Condensate spill in the East China Sea - are we risking this in BC?

[inane]

35 minutes ago, Heretic said:

"There are 44,551 km of pipelines in B.C., and the majority carry natural gas (80%)."

 

Which one do you want to go to war for?

 

If you're really against them, then please stop using any products from them.  

 

Oh wait, I guess you don't really mean what you're saying...

This argument is the stupidest, laziest response to this issue. (please note before you get twisted that's not a personal attack -- it's an attack on the intellectual laziness of your so called point).

 

I think we should have cleaner air, but I'm not a hypocrite if don't stop breathing.

 

We need oil. We need to keep pumping oil. But do we need to double down on the industry, marrying ourselves for several generations to a 100 year old technology using a finite resource that we know will run out? It's the most selfish, self serving, short sighted thing we can do. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 minutes ago, inane said:

This argument is the stupidest, laziest response to this issue. (please note before you get twisted that's not a personal attack -- it's an attack on the intellectual laziness of your so called point).

 

You state this....../\

 

 

Only to go follow it up with this. Good grief Charlie Brown 

10 minutes ago, inane said:

We need oil. We need to keep pumping oil. But do we need to double down on the industry, marrying ourselves for several generations to a 100 year old technology using a finite resource that we know will run out? It's the most selfish, self serving, short sighted thing we can do. 

 

[Attila Umbrus]

9 minutes ago, inane said:

This argument is the stupidest, laziest response to this issue. (please note before you get twisted that's not a personal attack -- it's an attack on the intellectual laziness of your so called point).

 

I think we should have cleaner air, but I'm not a hypocrite if don't stop breathing.

 

We need oil. We need to keep pumping oil. But do we need to double down on the industry, marrying ourselves for several generations to a 100 year old technology using a finite resource that we know will run out? It's the most selfish, self serving, short sighted thing we can do. 

I agree with the finite resource part (obviously), I work in the industry and I really do hope one day i'm out of the job. I'd like to work in a clean tech sector one day. But right now there just aren't a lot of options if you don't have an engineering degree of some kind. But it will be great when the transition does happen and some trades programs open up so I can find my place in the new industry. They have wind farm tech courses and such, but not a lot of jobs in that yet. I don't want to go to school all over again and then have no place to go job wise. So I sit in my industry for now (natural gas, not oil) and will wait patiently.

[McBackup]

The problem with the pipeline that Alberta doesn’t seem to get is that BC is assuming nearly all of the risk. A spill here could be catastrophic to multiple ecosystems, a spill in Alberta might soil an area that’s essentially Mordor already.

 

I’m not inherently opposed to pipelines either, I just think it’s hysterical that Alberta is losing its mind and being as petty as resorting to things like a wine boycott because BC is being cautious.

[JM_]

47 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Of course it is a risk.   Any movement of material is a risk but so is not moving material a risk.   Risks need to be balanced.   Consuming middle east oil is also a risk.   Being a Canuck fan is a risk.  Driver a car is a risk.   

Yes, however the issue is does one province - AB - have the right to put another provinces economy at risk? AB wants its billion dollars from oil through this line, but BC also wants its billion dollar fishing industry. Both provinces have a right to their resources, and I don't believe the issue has really been tested in court. If its the case that AB can do something that can't be cleaned up or permanently damages the BC fishing economy, then why shoudln't BC do something that equally threatens the AB economy or be allowed to stop it?

 

In this case the risk-reward is very imbalanced. AB gets most of the money, BC takes most of the risk. There's a fundamental unfairness to this that can't be brushed off.

 

[inane]

26 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

You state this....../\

 

 

Only to go follow it up with this. Good grief Charlie Brown 

 

Expand? Not sure how my statement was unclear.

[The Lock]

33 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

I agree with the finite resource part (obviously), I work in the industry and I really do hope one day i'm out of the job. I'd like to work in a clean tech sector one day. But right now there just aren't a lot of options if you don't have an engineering degree of some kind. But it will be great when the transition does happen and some trades programs open up so I can find my place in the new industry. They have wind farm tech courses and such, but not a lot of jobs in that yet. I don't want to go to school all over again and then have no place to go job wise. So I sit in my industry for now (natural gas, not oil) and will wait patiently.

