Dash Riprock
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dash Riprock
-
-
10 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:
I don't think anyone said that "Canada" doesn't import Saudi oil. The article I posted suggested that Quebec doesn't import Saudi oil. They get almost all of their oil from Western Canada and the US. The link that FTG provided supports this.
As a matter of fact, when I break it down on a province by province basis using that same StatsCan link, it appears that all of the Saudi oil imported to Canada in 2017 went to New Brunswick.
Oic, not Quebec but the Maritimes. I get it. Maritimes are forced to use Saudi oil because Quebec wont let ours pass through.
-
9 minutes ago, gurn said:
Holy republican talking point, Batman.
As good little law abiding rule followers, we don't do what it takes to get a judge to rule in our favor. If they aren't activists already, judges would rather redefine the word consultation than deal with lefty push back. We lose every time.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:
Hmm.. should be going to statscan oil imports. I’ll see if I can find a different link.
@RUPERTKBD try this one
It's amazing the disinformation that we are fed. I've seen this "we dont import from Saudi" in a few different places yesterday. Who is feeding us this BS.
-
12 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:
Actually I know we have the one. Is there any others still alive. I just heard there are still a few proposals that haven't been shelved. I wonder if they are serious ones. When Exxon pulls out, it looks like we're done.
-
Another 25 billion dollar LNG project goes down. Exxon pulls out of Prince Rupert. At one time there were 20 proposals. Is there anymore left.
-
4 minutes ago, Violator said:
OPEC and Russia scatter a few dollars around, some could have landed on Trump, and that's enough to take out the most weak willed (minded?) of the competition.
-
3 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said:
Now i am one that does believe that man has contributed to accelerating climate change (not solely of course) but i dont agree with this:
"The opponents argue that the heavy Canadian tar sands oil the replacement will carry will accelerate climate change"
I dont see how anyone can think it is better to leave the old existing cracked pipeline that is definitely more of a danger.
Curbing the oil sand production is a symbolic gesture from a GHG perspective. I'm not into willingly sacrificing our economy for symbolism. But i have to hand it to @kingofsurrey and his OPEC bosses, they are masters of the game.
-
So the inevitable has happened. Several groups have filed lawsuits against our lifeline, Enbridge Line 3 which is supposed to save the day this winter. Once this is shut down by an activist judge, the heat will really be turned up on JT and Rachel.
http://www.ksla.com/2018/12/20/foes-enbridge-line-pipeline-file-appeals-minnesota/
-
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:
ah that. Its not legally binding, its just a statement. Its being overblown as a political thing but it has no legal teeth whatsoever.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4731612/un-international-agreements-legally-binding/
The misinformation that Scheer is putting out on this is shameful imo. If you go to the actual document look at para 7 where it states its not legally binding on the signatories (https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf).
It makes sense that countries would be starting to get organized and begin agreeing on how to deal with the waves of migration we'll likely be seeing for a long time to come.
I don't think we need a wall or anything. Now that Trump has catch and return in place instead of catch and release, and maybe even more wall, I think the flow of illegals will dwindle. If illegals need to rely on air traffic to enter Canada, we can probably keep it under control quite easily.
Thanks to both you and @Warhippy for bringing me more up to speed.
-
4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
Can you be more specific on that? what controls have been "given up"?
Not really. It's my understanding JT signed some UN open border thing that the US and others refuse to buy in on and is causing some unrest in Europe (one of the new yellow vest issues). If that's not true, feel free to inform.
-
10 hours ago, canuckistani said:
I didn't say everyone who contests immigration is racist. It comes down to three simple class of people who are anti-immigration:
1. racists. They use the 'look at Europe' angle - which i've decisively proven, when applied to Canada, *IS* a racist concept.
2. ignorants. They use the 'economic burden to us' argument, when its clearly not the case- proven by StatsCan itself.
3. True cons, who want to be the elites of the next 50 years not through merit, just through birth: they realize that world is filling up fast, Canada is empty and sooner or later, with CC and various factors, those who control land in Canada are going to be the kings of the 22nd century. Ie, protectionism.
Bad news for #3 is that the human mixing tsunami is accelerating, not decelerating. So doomed to failure in either case. Most of Canada *ARE* immigrants. Next several generations will see a massive shift in Canadian demographics towards brown people from the world over, because its their kids that are batting at near 50% enrollment. And immigrants have ties back home which further accelerates the process. #3 has already lost, they just havn't realized it yet. They will when their grandchildren are starting to go to high school.Here's another option.
