Ryan Strome Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Aguila said: Projects are planned 5 years in advance at least. There was supposed to be lots of pipeline capacity available for the oil so multi billions were invested. 400000 barrels came online all at once at Teck Comincos new Fort Hills project then american refineries in the North shut down like never before to make things worse. Now Canada needs to shut down production so other countries can take our market share because they can get their oil to operating refineries and we cant. Notley ordered a 9% production cut. Sad day for Canada. Celebrations for all other oil producers. And MackCanuck and kingofsurrey have been more than happy to see Canada suffer and the likes of the US, Arabia, Venezuela, etc make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 China is seriously going in on electric vehicles. It's not being reported in the news as much as it should be. Canada needs to move and sell it's oil, especially from the tar sands, while it can still make a decent profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: And MackCanuck and kingofsurrey have been more than happy to see Canada suffer and the likes of the US, Arabia, Venezuela, etc make money. I'm ok with the US making gobs of money too!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: I'm ok with the US making gobs of money too!!!! I knew you would be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted December 6, 2018 Author Share Posted December 6, 2018 5 hours ago, SabreFan1 said: China is seriously going in on electric vehicles. It's not being reported in the news as much as it should be. Canada needs to move and sell it's oil, especially from the tar sands, while it can still make a decent profit. Yah because Global warming and poisoning our environment is such a great idea.... No thanks... Keep the poison Dirty Bituman in the ground where it belongs.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Yah because Global warming and poisoning our environment is such a great idea.... No thanks... Keep the poison Dirty Bituman in the ground where it belongs.... Does this Bituman stuff have any advantages? Can it be burned to generate heat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 59 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Yah because Global warming and poisoning our environment is such a great idea.... No thanks... Keep the poison Dirty Bituman in the ground where it belongs.... We'll happily take the oil profits here in the US then instead. Also, bitumen is used on roads and on roofs which China needs big time to help fuel their growth. You could sell both oil and bitumen to them if you had better ways than you do now to get it to them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Does this Bituman stuff have any advantages? Can it be burned to generate heat? It's used in roads and roofs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Yah because Global warming and poisoning our environment is such a great idea.... No thanks... Keep the poison Dirty Bituman in the ground where it belongs.... 3 hours ago, SabreFan1 said: We'll happily take the oil profits here in the US then instead. Also, bitumen is used on roads and on roofs which China needs big time to help fuel their growth. You could sell both oil and bitumen to them if you had better ways than you do now to get it to them. Yup that's exactly what will happen. The world won't stop using oil and Canada would lose tons of money while we sit on massive reserves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 3 hours ago, SabreFan1 said: We'll happily take the oil profits here in the US then instead. Also, bitumen is used on roads and on roofs which China needs big time to help fuel their growth. You could sell both oil and bitumen to them if you had better ways than you do now to get it to them. 21 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Yup that's exactly what will happen. The world won't stop using oil and Canada would lose tons of money while we sit on massive reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said: The O'Jays hate Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: The O'Jays hate Canada. How about this one instead...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, SabreFan1 said: How about this one instead...... I never watched one episode of that show. How about this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: I never watched one episode of that show. How about this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted December 13, 2018 Author Share Posted December 13, 2018 Great news... Its about time the Dirty Albertans started to pay up for all the TRUE / Full . costs associated with Climate Change..... The municipality of Whistler, B.C., is asking the oil and gas industry to pay its “fair share” by chipping in for budget costs related to climate change. https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/whistler-wants-albertan-oil-and-gas-company-to-pay-for-resorts-climate-change-costs/wcm/c618f916-8394-4f51-a1ac-9695f02ae7d1 In a letter addressed to Calgary-based Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. dated Nov. 15, Whistler Mayor Jack Crompton said the town’s taxpayers “are paying 100 per cent of the costs” associated with climate change events such as “drought, flooding, and extreme weather.” He’s asking CNRL to pay in to “the costs of climate change being experienced by Whistler,” including the municipalities’ “$1.4 million investment in community wildfire protection activities” for 2018. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Its funny coming from a town built on consumption and excess 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Great news... Its about time the Dirty Albertans started to pay up for all the TRUE / Full . costs associated with Climate Change..... The municipality of Whistler, B.C., is asking the oil and gas industry to pay its “fair share” by chipping in for budget costs related to climate change. https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/whistler-wants-albertan-oil-and-gas-company-to-pay-for-resorts-climate-change-costs/wcm/c618f916-8394-4f51-a1ac-9695f02ae7d1 In a letter addressed to Calgary-based Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. dated Nov. 15, Whistler Mayor Jack Crompton said the town’s taxpayers “are paying 100 per cent of the costs” associated with climate change events such as “drought, flooding, and extreme weather.” He’s asking CNRL to pay in to “the costs of climate change being experienced by Whistler,” including the municipalities’ “$1.4 million investment in community wildfire protection activities” for 2018. Great news? What about hypocritical hooey....that is more accurate description of the Whistler mayor's idiotic missive. Terry Etam’s letter to Whistler Mayor Jack Crompton December 12, 201810:55 AMTerry Etam16 Comments Mr. Crompton, It was with extreme incredulity that I read a copy of the letter that you sent to Canadian Natural Resources. I am an energy writer seeking to find and promote balanced discussions with respect to energy issues. I just wanted to warn you against the downside of putting such bizarre accusations out into the public realm. There is a huge downside to your reputation as a thoughtful person and also to the whole debate about climate change. I won’t waste much of your time, this doesn’t take long. Please consider these two data points, one from your letter: ‘We are proud of the many people and businesses who are proud to call Whistler home, and who welcome over three million visitors each year.’ As a second data point I bring to your attention this from an article in The Economist: “Readers of The Economist are a well-travelled lot. Many of them will be aware, perhaps slightly guiltily, that one of the biggest personal contributions to climate change is all that jet-setting. On average, each person on Earth going about their normal business produces the equivalent of five tonnes of CO2 a year. But a single transatlantic round trip produces the equivalent of about one tonne per passenger even in economy class.” Do you see a problem here, particularly with the millions you mention? Climate change is caused by CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels. All those visitors CHOOSE to go to Whistler, and you encourage it. What is even more interesting is that the Economist article is about a new CO2 sequestration technology being developed by Bill Gates (yes that Bill Gates) and…Murray Edwards, founder of Canadian Natural Resources. It is called Carbon Engineering Ltd. and is based in Squamish. This company, being covered by a British economic publication, is on the cutting edge of possibly solving the world’s excess CO2 problem in a way that all the attacks on fossil fuel producers never, ever will. Because, as you and I know but few want to talk about, emissions come from CONSUMPTION. Whistler spends heavily to attract tourists from around the world, perhaps you would like to step up and declare your responsibility for, and contribution to, increased CO2 emissions? It would be great if you would write another note to CNRL and cc the same politicians that you did initially to rectify this gross miscalculation. If you choose not to, that is your prerogative, but just be aware that wildly inaccurate and ignorant communications like this ultimately serve only to drive a wedge between those who want to improve our environment in a responsible manner and those who simply want publicity. Ultimately, communications such as yours set the entire debate back immeasurably. Sincerely, Terry Etam 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Yeah...."Great News" doesn't really fit here.... ....neither does "News", actually... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Someone who actually thinks about the issues versus emotes about it ← On Southern Resident Killer Whales and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project More on the Southern Resident Killer Whales – this time on truthiness about acoustic threats and survivorship bias → On the environmental and social consequences if the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project fails Posted on September 8, 2018by Blair I have spent a lot of time in the last few years researching the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (TMX) project. Throughout I have always felt confident that good environmental and fiscal sense would prevail, and the pipeline would be built. Given the Federal Court decision I can’t help but start to doubt that confidence. The obvious question to ask is: what happens if the pipeline is not completed? In this blog I ask and answer 15 questions about a world where the TMX fails. The answers do not reassure me and I wonder if the many of the activists who have been fighting the TMX are ready for a world without the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline? To make it easier in the following list “it” means “the failure of the TMX project”. So what did I realize: Will it reduce the number of tankers in the Salish Sea: No Will it reduce the likelihood of a spill in the Salish Sea: No Will it reduce our ability to respond to spills in the Salish Sea: Yes Will it reduce the threat to the Southern Resident Killer Whales: No Will it increase the amount of oil moved by rail: Absolutely Will it increase the likelihood of a rail spill: Absolutely Will it increase the cost to transport Alberta oil: Yes Will it decrease oil sands developments: Yes, likely Will that decrease in oil sands development results in a decrease in global GHG emissions: Absolutely not Will it make it harder to fight climate change in Canada: Absolutely Will it decrease Canadian prosperity: Yes Will British Columbians remain hostage to high oil prices with zero control over supplies: Yes Will it reduce the risk to First Nations communities: Absolutely not Will it reduce the prosperity of First Native communities: Absolutely Who wins and who loses if the TMX doesn’t go through? – Losers: Canadians, the environment, salmon, the southern resident killer whales and Canada’s fight against climate change -Winners: Activist NGOs, American refinery owners, and foreign dictatorships The rest of this post are short explanations for my conclusions. The rest of this post is a bit long although the answer to each question has been kept as short as possible. It is a testament to just how bad the outcome is that I couldn’t keep this section short. So many negative consequences will flow from the failure of the TMX. 1) Will it reduce the number of tankers in the Salish Sea: No As described in my previous post the refineries in the Puget Sound will still need over 645,000 barrels/day (b/d) of crude oil. Currently Cherry Point refinery alone sees 500+ tankers a year and Toresco (a committed shipped on the TMX) has said they want to add 120 tankers a year to their Andeavor facility to make up for an absence of supply. Meanwhile Westridge will still be sending out a few tankers a month. So in the end we will still see 700+ tankers a year coming in and out of the Salish Sea with 620+ of them running the narrower and much more dangerous Rosario Strait. 2) Will it reduce the likelihood of a spill in the Salish Sea: No I have written in detail about the relative risks associated with the project to the Salish Sea. Any cold-eyed analysis of the relative risks shows that the TMX reduces our regional risks of oil spills. Blocking the TMX will increase the likelihood of a disastrous rail spill that could spell the end of a major fishery or result in the deaths of dozens of innocents. It will put more tankers going through narrower waters with less support from escort tugs. That is a formula for increased risk. 3) Will it reduce our ability to respond to spills in the Salish Sea: Yes The BC west coast has been chronically under-served for spill response. One of the big gets for BC in the TMX project was a toll on the new fuel transportation to pay for improved spill response. However, if there is no expansion that toll will not be paid and that money disappears. The result is a loss of spill response capability. Right now we are looking at losing $150 million and several spill response bases. Since the funds for the spill response was coming from the private sector there is no obvious way to replace those funds. When a spill occurs the equipment will not be there to address it. So damage will be greater. 4) Will it reduce the threat to the Southern Resident Killer Whales: No I wrote about this in my last post. If you look at the entire Salish Sea, and not simply the Canadian side of the border, then you realize that the loss of the TMX will likely increase the risks to the southern resident killer whales, not decrease those risks. Foreign-flagged ships with lower safety standards will be coming in to the same waters, running through narrower straits while not following the slower speeds recommended by DFO to reduce ship noise. It will be more dangerous and louder for the southern resident killer whales. Meanwhile, more rail along the rivers puts salmon habitat at risk. Without salmon there will be no southern resident killer whales. 