I'm in computer science right now as a student and I would like to think that eventually the jobs will shift. With better technology, that also means programs should become easier to use. This in turn makes certain jobs more accessible to people who do not have the engineering degrees while still allows for jobs that require a degree.

 

Who knows if this is what happens in the end, but right now I'm literally taking courses on how to make programs faster, more user-friendly, etc.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 minutes ago, inane said:

Expand? Not sure how my statement was unclear.

why? No offense but your mind is already maybe up. Would seem like a waste my time. 

 

But If you want the short answer, you can refer to it as a marriage but it doesn’t mean we have to be monogamous. Nothing would prevent us to use the added economic growth and flip that into new energy investment. 

[Lancaster]

1 hour ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Read recently where a group of northern tribes, in response to the Northern Gateway Project being killed have an agreement to allow a pipeline across their lands in BC and an agreement with Alaska to allow the oil to be transported to a port there.   Should make for an interesting development with the Province, Feds, FIrst Nations and the US all involved. 

I'm always wondering why they don't try to build a pipeline to Churchill.  The terrain is probably easier to deal with instead of going over the Rockies.  I'm no expert on ice... but something about how the ice in Hudson Bay disappears during warmer climate and even the ice that do build up there are only seasonal ice, thus weaker and easily managed by ice breakers and stuff.  Considering that the Port of Churchill is dying, having a large company pumping millions to upgrade their fading infrastructure should be a good thing.  I mean, they barely have any rail service and road is non-existent.  Being able to get global prices for oil would be a boon to all of Canada (I believe Canadian oil sells at like 50% discount), maybe some of that money can be shared among the provinces/territories and with some of the Aboriginal bands along the way.  Regular tankers will mean upgrades to facilities in the Arctic... essential to protecting and enforcing Canadian sovereignty up North.   

[The Lock]

Just now, Lancaster said:

I'm always wondering why they don't try to build a pipeline to Churchill.  The terrain is probably easier to deal with instead of going over the Rockies.  I'm no expert on ice... but something about how the ice in Hudson Bay disappears during warmer climate and even the ice that do build up there are only seasonal ice, thus weaker and easily managed by ice breakers and stuff.  Considering that the Port of Churchill is dying, having a large company pumping millions to upgrade their fading infrastructure should be a good thing.  I mean, they barely have any rail service and road is non-existent.  Being able to get global prices for oil would be a boon to all of Canada (I believe Canadian oil sells at like 50% discount), maybe some of that money can be shared among the provinces/territories and with some of the Aboriginal bands along the way.  Regular tankers will mean upgrades to facilities in the Arctic... essential to protecting and enforcing Canadian sovereignty up North.   

The Arctic will become more and more of an option due to climate change. This already has actually caused a bit of global controversy when it comes to determining whether or not it's deemed an international waterway, but that's a story for another day.

 

That being said, it's still much quicker to be able to ship to China from BC and less of a risk. Simply put, the shorter the route the less of a potential impact there would be on the environment.

[JM_]

21 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

why? No offense but your mind is already maybe up. Would seem like a waste my time. 

 

But If you want the short answer, you can refer to it as a marriage but it doesn’t mean we have to be monogamous. Nothing would prevent us to use the added economic growth and flip that into new energy investment. 

but what is the chance of that really happening? the royalty money is going to go into general revenue, I really doubt Jason Kenney e.g.,. is going to ear mark any of that for windmills.

[Heretic]

1 hour ago, inane said:

This argument is the stupidest, laziest response to this issue. (please note before you get twisted that's not a personal attack -- it's an attack on the intellectual laziness of your so called point).

 

I think we should have cleaner air, but I'm not a hypocrite if don't stop breathing.

 

We need oil. We need to keep pumping oil. But do we need to double down on the industry, marrying ourselves for several generations to a 100 year old technology using a finite resource that we know will run out? It's the most selfish, self serving, short sighted thing we can do. 

Your sarcasm meter wasn't working very well.

 

That said,

 

"Pipelines are a safe and environmentally responsible way to move oil and natural gas.  99.999 per cent of all oil and natural gas products transported through transmission pipelines reach their markets safely (source: CEPA 2017)."

 

Speaking of a stupid and lazy response - of course a finite resource will run out - what the heck does that have to do with going to war over a pipe line?

 

SMH.