We can very easily protect our borders from any influx of migrants as long as we take back control which Trudeau has only recently given up. We will bring in as many immigrants as is a benefit to Canada, that is all. That is the stance of the conservative population afaiac.
-
1 hour ago, Tortorella's Rant said:
Summarization: you don't have a legitimate cause for concern, especially for the here and now and the immediate future, because borders don't matter and you can't stop migration. (The premise of my whole post to begin with). The latter being absolutely subjective and also a herring because not once did I say to "stop migration," nor did I even imply it. But what you can do is certainly limit it. That is one perk of this country surrounded by two large oceans. And no, it's not racist, or bigoted in any way. It actually makes financial, economical sense as well. I know the partisan hacks such as Rupert here love to play that card and it already happened even after my post despite all that I had said about it being completely irrelevant who you are, the colour of your skin, or your religion. Needing to state this here shows people don't actually know me but love to pretend as if they do.. shocker.
Again, my assertion is that most of those tens of thousands that came up from the US the last two years are not eligible for asylum; they've merely circumvented the safe nation rule knowingly, entered this country often illegally, and the federal government is complicit in this crime. Since you are such an advocate of effectively allowing anybody in with complete disregard for the repercussions against those living here economically or otherwise, will you reimburse my tax dollars? Didn't think so. Expanding on that: you're also dead wrong - there is absolutely a huge economic reason to restrict immigration to this country. Housing being one since it is always a hot topic. This government talks about importing 1.3 million people by 2021. At what cost? The housing infrastructure sure as hell is not here to handle the people we already have, never mind those they're bringing in now, and certainly incapable of supporting another 1.3 million people in two two years. These are things we already know because we hear about it every single day. Even immigrants are having difficulty as acknowledged by uber liberal Huffington Post Canada. There was a colossal shortage three years ago and it's even worse now and will only continue to get worse. Less housing. Higher costs. Real simple. Plenty of homeless tonight in Ottawa and Toronto freezing. Government subsidized housing? Maybe if they were Haitians fleeing the United States because Donald Trump said some mean things.
I can go on: transit and road infrastructure. Healthcare. Employment in general for immigrants. But what does it matter right? You said so yourself: who cares. You can't do anything about migration anyway because the Romans sucked at it.When are you going to swallow your pride, admit you've grown up, and now are forced to identify as a conservative.
-
1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:
Once JT announces that he has been playing Alberta the whole time.... and officially kills the KM expansion... announces increase spending on Green Energy Projects.... his ratings should go up dramatically.
Canadians really do care about the environment, especially younger more educated voters.
Once Alberta takes over your coastline it's gonna shut down all fishing and give all those fish killers gum boots so they can contribute to society in the oil fields where they belong instead of destroying our precious coast.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
well I'm not sure, its not out yet so we'll have to see if he references that. Don't forget the Newfies.
True. Newfies would be a lot more needy without their offshore resource. I guess they aren't limited by pipelines though.
-
43 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Also, its not like our piping is rusty, riddled with holes aluminium tin-pots pretending to be pipes that gets squished every time a caribou face-plants on it. Its normal, standard piping to everywhere on the planet. And from time to time, they spill due to expansion/contraction fatigue, maintanance negligence, etc.
All normal.
But its nowhere as good as multi-level coaxial piping with pressure differential casing etc. that are used for under-sea piping. Those are 1000 times more spill proof and for an obvious reason: we don't wanna fix a broken pipe 300 feet below the sea level on ocean floor. Not just out of eco-concern, but because its bloody hard to do, annoying, expensive and 100x more time consuming. I am simply pointing out that if we caved to public pressure and went 'fine, best piping tech on the planet', then yes, we can say spill quotient = 0.
You literally have to throw a rocket propelled grenade at it to cause a spill into the environment. Or miss 250 years straight of maintenance schedule.Actually even I support this super pipe when its in the ocean, or in our case, under lakes or rivers (surely it is used there?)
-
33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
for sure it could actually be a lot higher with better market access.
Its good to see someone finally putting the numbers to this, I'm going to get the full article when it comes out and start a new thread with that as the starting point. Individual federal taxation and consumption taxes are fair across the board, and thats where most of ABs contributions come from, just like the rest of us.
Yes. And this report doesn't even touch the massive contributions that occur because of the Saskatchewan and BC energy industry.
-
26 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
To be fair, most of the country thinks pipelines are risky for the environment because they are accustomed to the minimum piping standards in North American petro industry being the norm and there being leaks here and there all over the map.
I've often pointed out that the piping technology used in North America is akin to driving a 1970s Lada and wondering why it dies so often..if we use Norway's standard for example, it'd cost 3x more for the piping but risk of failure would be pretty much 0. We get what we demand, in terms of safety benchmarks. Public doesn't know this - they think we get the best technology there is on the planet.
I'm not aware of the lesser quality of pipe issue you raise here, but will accept it as fact. I would also accept that it may be a politically necessary move.
My view is that it's a waste of money. Pipeline spill incidents are minor environmental inconveniences except in the hyperbolic world of American philanthropists and Canadian oil. Cue the outrage. I do view myself as an environmentalist, so I don't wholly agree with Carlin below, but everyone should watch this.
-
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
So here's some cold water on the Alberta "unfairness" claims, by a Calgary economics professor no less. I highlighted the parts you @Ryan Strome might want to give some real thought to.
Why equalization is not unfair to Alberta
TREVOR TOMBE TRENDING
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL PUBLISHED 20 HOURS AGO
Trevor Tombe is an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary, and a research fellow at the School of Public Policy.
Financial transfers from Ottawa – and the provinces' disputes over them – are central to the Canadian experience. They are a key reason why our country exists at all, but also a continual source of tension.
Part of this is unavoidable. Allocating scarce federal dollars is a zero-sum game, and flows to one province are lost to another. But much of the anger – especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan – is stoked by commentators and politicians who are deliberately fanning the flames.
There is “no earthly reason why the second-most populous province receives equalization,” former Wildrose Party leader and current media personality Danielle Smith wrote in an op-ed about Quebec. Alberta’s finance minister, Joe Ceci, said the equalization system “needs fixing” and “doesn’t work for Alberta.”
UCP leader Jason Kenney went even further. “Every year, Alberta sends $20-billion in transfers to other provinces through the federal government,” he wrote in a fundraising e-mail last Saturday, proposing a referendum on the issue. “It’s time to fight for fairness in the federation."
Sensational claims drive interest and, more importantly, votes. And Ottawa is always an easy target, even as the federal government prepares to provide a $1.6- billion support package for oil and gas companies. But those claims only work because we let them. So it’s up to each of us to be informed about how equalization actually works, and why struggling Alberta doesn’t receive any while surplus-rich Quebec does.
There are three major transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer and Equalization. The first two distribute funds to provinces according to their population. Quebec is twice Alberta’s size, so it receives twice the dollars. Today, nearly three in four federal transfer dollars are based on population, making transfers as equally distributed as at any point in Canadian history.
Only the equalization program itself is unequal. But that’s deliberate: Some provinces have an easier time raising revenue than others, so equalization provides additional funds to lower-income provinces to ensure adequate public services can be provided to all Canadians.
The formula itself asks what a province’s revenue would be if all its tax rates equalled the national average. Alberta would raise $12,327 per person, more than any other province, followed by B.C. at $11,052. Quebec is far behind, at $8,123, and
Prince Edward Island lags even further, at $6,648, according to Finance Canada calculations. Equalization tops up provinces below the national average, which is why a province as populous as Quebec receives payments.
One can certainly disagree with providing more transfers to lower-income regions, but this is hardly a coherent argument against a program designed to do exactly that. Instead, many argue that it is unfair to Alberta, because of the province’s large deficit and deep recession. But these arguments don’t hold water, either.
Yes, Alberta’s recession has shrunk its economy by 12 per cent between 2014 and 2017 – but it remains on top. Alberta’s GDP per capita was nearly $77,500 last year, compared to the national average of $58,000; Quebec’s was $50,000. A strong economy means high income, and Alberta’s median household income was $93,000 in the last census, while more than two in three Albertans are employed today; both figures are higher than those in all other provinces.
Alberta’s large deficit also does not entitle it to equalization. After all, Alberta chooses to have low taxes and high spending, made possible by the luxury of high oil and gas royalties, which have now been reduced. Alberta’s politicians need to come to grips with the fiscal reality, not look to Ottawa for help. And while Quebec may be running a surplus, its taxes are double those in Alberta.
