Ryan Strome Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 12 minutes ago, Violator said: Energy east just like tranmountain are a good opportunity to refresh other pipelines that are currently in service. We need pipelines to water not to the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: We need pipelines to water not to the U.S. I know that but we &^@#ed up and now its over. The few have more power than the many look at king of surreys crazy ramblings thats the reality of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, inane said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-petrol-diesel-car-ban-gasoline-production-sales-electric-cabinet-official-state-media-a7938726.html It's frightening to think of the amount of coal they plan on burning to power these electric vehicles. Do they have anymore valleys to flood? Maybe they will go nuke? Not to worry, it's just grandstanding for the CO2 crew that still thinks electricity magically appears out of thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, clam linguine said: It's frightening to think of the amount of coal they plan on burning to power these electric vehicles. Do they have anymore valleys to flood? Maybe they will go nuke? Not to worry, it's just grandstanding for the CO2 crew that still thinks electricity magically appears out of thin air. Is it comforting to yourself to be so obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, inane said: Is it comforting to yourself to be so obtuse? Why is it obtuse. Electric cars are a bad environmental choice, unless the nuclear dice is worth rolling. I hope for China's sake and Canada's sake that they stick with oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, clam linguine said: Why is it obtuse. Electric cars are a bad environmental choice, unless the nuclear dice is worth rolling. I hope for China's sake and Canada's sake that they stick with oil. The point is regarding the demand for oil and the need for new pipelines. You know, the topic. It's not a commentary on electric cars which I've already previously said I think are not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 40 minutes ago, inane said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-petrol-diesel-car-ban-gasoline-production-sales-electric-cabinet-official-state-media-a7938726.html Look out, 2040 here we come. In the mean time we are forced to loose out in 14k jobs, and over $10 billion in additional tax revenues, per year. On top of that OUR demand doesn't drop, it actually increases, so we are still forced to continue to buy and ship in dirty saudi oil. Why take advantage of that big garden in your back yard when you can buy from the grocery store down the street that marks everything up 100%. And you call clam obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, inane said: The point is regarding the demand for oil and the need for new pipelines. You know, the topic. It's not a commentary on electric cars which I've already previously said I think are not the answer. Ok then, the pertinent part of my post as per the topic defined by you is...."not to worry, it's just grandstanding". Your article admits there is no teeth to the electric car proclamations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Look out, 2040 here we come. In the mean time we are forced to loose out in 14k jobs, and over $10 billion in additional tax revenues, per year. On top of that OUR demand doesn't drop, it actually increases, so we are still forced to continue to buy and ship in dirty saudi oil. Why take advantage of that big garden in your back yard when you can buy from the grocery store down the street that marks everything up 100%. And you call clam obtuse? lose, not loose. short term, long term. I believe we should be planning for the future and if that costs money now, so be it. It will be cheaper than the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 43 minutes ago, Violator said: I know that but we &^@#ed up and now its over. The few have more power than the many look at king of surreys crazy ramblings thats the reality of everything. You make zero sense. Global warming is threatening our entire planet and you have crazy ramblings that look like they were written in the 1950's. I prefer to look forward and live like my grandparents did..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, inane said: lose, not loose. short term, long term. I believe we should be planning for the future and if that costs money now, so be it. It will be cheaper than the alternative. The future is Saudi sheiks using Canadian dollars to buy up Canadian real estate and then renting it to back grateful CO2 fearing easterners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, inane said: lose, not loose. short term, long term. I believe we should be planning for the future and if that costs money now, so be it. It will be cheaper than the alternative. Energy East is privately funded, it has zero affect on us planning for the future. If the gov't wants to continue to focus on finding other energy methods by all means they can. But the pipeline does greatly add tax revenue so that we can someday pay for the needed infrastructure in an alternative energy source. It also reduces our dependence on paying to ship in dirty oil we have no control over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Energy East is privately funded, it has zero affect on us planning for the future. If the gov't wants to continue to focus on finding other energy methods by all means they can. But the pipeline does greatly add tax revenue so that we can someday pay for the needed infrastructure in an alternative energy source. It also reduces our dependence on paying to ship in dirty oil we have no control over. Expensive infrastructure to support a dying industry. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 21 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: You make zero sense. Global warming is threatening our entire planet and you have crazy ramblings that look like they were written in the 1950's. I prefer to look forward and live like my grandparents did..... Just learning from the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 9 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Expensive infrastructure to support a dying industry. No thanks. Financial risk would have been the concern of Trans Canada Pipelines, not Canadian tax payers. So many here don't understand the beauty of free enterprise and the whole "government staying out of business" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Just now, clam linguine said: Financial risk would have been the concern of Trans Canada Pipelines, not Canadian tax payers. Very true so i guess this is great news then . No ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Very true so i guess this is great news then . No ? It's good news for you because you don't seem to like the idea of healthy, wealthy Canadians both now and in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Expensive infrastructure to support a dying industry. No thanks. The pipe line is privately funded. Zero comes from your pockets. Money is going to be needed to support for the infrastructure a "new energy alternative". Where's that going to come from. Here's an idea, why not the money tree we have in our own back yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, clam linguine said: It's good news for you because you don't seem to like the idea of healthy, wealthy Canadians both now and in the future. It's amazing you don't see the irony in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Yes @inane Saudi oil is so much better than ours...smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.