 

 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but what is the chance of that really happening? the royalty money is going to go into general revenue, I really doubt Jason Kenney e.g.,. is going to ear mark any of that for windmills.

Depends on who's running things. In the middle east, this is happening: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/19/solar-boom-middle-east/

 

So it is possible. It's also going to be a matter of survival of the fittest in the end, and that means companies need to think about these kinds of things as resources start to dry up in the coming decades and social pressures increase.

[inane]

25 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

why? No offense but your mind is already maybe up. Would seem like a waste my time. 

 

But If you want the short answer, you can refer to it as a marriage but it doesn’t mean we have to be monogamous. Nothing would prevent us to use the added economic growth and flip that into new energy investment. 

That's a flawed argument cause it's too simple. Sure, just build more pipelines to get more oil. And then we're stuck depending on more oil as a society and it's that much harder to change down the road.

 

It's like the road building argument. Oh, just expand the highway to alleviate congestion, and then we'll talk about transit. Build the highway. Highway fills up. Oh, look, we need to expand the highway more. It never ends until we come to a point when it's devastatingly expensive to do what we should have done decades before. Again, it's just self serving and short sighted. We go on about jobs and kids, but who are we kidding by dooming them to future debt and making our hard choices for us.

[inane]

2 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Your sarcasm meter wasn't working very well.

 

That said,

 

"Pipelines are a safe and environmentally responsible way to move oil and natural gas.  99.999 per cent of all oil and natural gas products transported through transmission pipelines reach their markets safely (source: CEPA 2017)."

 

Speaking of a stupid and lazy response - of course a finite resource will run out - what the heck does that have to do with going to war over a pipe line?

 

SMH.

 

 

Maybe you should shake your head. If I have a pond in my yard that I'm currently draining and I know it will run out of water in 10 years, you don't see the issue with suggesting I should just 7x my pipe's capacity so my pond drains in a couple of years?

[Heretic]

Just now, inane said:

Maybe you should shake your head. If I have a pond in my yard that I'm currently draining and I know it will run out of water in 10 years, you don't see the issue with suggesting I should just 7x my pipe's capacity so my pond drains in a couple of years?

Then we will be out of that resource faster and have to use other means - isn't that where we want to be anyways?  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but what is the chance of that really happening? the royalty money is going to go into general revenue, I really doubt Jason Kenney e.g.,. is going to ear mark any of that for windmills.

 

I think the chances are high. 

I don’t think windmills are the answer. I don’t think we truly have the answer yet. The new tech will come but I don’t think it’s here. 

 

1 minute ago, inane said:

That's a flawed argument cause it's too simple. Sure, just build more pipelines to get more oil. And then we're stuck depending on more oil as a society and it's that much harder to change down the road.

See this is why it’s not worth my time. Pipelines don’t create demand or dependency. But you’re already set in your ways so no point in me continuing. 

 

Ps your next point was even more ridiculous. Pipelines bring in economic surplus. Money that will be needed to invest in new tech. 

 

 

 

[inane]

3 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Then we will be out of that resource faster and have to use other means - isn't that where we want to be anyways?  

So we should just keep digging until we flat run out and then deal with this issue.

Great plan.

That's like getting your paycheque, blindly spending all your money until you're broke and saying 'huh, guess I need to deal with this now'.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I think the chances are high. 

I don’t think windmills are the answer. I don’t think we truly have the answer yet. The new tech will come but I don’t think it’s here.

I'll keep an eye out for that in the AB PC platform... my guess is it will be silent on this kind of thing but we'll see.

 

Even if it did that kind of thing still doesn't out weight the spill risk imo, dilbit is just too dangerous given the state of the cleanup tech.

[inane]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I think the chances are high. 

I don’t think windmills are the answer. I don’t think we truly have the answer yet. The new tech will come but I don’t think it’s here. 

 

See this is why it’s not worth my time. Pipelines don’t create demand or dependency. But you’re already set in your ways so no point in me continuing. 

 

Ps your next point was even more ridiculous. Pipelines bring in economic surplus. Money that will be needed to invest in new tech. 

 

 

 

It's a complicated issue but the bottom line is we're selfish and short sighted to spend time/money/resources expanding pipelines for a finite resource when we have alternatives. It's just mind blowingly stupid.