5) Will it increase the amount of oil moved by rail: Absolutely As reported by Global News: the Paris-based IEA forecasts in its latest oil markets report that Canadian crude-by-rail exports will grow from 150,000 b/d a day in late 2017 to 250,000 b/d this year and then to 390,000 b/d in 2019. In June we crossed 200,000 b/d and current predictions are that we will see 300,000 b/d by December. On the American side of the border just three (Tacoma, Anacortes, or Ferndale) of the region’s six refineries moved over 156,800 barrels of oil per day by rail in 2017 and every indicator is that the volume will be increasing absent TMX. These trains are carrying explosive Bakken crude through some of the most densely populated parts of the Pacific Northwest and along the sides of some of our most important salmon rivers. 6) Will it increase the likelihood of a rail spill: Absolutely We all know that risk of incident is 4.5 times higher for transportation via rail over pipeline and more of the rail route is along the river sides than is the pipeline. Many activists complain about the sourcing of the 4.5 times stat so let’s go to Citylab and the Sightline Institute, both of which warn about the increase in risk of oil spills associated with this increase in oil volumes. There will be more oil-by-rail spills and because our rail lines run along river sides we will have far more risk to salmon habitat. 7) Will it increase the cost to transport Alberta oil: Yes Oil-by-rail increases the cost to transport oil, which means to sell the oil to their customers producers will have to discount the price of that oil. This decreases the royalties earned by the Alberta government and the money available for transfer payments to fund our social services. 8) Will it decrease oil sands developments: Yes, likely This is the reason the activists have been fighting the TMX. By increasing the cost and decreasing the price the result is a slow-down of future development. Just ask Suncor. The problem with this is that it will not have any effect on global oil use (see next question). 9) Will that decrease in oil sands development results in a decrease in global GHG emissions: Absolutely not We live in an integrated world economy with a glut of oil supply. Any decrease in Canadian production will be offset by an increase in supply from any of the 30+ nations that produce crude oil. As a fungible commodity our loss is someone else’s gain and absent some change in demand the result will be a trade-off with no change in global emissions but more money for foreign dictators. This is the part of the story the activists never want to admit. 10) Will it make it harder to fight climate change in Canada: Absolutely Alberta made the completion of the pipeline a condition for their joining the national climate action plan. Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan, which included an aggressive move off of coal for electricity, is also in doubt. So besides not affecting global emissions and reducing the money Alberta generates from its natural resources the loss of the pipeline will set back our national plan to cut our carbon emissions and will likely drive the Notley government out of power. Her more-climate friendly government will be replaced by a Jason Kenney government. Mr. Kenney has made it abundantly clear that he will fight the national climate plan using every tool at his disposal. Without Alberta and Saskatchewan as active partners Canada has no chance of meeting our Paris Agreement NDCs and we will likely lose the governments most committed to fighting climate change. Good work activists. 11) Will it decrease Canadian prosperity: Yes The money generated by natural resources is pumped back into our economy and paid to our government as royalties and increased taxes. That is the money that pays for our social service net, medicare and other government services. The loss of revenue will hurt Canadian prosperity and reduce the money available to pay for the transition off fossil fuels. 12) Will British Columbians remain hostage to high oil prices with zero control over supplies: Yes Coastal British Columbia faces a 30,000 b/d shorfall in refined fuels which explains why we pay the highest gasoline prices in the country. So now instead of paying 2-3 cents litremore in increased tolls (tolls that would help pay for improved spill response) we will be paying a scarcity premium to US suppliers. The same 12-15 cents/litre scarcity premium we have been paying for the last several years. We pay this premium because the current Trans Mountain is oversubscribed and we need to outbid Oregon and Californian buyers for the unallocated supply out of the Puget Sound. This will continue and instead of our gasoline purchases helping to pay for Canada’s social services net they will go to American refinery owners. 13) Will it reduce the risk to First Nations communities: Absolutely not This is the part of the story that confuses me the most. Somehow the anti-pipeline activists have managed to convince some of the First Nations on the Fraser River that the pipeline is a greater risk to their communities than oil-by-rail. This means these First Nations have been fighting a project that has the potential to significantly decrease the risks to their communities and their food sources. These activists have literally convinced the First Nations to fight against their own best interests. 14) Will it reduce the prosperity of First Native communities: Absolutely Every First Nation in BC relies on fossil fuels for transportation, to move foodstuffs, and to supply most of the necessities of life. Every First Nation in BC will paying more than they should for those fossil fuels if the TMX is not built. As well, the various mutual benefit agreements made between the project and the First Nations will not happen. These First Nations will be exposed to higher risks due to oil-by-rail and will lose money at the same time. That doesn’t even consider all the First Nations-owned companies slated to help build and maintain the pipeline that will not do that work. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year will be lost in communities with few other sources of income. It is simply amazing how activists using words like “sovereignty” and “pride” have convinced many First Nations to impoverish themselves. 15) So who wins and who loses if the TMX doesn’t go through? Losers: Canadians, the environment, salmon, the Southern Resident Killer Whales, and Canada’s fight against climate change Winners: Activist NGOs, American refinery owners, and foreign dictatorships As an environmental scientist, when I hear activists claiming that they are fighting the pipeline to “protect the inlet” or to “protect our waters” I can say quite convincingly that these arguments simply don’t hold water. The underlying challenge on the Trans Mountain file has been that it represents a compromise to provide the safest of the various alternative means to transport the liquid fuels we need to the Pacific Northwest. If the TMX is blocked the crude oil necessary for our continued existence on the West Coast will still need to flow. It will simply flow via less safe means, specifically: Explosive Bakken crude will flow in even greater quantities along rail lines that run the virtual length of the Columbia River and through the heavily populated communities of the Pacific Northwest. Canadian oil trains will run in greater numbers alongside the Thompson and the Fraser Rivers and through every community along that route. A spill in either river will risk salmon runs that serve as the food source for, and are held sacred by, dozens of First Nations communities in British Columbia. Instead of highly-regulated Canadian tankers bringing Canadian crude to California and Asia we will see the Puget Sound and Semiahmoo Bay full of tankers coming out of the Middle East and registered in whatever jurisdiction has the lowest safety standards. The eventual risk to the Salish Sea won’t be the one major accident every 2000+ years described in the TMX risk assessments, it will be orders of magnitude higher. So what are we looking at if the activists manage to stop the TMX? Certainly not a decrease in ecological risk. Rather we will see an increase in risk to our rivers and the marine environment…and at what cost? Any rent-seeker who thinks that blocking the pipeline will somehow help us fight climate change is barking up the wrong tree, because the countries that will serve as the replacement for Canadian oil (the Saudis, Nigerians and Algerians) are not paying into our federation; they are siphoning money out of it. If you want your bridges, roads and sewage plants built/repaired, then you are going to need money and blocking the Trans Mountain is exactly the wrong way to obtain those funds. If you argue that fighting the TMX somehow is part of a fight against climate change that is simply bad thinking. The pipeline was part of the national plan to fight climate change and that plan looks like it has been scuttled by the activists. While I agree the current process has not been a perfect one; it had, at least, been a transparent one. The allocation of risks associated with the status quo has not involved the balancing of risks and is anything but transparent. As I have written numerous times, we need to wean Canada off fossil fuels as our primary energy source. If we are to avoid the serious consequences of climate change, we will need to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix. However, contrary to what many say, the process of doing so will take decades, and in the meantime we will still need petroleum hydrocarbons. The TMX project is the best project on the books to achieve that goal. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Great news... Its about time the Dirty Albertans started to pay up for all the TRUE / Full . costs associated with Climate Change..... The municipality of Whistler, B.C., is asking the oil and gas industry to pay its “fair share” by chipping in for budget costs related to climate change. unless everyone driving up the 99 is using a Tesla this is a bit of a stretch. I suppose it never hurts to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts