomed to from our governments is not going to cut it. Not at all. Would you leave something like this to Trudeau? I rest my case. Edited January 23 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 29 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's not just nuclear power stations, it's the mining and processing of nuclear materials and then nuclear waste management once they've been used that I'm mostly concerned about. Why? The modern reactors and disability to recycle some materials means that the average reactor produces waste that cannot be reused or recycled anywhere to the tune of about a baseball sized hunk every year. It's pretty simple to sequester that. And mining is basically just making a hole in the ground. The grand scheme of things it's not really that destructive Quote
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Why? Things like SNC Lavalin affairs. Voting 4 - 5 years after a leak, spill, theft whatever to address it may do it for you but...well...LMAO is really all I can say to that. Don't get me wrong I recognize the benefits of switching to nuclear power to address AGW. I just don't want governments regulating them without a thick layer of public oversight on top of things. Largely local in nature including people who live near nuclear facilities. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
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.