Ryan Strome Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: colour me practical. Sure there will be people that don't like the pucks, but there's a real economic argument for them. I wasn't referring to you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 On 1/4/2019 at 9:37 AM, Ryan Strome said: One would think true environmentalists wouldn't support increased rail traffic over a pipeline. And as if to underscore this: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/no-risk-to-public-safety-after-cp-train-derails-in-southeast-calgary-officials/ar-BBRSXwk?li=AAggFp5 Quote A CP train carrying unknown contents derailed in southeast Calgary on Sunday. Cars came off the tracks near 30 Avenue S.E. at Alyth Road S.E. at around 10:30 a.m., the Calgary Fire Department said. The hazmat team was working with Canadian Pacific Railway on scene, and crews were on standby in case of punctures or spills as they moved cars. Acting Battalion Chief Frank Ostrow said there was no public safety issue and CP crews were using a crane to set the cars upright. It appears as though there was no environmental damage from this incident, but in order to have some balance to the discussion, it's worth pointing out that spills due to derailments are much more likely than pipeline spills and in absence of the second line, transporting oil by rail is going to increase significantly. The puck idea is great, but if it doesn't happen, or is not of a significant percentage, the risk of environmental damage goes up, not down, without TM. I've said it before: Spend less energy vilifying the other side and trying to "sell" Canadians on pipeline expansion. Spend more energy making sure all the legal aspects are properly addressed and that there is a concrete, properly funded plan for a clean up, in the event of a spill. Then just maybe this won't turn into a multi-billion dollar boondoggle.... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: And as if to underscore this: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/no-risk-to-public-safety-after-cp-train-derails-in-southeast-calgary-officials/ar-BBRSXwk?li=AAggFp5 It appears as though there was no environmental damage from this incident, but in order to have some balance to the discussion, it's worth pointing out that spills due to derailments are much more likely than pipeline spills and in absence of the second line, transporting oil by rail is going to increase significantly. The puck idea is great, but if it doesn't happen, or is not of a significant percentage, the risk of environmental damage goes up, not down, without TM. I've said it before: Spend less energy vilifying the other side and trying to "sell" Canadians on pipeline expansion. Spend more energy making sure all the legal aspects are properly addressed and that there is a concrete, properly funded plan for a clean up, in the event of a spill. Then just maybe this won't turn into a multi-billion dollar boondoggle.... Hmmm I see what a Ryan Strome posted flew way over your head. He’s not talking about environmental damage on the possibility of a spill. Hes talking about the terrible green house emission of having to ship by rail. You know the whole reason we are trying to shift towards green technology, to Reduce CO2 gasses. Yet the people that keep suggesting the puck method are too focused on hating pipelines that they don’t realize the that method they are championing is much, much worse for midstream CO2 emissions. I’m guessing you didn’t realize that pipelines produce up to 77% LESS GHG than rail. So like strome stated. If people truly cared about the environment and our global future. They would be pushing pipelines. Edited January 7, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) Dpl Edited January 7, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Hmmm I see what a Ryan Strome posted flew way over your head. He’s not talking about environmental damage on the possibility of a spill. Hes talking about the terrible green house emission of having to ship by rail. You know the whole reason we are trying to shift towards green technology, to Reduce CO2 gasses. Yet the people that keep suggesting the puck method are too focused on hating pipelines that they don’t realize the that method they are championing is much, much worse for midstream CO2 emissions. I’m guessing you didn’t realize that pipelines produce up to 77% LESS GHG than rail. So like strome stated. If people truly cared about the environment and our global future. They would be pushing pipelines. No, I got what Ryan was saying about emissions. I just used his post to point out a separate issue with moving oil by rail. The emissions are definitely an issue, but the bulk of the opposition seems to be about the possibility of a single catastrophic event, such as a spill, or pipeline rupture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: No, I got what Ryan was saying about emissions. I just used his post to point out a separate issue with moving oil by rail. The emissions are definitely an issue, but the bulk of the opposition seems to be about the possibility of a single catastrophic event, such as a spill, or pipeline rupture. This is precisely it. Maybe they suck at their messaging because they don't bother listening to what is being said and revert back to talking points aimed at "tree hugging liburals". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said: No, I got what Ryan was saying about emissions. I just used his post to point out a separate issue with moving oil by rail. The emissions are definitely an issue, but the bulk of the opposition seems to be about the possibility of a single catastrophic event, such as a spill, or pipeline rupture. The bulk of people have bought into the idea that our oil is terrible and should stay in the ground. Page after page in this very thread talk about how oil is bad. But in the end now a few of you are showing your true colours. You’re ok with increasing damage to the global environment. Just as long as it midigates the risk of your local concerns. There’s also so other big concerns with shipping by rail but we can go into that another time. either way I’m glad to see a few of you join the dark (oil) side. In the end, I could really care less how the product gets to market, just as long as it does. Welcome aboard money train. $$$. Pun intented. Edited January 7, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: The bulk of people have bought into the idea that our oil is terrible and should stay in the ground. Page after page in this very thread talk about how oil is bad. But in the end now a few of you are showing your true colours. You’re ok with increasing damage to the global environment. Just as long as it midigates the risk of your local concerns. There’s also so other big concerns with shipping by rail but we can go into that another time. either way I’m glad to see a few of you join the dark (oil) side. In the end, I could really care less how the product gets to market, just as long as it does. Welcome aboard money train. $$$. Pun intented. Totally agree with you on this matter. Our economy is only as strong as our infrastructure. Say NO to tree hugging!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters7 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Alflives said: Totally agree with you on this matter. Our economy is only as strong as our infrastructure. Say NO to tree hugging!!! There is more than one way to reduce greenhouse gas and sell our oil. When people think of oil all they think of is burning it and CO2. There are thousands of applications where oil will still be used even if all vehicles went electric. Roads, manufactured goods such as plastics. Not all oil use produces greenhouse gas. The biggest issue I find is how we produce electricity. If we could get the world off of natural gas and coal onto thorium or uranium nuclear power plants carbon footprints would be greatly reduced. I’m a huge supporter of nuclear power. It’s safe and clean. Everyone freaks out when it’s talked about because one plant was built on a fault line and the other was an old Russian plant. We already have more than 15 plants in Ontario, why not build more across Saskatchewan and Alberta. It doesn’t matter how many electric cars we drive if everyone uses gas and coal to power them up. Not to mention all the houses in North America that use natural gas for heat. More nuclear plants and more electric heating for houses too. Plus how soon are planes and large heavy duty machines going to be run off of something other than oil? It’s going to be a lot longer for those applications compared to standard motor vehicles. The world might as well buy our oil instead of from unethically run countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela or Russia. Edited January 7, 2019 by Butters7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: The bulk of people have bought into the idea that our oil is terrible and should stay in the ground. Page after page in this very thread talk about how oil is bad. But in the end now a few of you are showing your true colours. You’re ok with increasing damage to the global environment. Just as long as it midigates the risk of your local concerns. There’s also so other big concerns with shipping by rail but we can go into that another time. either way I’m glad to see a few of you join the dark (oil) side. In the end, I could really care less how the product gets to market, just as long as it does. Welcome aboard money train. $$$. Pun intented. I'm not sure why you lump me in with those you mention in your first paragraph. My position from the beginning is that a pipeline is preferable to increased rail traffic, as long as proper consultation is done and adequate contingency plans are in place, in the event of a spill. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Alflives said: Totally agree with you on this matter. Our economy is only as strong as our infrastructure. Say NO to tree hugging!!! I’m ok with us being environmentally conscious. I’m just sick of hearing that we Canadians are the bad guys, when in reality Canada is already one of the most regulated producers of oil. We’ve already come great distances, oil sands emissions per barrel have decreased 29% from 2000 to 2016. We’ve got billion dollar investments from Shell and Alberta to build their quest carbon captures that has already been successful at capturing and safely storing over a million tonnes of CO2 a year.. We should be extremely proud of what we have done and continue to do in making our industry have a less environmental impact. Yet so many are so vocal at turning there back on this Canadian success, an industry that helps hundreds of thousands of your fellow Canadians, all while turning a blind eye and supporting the less regulated foreign oil. It’s mind boggling, lets shut down the most environmentally conscious country, throw away 10% of Canada’s GDP resource, spend more money on importing and worsening the overall global impact. If people truly wanted to improve the environment, the answer isn’t shutting down Canada’s industry, it’s increasing production, building new pipelines, supporting your fellow Canadian and showing the world that Canadian oil standards is the bar that other countries needs get to. The fact that we have to debate this amongst Canadians is embarrassing. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Coastlink will probably be in the news tonight. Rcmp have a heavy prescence in smithers right know https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiSyP6UvNzfAhXpjFQKHcoGAnkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fb-c-indigenous-group-anticipating-rcmp-action-at-anti-lng-pipeline-camp&psig=AOvVaw3CktbXvIAiNweHgBZItTn_&ust=1546977971479361 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) One dead after oil tanker catches fire south of Hong Kong https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/asia/hong-kong-lamma-oil-tanker-fire-intl/index.html this tanker is 11,000 tons, The tankers in the Salish sea are 80-100,000 tons Edited January 9, 2019 by Mackcanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) On 1/8/2019 at 10:31 PM, Mackcanuck said: One dead after oil tanker catches fire south of Hong Kong https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/asia/hong-kong-lamma-oil-tanker-fire-intl/index.html this tanker is 11,000 tons, The tankers in the Salish sea are 80-100,000 tons Yup, ships catch fire, should we have no ships in the ocean? Should we continue to hurt our economy and help the American economy? Edited January 11, 2019 by Ryan Strome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 @kingofsurrey The PM was in BC saying that his government is on the path of getting this pipeline done and opening up new markets for Canadian oil. This is also from your favourite website. Not sure who you will vote for provincially or federally. As premier, Horgan has championed a liquefied fracked gas export industry by showering its earthquake-making developers with tax breaks and royalty credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Props to the flames. Calgary Flames add pro-energy sector slogans to Saddledome ice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 40 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Yup, ships catch fire, should we have no ships in the ocean? Should we continue to hurt our economy and help the American economy? Best part of that. “Hong Kong's Environmental Protection Department told CNN in an email that the city immediately deployed cleaning vessels to the site on standby, but that no oil spillage had been observed so far.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Props to the flames. Calgary Flames add pro-energy sector slogans to Saddledome ice I love my F 350 , tractor pull contests..... and i love Global Warming is written right below it.... Edited January 11, 2019 by kingofsurrey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: “Hong Kong's Environmental Protection Department told CNN in an email that the city immediately deployed cleaning vessels to the site on standby, "deployed cleaning vessels" At least they have spill clean up ships. Something that has been promised by the Libs, but politicians make promises all the time... and don't deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 14 hours ago, gurn said: "deployed cleaning vessels" At least they have spill clean up ships. You do realize there are already spill response ships in B.C.? And it’s completely funded by oil and other shipping companies. 14 hours ago, gurn said: Something that has been promised by the Libs, but politicians make promises all the time... and don't deliver. What the liberals proposed was to spend a $150 million increase and that would help the company (WCMRC) to go from two bases upto 8 which would greatly reduce the response time. This would be helpful for not just oil tankers but all tankers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts