RowdyCanuck
-
Posts
2,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by RowdyCanuck
-
-
19 hours ago, aGENT said:
*propped
Propped? Well Canada almosts always falls if oil crashes so props is correct ha
be nice if other industries would do a lil more propping.
-
6 hours ago, Warhippy said:
That bed was made in 1982.
Now, try throwing $7.5 billion at solar and geothermal, home and house retrofits and trades training programs. Throw that tens of billions in federal money coming to the oil sector in to building a high speed rail line with arched tunnels for energy lines under neath them.
You'll have effectively put tens of thousands of people back to work, saved people money on heating/power and created a generation of people able to do the trades work we're bringing TFW's in to the country to do.
Again, your mind is stuck in the past. Dumping money on a fire to stay warm instead of buying wood is a losing endeavour
1982 was a lil before my time and no point crying about spilt milk.
I say 08 cause it was the end of the first boom. We had the money to do so.
Instead we doubled down on our largest money maker and we built a nice house of cards and we have to make the best choices for the future, we are an oil country and we are already to far down the rabbit hole.
Some times you don't have enough or budget enough so you have to burn stacks of money to keep your family warm , for sure if your family keeps growing and it cost more and more.
Also some oil companies fund other research.....or money made from oil sales funds other projects......
It's not like there's no funding going to other industries but if oil does well the rest do well, trickle down affect.
Like I've stated before oil has a shelve life so we should make all we can before its worthless don't you agree?
-
3 hours ago, Warhippy said:
Once again you don't listen. You just respond. Canada has gotten by without massive oil revenue.
As for diversification. If you subsidized ANYTHING to the extent that oil and gas does or will be over the coming weeks you'll have effectively created a new revenue stream and viable industry.
But you refuse, like flat out refuse to see that.
No I get it , but thx to oil money the whole of Canada has raised everything thx to it , there for we were already set up to fail.....
so you make do with the choices we've made and get everything we can from it.
The choices you want should have been started in 08 not now....
so now we need to make all we can and get the most out of oil.
Thats the bottom line isn't? Canada made its bed , now time to lay in it.
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
We do not live and die by oil. As oil has tanked since 2014/2015 Canada has still kept moving along without those large revenues of $80+ a barrel
You live and die by oil. Alberta lives and dies by oil.
You CAN diversify. Alberta came out of a massive recession in debt but without oil recently. You just have to have the will.
Tens of billions in to corporations just to keep a skeleton staff is a losing endeavour.
Take those tens of billions and create a green energy grid, create a high speed rail, train tens of thousands of unemployed Canadians in to their 2nd and 3rd year apprenticeships. That's how you diversify and plan for a future. If you throw the same level of money at any other industry that is being thrown at oil from the pockets of taxpayers you WILL see other industry step up.
News flash it's not just Alberta that lives and die by oil , it's all of Canada.
Diversify is easier said then done, first you need an real industry not some pipe dream of going green ,this is the real world and you can't just transfer your stock and say done.....
have will? No you need industry and investors to even offer that option, people go to the oil for the money and that's it. Also oil is connected to everything..... The farmer growing wheat can't invest more into his farm cause his wells are worthless and that's just one example of the trickle......so it has nothing to do with will cause a lot of people get money from oil but invest in something else.....
well I'm all hat and no cattle so let me get this right , but that energy grid will probably let alone take your whole budget and we already have trains so what you want to do is make Canada greener but hate to break it to yea CANADA IS AN OIL COUNTRY.
Also you said throw the same amount of money at other industries...you ever ask your self why investors don't do that?....oh that's right cause those other industries don't come near what oil makes.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Diversify.
Period.
Okay another simple question.....
how do you diversify when oil is such a big earner?
also Canada has had how long to diversify ?
We live and die by oil right now unless you know another industry that brings billions and also benifits all of Canada like oil does.......
Its not that simple. Oil is to big of Canada and nothing we can do about that right now until another industry steps up......
-
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
I do not spread anti oil anywhere. I speak out against ignorance. Why do you think I keep rebutting your statements? Like your ignoring basic market forces in the world of energy yet claiming to "teach people business"
I've been loud and proud about which pipelines should be built and which shouldn't and why. I've also been very vocal about the business behind it when it does or does not make sense
But instead of factoring in to that you do what your type frequently do. Jump to conclusions, level an accusation you cannot hope to back up and stick with it.
Lemme put it to you this way. Oil, is currently worth less than the price of a happy meal. There was public money already invested in to Keystone XL via AimCo. The government of Alberta just pumped out a potential $7.5 BILLION in to a private project with a claim that they'd be ready to divest by as early as 2023 once the royalties had paid for it.
With oil trading as it is, the world supply sitting more full than it has since the 70s and production still increasing. Explain how and why that is a sound use of taxpayers dollars and how a 3 year timeline to divestment is possible.
As a man of business as you've claimed to be. You should be able to fill me in on that.
I am 100% adamant about Keystone being built. But I am 100% against an investment of that magnitude with public money in to a private project after looking at TMX and for the exact same reasons. Alberta JUSt put 26,000 workers out of a job yesterday. Another 17,000 additional are expected to hit the skids in the next 2-3 weeks while the Alberta help portals are barely functioning in assisting those without work. But instead of helping those people, the government is using their tax dollars to fund private enterprise with a laughable exit plan.
If you don't see the issue with that fine. Keystone will be built. But there's going to be a sizeable hit for it.
Your right oil is trading at next to nothing but if we could ship more we could off set the loses....look at the dollar tree for example , they buy in bulk and sell for next to nothing but people go there cause it's cheap....same thing for Costco.....
Alberta is helping them by approving those pipelines....instead of just handing out money, they are trying to bring back jobs.....old saying give a man a fish he eats for a day , teach a man how to fish......I think you know the rest.
You need to think bigger, the pipelines go in that creates jobs and also booms in the towns they go by.....not to mention the trickle down affect.....
the reason why the tax payers are paying for it is cause no one wants to invest in a country that doesn't follow threw......
we already took a hit and it's only going to get worse.
I would love a world where we weren't dependent on oil but it's our biggest earner , that's just the hand Canada was dealt, so we can either play the hand for all its worth cause if we fold , we are screwed......if we play our cards right we could set our selfs up for the next hand....( oil has a shelve life and you need money to fund research)
So how you would deal with it?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
Full stop.
Nowhere, ever have I said this. Don't put words in my mouth.
That's why you only spread antioil everywhere on this forum.......look threw your posts and they paint a very nice picture.....
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Russia said it wouldn't even consider a reduction until late spring. The Saudis said they can do this for 6 months
As a Canadian we all should be hoping oil prices go up cause then everything else in canada follows suit.
I know , you don't care for the oil and gas industry but right now it's the back bone of Canada and we live and die on that mountain as it sits today.
If they drag it out , it will hurt us and the USA most of all cause unlike other countries we inflated our selfs. Russia can do what ever it wants cause Putin doesn't put up with much.....
so while prices crash it won't be third world countries you watch on the news , it will be Canada......this virus helps buy sometime but we will see how much.
this does allow us to push the reset button on how much people should be making in the oil industry and allows us to restructure the oil industry in Canada, without bad press cause everyone is watching something else.
Silver lining I guess.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:
That is something I regret that my extended family was unable to do.
Is it cultural?I know entire blocks in Kamloops that were quickly bought up by organized families that way. I’m jelly.
A lot Ranch and farm families do this also so I wouldn't say it's a culture thing.
its just putting family first cause if one succeeds they all succeed.
-
4 hours ago, Tre Mac said:
Rather have Tryamkin and Tanev over Tryamkin and Myers. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Myers gets bought out eventually(2-4years down the road) so why not do it now and free up the most cap? With all the uncertainty I know one thing is certain - they're going to have to open the bank vault up for Hughes and Petey.
So tram and edler and Hughes and tanev are to soft.
Also myers balances edler pretty good and formed a solid second pairing, tram doesn't add Myers skill and Myers can play top four minutes and not look out of place and we have no idea what tram will be like and like I mentioned I think Hughes and tram makes the most sense and edler and Myers can play the hard minutes also just not every night. That gives balance and also rathbone plays a similar game as edler so Myers could be the perfect guy to help get the best out of our prospects.
I agree we will have to pay petey and Hughes big but I don't mcdavid money , they want to win more then that.
-
4 hours ago, Tre Mac said:
Why? Five more years left, that contract will be bought out eventually. I already made my points with regards to Myers and haven't heard a decent counter argument - 'he's played well or he's alright' doesn't cut it. Not to mention how are you going to re-sign Hughes and Petey while not letting talent walk? The other candidates have expiring contracts within 2 years so I am not as concerned about those cap hits, to be able to knock off as much as $10 mil of the books by replacing Myers with Tryamkin would put this team in the best position moving forward. Myers is a 3rd pairing defenceman on a playoff team, he's not worth $6million imo.
Okay you buy out Myers who do you replace him with?
tree? Well his a leftie and yes tree can play the right side but would be better suited for Hughes.
So edler and Myers can take on the more D side.
Also tree and woo are the only real threats to Myers cause Myers brings toughness / a lil bit of meanness.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said:
Well, I might have him in a top 70 or 80 Canucks list. He did have a 20 goal season for us, and two other decent seasons. But no, if you don't do much as a Canuck and then go on to do good to great things later (Rick Vaive, Dirk Graham, Murray Bannerman, Bill Derlago, Michael Grabner, etc.) then you belong on a "best Maple Leafs" or "best Blackhawks" list.
We've had some very good players that never get brought up around here like Pit Martin, Charlie Hodge, Blair MacDonald, Peter McNab, Mel Bridgman, Eric Weinrich and Esa Tikkanen that also accomplished most of their feats elsewhere. And that's where they deserve to be recognized.
I'm to young to remember those guys so my bad.......
but I've watched the seasons of cam neely on vhs cause my uncle loved him ha. That was a long time ago though.
To me Captain Kirk is above Lou cause Kirk didn't have the team Lou had....
so on....
also no one remembers second place right.......
-
22 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:
It has been left to every person to decide. But I think it's kind of understood that Messier and Sundin aren't all-time great "Canucks" (especially the Lays Chips Piggy).
Otherwise we'd be putting Gary Leeman and Jimmy Carson in the top twenty or thirty all-time Canucks because they did great stuff for the Leafs and Kings before suiting up as a Canuck for 20 games.
What about that cam Neely guy.....drafted a Canuck......
-
10 hours ago, Chris12345 said:
What team other than Montreal doesn't need Shea Weber?
Ha I agree but we are that one piece away from having a legit number one pairing......
-
11 hours ago, ZH96 said:
Dumba is a mean D man who can also move the puck and is a swift skater. He's physical and always looks for the big hit and closing the gap quick. Look up his hit highlìghts especially the ones on P.Kane and Kerfoot for example. Why not get a mean D man that also shown he can put up 50 points as Dumba has. Plus he's quite young still.
I like Dumba but we have Myers and Myers can handle the big guys infront of the net.
Dumba would be the perfect guy for edler but edler is getting any younger.....
We need a partner for Hughes and dumba isn't that imho.
-
On March 17, 2020 at 7:09 PM, ZH96 said:
I agree with everything except how about Gaudette and Stecher for Dumba and a 4th. Or Boeser and Stecher for Dumba and a 2nd.
rather try and trade dumba to the sens for the Sharks pick + prospect
cause we don't need a pmd , we need a josh Manson or Shea Weber type.
Ship prospect and next years first to the ducks for Manson.
Adding the the sharks pick could land us a forward as valuable as Brock or maybe another D man falls to us ha
a top top four of
hughes Manson
edler myers
has size and meanness
-
1 hour ago, The Lock said:
I come with a mindset that we don't really know what's going to work until we actually see it. Torts might work now. Torts also might not work now. We don't know.
Personally, I don't see Green as a similar style to Torts but maybe I'm not looking at the same qualities either. Green seems a little more "sensible" than Torts in my opinion, someone who's probably a little more flexible. With Torts, you need the right situation for things to work otherwise it's just not going to. You also evidently need him in the system for a while so that anyone who's not buying in gets "weeded out". (He had a bunch of trouble his first year in Columbus if I remember correctly) That being said, Torts was on a young Tampa Bay team not unlike what we have now that won the cup. That also being said, he never won a cup after that. Green might just as easily prove to be the right guy come playoff time since none of this is really known. If anyone thinks they know the answer here, they're lying to themselves. lol There's nothing wrong with an opinion and a preference of course though.
When you talk about everything having to line up, I fully agree there, but I also think, because of that, when a team is hot a coach has it made. He just has to keep them motivated (like Torts in Tampa Bay). It's why Babcock is so "coveted". He was able to ride some good Detroit teams but, if you talk with a number of fans from Detroit, there's a lot of scrutiny of him and Holland. There's players in Toronto who reportedly spoke out about him after he was fired. For Babcock, Detroit was just a good team and it probably didn't even matter what he did to an extent.
I agree torts and green as coaches are different but they coach a similar on ice style..
Torts coaches his best when his star players play hard on both sides of the puck and his teams have always had push back and when he came to Van , that was never going to happen with the Sedins as the star players.
Green has been learning and growing as a coach which is a good sign but there's been to many games where players just take over and we have lost games earlier in the season due to coaching.( not 100% on green but his D coach and PP/PK coach)
sometimes I get flash backs of Willie coaching, with Green's line blender and not making adjustments on the fly( which he has gotten better at)
i question a coach that can't come up with a system that gets the most of the guys or atleast benefit the guys......letting 50 shots a night is leaf hockey and we can't win that way.
I don't want babcock unless his just joining the coaching staff and is the new D coach ha
I like green like you said a big part is getting the guys to buy in and he has done that , I agree though we have to wait until atleast after next season to see if Green is our guy or not.
I think this summer Jim will fine tune the team and Green better get ready to say hello to his new coaching staff.
also imho I think babs is overrated.....rather have torts, but I think torts only really works for younger teams or teams where their top guys play a 200ft game and torts has a shelve life though.
-
1
-
-
A buddy sent me this and the guy actually made some sense......forgive me buddy forgot to tell me his an anime troll.......lol
-
41 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:
I feel exactly the same way......to me we have to keep the prospect train going, and now that we traded Madden and the first, it will create a gap.....I don't like that
so, sure loose the 2nd this year and the 1st next year, still gives us a young high pick prospect each year...….
Thing is Jim isn't gillis......
Jim can afford to make trades like that cause he can restock the pipeline.....
also look down the road..... VP won't be here for one more season and hoglander might be ready next season or he ends up in the ahl , the list goes on and that's not touching on the guys we will draft in the next couple drafts.....
I think this draft Jim will do something big.....kinda like the oilers when they traded hall.....
I think Jim will go after a mean stay at home d man for Hughes cause tanev is to soft.....also adding some real toughness wouldn't be a bad thing no more pests please ha
jim has the pieces to do something.......
for sure with our winger depth......
so dont worry we arnt going back to the dark days ha
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, The Lock said:
Here the thing. Your first sentence I agree with. I shouldn't matter whether one's actually played hockey or not. After that, not so much...
What exactly are we using here to define a "green" coach? What makes us think an "experienced" coach is going to do better? I hear Mike Keenan's an experienced coach. Should we bring him back?
The problem with thinking about experience with a coach is that's not actually what makes a good coach. It can help, but if it were all about experience then why did Torts fail here? There's a lot more to it than experience. I'd even argue that experience is very little to do with it since we see "green" coaches be successful in this league all the time (Bylsma won the cup in his 1st year!) and unsuccessful "experienced" coaches all the time (see above example, even look at Bylsma on the Sabres lol).
Finally, using the standings as a way to say "I told you so" is only putting yourself in the very same logic as stating that one needs to be a hockey player to distinguish between a great coach and a poor coach. Exact same mentality. It's desperation to "come up with points". Obviously, playing hockey helps. Obviously, standings help. Are either the end all? Think about that. You're throwing the exact same type of arguments as you seem to be receiving. lol
Honestly, I don't think anyone here really knows enough to say whether Green is good or bad. It's like having a food fight without knowing where the food actually is so everyone's using whatever they could find and pretending it's food just because the op said "FOOD FIGHT!"
Imho torts was the right coach but we got him at the wrong time......
funny thing is Green coaches a similar style to torts.....
for a coach to work everything has to line up,
a lot of things come into play.
Green has the room and from interviews I've heard his saying the right things, I think the D coach has to go, maybe even the special teams coach too.
We've already proved we won't be like the oilers or Buffalo and continue to suck but get better year in and year out, Jim has seen to that.
Next season Green will be on the hot seat and for good reason but none of us knew how good we would be this season and their for green gets a pass......
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
When you decide to change history to suit your argument in order to avoid accepting sad truths sure man. Makes sense in the same way kids believing in Santa clause makes sense
If it was a whole b.c thing then the whole province would pay mark up but that's not true.......
supply and demand.....
how did I change history?....
-
35 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
uh huh
What's wrong , simple cowboy making sense .......
-
13 minutes ago, Chicken. said:
Sure its mainly the local municipalities/province that screws us not the Feds
I know that's not 100% true unless grants are Feds.......I can honestly say I don't know a whole lot between the two in b.c
-
7 minutes ago, Chicken. said:
Unless you didn't vote for that person or policy..
Im not complaining 1.09 is good for me I barely drive. Bicycle all the way.
Still, they can only blame themselves , it's not like the rest of Canada had a hand in it........
Saudi Arabia declares oil price war on fellow OPEC (and non OPEC)members.
in Off-Topic General
Posted
That's why right now would be a good time for other industries to take advantage of low gas prices but the virus kinda halted that.
I got kinda a dumb question.......what other industries show enough promise to surpass oil?....I mean legit industries and not just going green like hippie suggests. It's a good idea but it takes a awhile to build up an industry.......