As Mr. Kenney says, Alberta does send more than $20-billion to Ottawa, though the federal government raises more from Alberta individuals and businesses than it spends in the province. My forthcoming research for the Canadian Tax Journal found that the federal revenue and spending gap represented an implicit transfer of $23.8-billion out of Alberta in 2017. And since 2007, this gap has totalled $264- billion.
But the claim is still misleading. The federal government raised nearly $400 more per Albertan in GST than it did from elsewhere, and it raised over $2,500 more per person in income taxes. Neither, however, are transfer programs; the same 5 per cent GST applies everywhere, and there is only one income-tax system.
So it’s not that Alberta pays more: high-income individuals do, regardless of where they live, and Alberta just happens to be home to a large number of them. That implicit, unavoidable transfer happens within provinces just as it does between them. But rather than unequal federal policy, it’s Alberta’s strengths, such as higher incomes and a younger population – which means fewer CPP and OAS cheques flow to Alberta – that are widening its federal fiscal gap.
We shouldn’t shy away from debates over transfer programs. They are hard conversations to have openly and honestly, but we must reject misleading claims and accept hard truths. Doing otherwise would be truly unfair.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-equalization-is-not-unfair-to-alberta/
This is a good article with accurate info afaik. The article shows how the wealth and high wages of the Alberta portion of the energy industry are shared greatly with fellow Canadians, to the tune of $22 billion a year. The author thinks this is fair. My frustration is that this number could be $66 billion if so many weren't convinced pipelines are bad because "there's nothing in it for me".
Thanks for posting this. It really sums up everything I've wanted to say about the issue.
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
our pipeline protesters are against future expansion. It doesn't impact the fact that we are barely a top 10 net exporter of oil and gas currently.....
Oil consumption is skyrocketing. To be a top player you need to grow. Big players left Canada because they wouldn't be allowed to do so. We are going down. That's the point.
If KM, Line 3, and Keystone were all completed now as they should have been, we would be exporting nearly 2 million more barrels a day now. Superpower. Venezuela, Mexico, Russia and OPEC would have needed to do the adjusting.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Yeah. Canadian news catering to Canadians. Not surprised. Either way, we are not an energy super-power. There are only two energy super-powers in the world - Russia and Saudi Arabia. And piddly lil nations like Qatar or Algeria are more of an energy exporter than we are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_oil_exportswe come in at 16th in the world for net exports of oil. Throw in natural gas and we start to crack the top 10, but again, not 'super-power' by any stretch of the imagination.
We abdicated our super power status to appease pipeline protesters. Our currency may not even be a petro currency anymore (it still is imo). As per my original statement.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:
They should build it. My energy stocks there will do better as a result.
You'll become rich very fast at the prices we see right now. Unbelievable.
-
Just now, canuckistani said:
No. But i guess every country pumps its own tires a bit.
Can Canada remain an 'energy superpower'?
You wont find too much talk about lumber and copper. Give it up.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Yes, because in the entire resource export sector, oil is a decent chunk of it and its the one that fluctuates the most. If your equation has 5 variables, your answer's fluctionals will correlate with 1 variable fluctuating, even if its not the main component, provided all others stay the same. First time i've ever heard the term 'energy super power' being applied to Canada. There are only two- Russia and Saudi Arabia. rest are small pittance.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe economy of Canada is a highly developed mixed economy with 10th largest GDP by nominal and 16th largest GDP by PPP in the world. As with other developed nations, the country's economy is dominated by the service industry, which employs about three quarters of Canadians.[21] Canada has the fourth highest total estimated value of natural resources, valued at US$33.2 trillion in 2016.[22] It has the world's third largest proven petroleum reserves and is the fourth largest exporter of petroleum. It is also the fourth largest exporter of natural gas. Canada is considered an "energy superpower" due to its abundant natural resources and small population.[23][24][25][26]
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
We never were an energy super-power. We are a resource super-power, like Australia. Petro-currency is used not just for energy exporters but also resource exporters.
Our dollar went up and down in sync with the oil price for many years. You wont win this one.
Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk
in Off-Topic General
Posted
I wasn't being sarcastic lol. I basically forgot the Maritimes existed. But it all comes together now. The author of the piece is pretending Quebec doesn't support Saudi Arabia because they wait for the Saudi oil to be turned into gasoline before they burn it. What a huckster.