MikeyBoy44 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Looks like everyone is celebrating tonight. Such GREAT News for our planet.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, MikeyBoy44 said: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 55 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Looks like everyone is celebrating tonight. Such GREAT News for our planet.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: Pleased to hear that you have stop driving, stopped wearing synthetics, stopped using plastic and certainly will no longer be on cdc as computer access is not possible without oil-based products...largely made where that oil was headed. Pleased to hear you are not a hypocrite. Have fun sitting around the (oops, no fire, that is carbon based) whatever it is you want to sit around and think of the new life for you unburdened by oil or oil-based products. Tar sands oil is worse for the environment than conventional crude oil....... Edited April 9, 2018 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Tar sands oil is worse for the environment than conventional crude oil....... Well, that is total crap and either you already know that and are simply trolling for jollies or you haven't taken an ounce of effort to find out for yourself. In terms of producing and equivalent barrel, oil sands takes about 8-12% more GHG than "average" conventional oil but it varies a lot. Oil from the middle east used in Canada can actually be more impactful for two reasons - one, lesser environmental controls on actual production requirements (de-gassing etc. not controlled) and, two, the transport of that oil to your throne in Surrey. Oil shale in the US is fracked which comes with an energy input as well plus the potential associated long-term environmental issues with fracking - usually nothing major but depends on location etc. Clearly your response simply confirms you are either just a smug hypocrite or a naive one - either way, you are a hypocrite and hopefully you remain in the minority as your country needs responsible resource development to pay for things like your mental health needs. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 12 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: Pleased to hear that you have stop driving, stopped wearing synthetics, stopped using plastic and certainly will no longer be on cdc as computer access is not possible without oil-based products...largely made where that oil was headed. Pleased to hear you are not a hypocrite. Have fun sitting around the (oops, no fire, that is carbon based) whatever it is you want to sit around and think of the new life for you unburdened by oil or oil-based products. We don't want a pipeline on our coast because of the inevitable oil spill that causes environmental damage that can last generations. The measures put in place for that inevitable spill are nowhere near sufficient. This has nothing to do with consuming products that are not even manufactured in Canada. Honestly that is such a moronic argument, I don't know how you or the 6 people that upvoted that could be so obtuse. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 8 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: Well, that is total crap and either you already know that and are simply trolling for jollies or you haven't taken an ounce of effort to find out for yourself. In terms of producing and equivalent barrel, oil sands takes about 8-12% more GHG than "average" conventional oil but it varies a lot. Oil from the middle east used in Canada can actually be more impactful for two reasons - one, lesser environmental controls on actual production requirements (de-gassing etc. not controlled) and, two, the transport of that oil to your throne in Surrey. Oil shale in the US is fracked which comes with an energy input as well plus the potential associated long-term environmental issues with fracking - usually nothing major but depends on location etc. Clearly your response simply confirms you are either just a smug hypocrite or a naive one - either way, you are a hypocrite and hopefully you remain in the minority as your country needs responsible resource development to pay for things like your mental health needs. So you are saying Alberta does not use Fracking ? Really.... have you even ever been to Alberta ? You crack me up....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, Tre Mac said: We don't want a pipeline on our coast because of the inevitable oil spill that causes environmental damage that can last generations. The measures put in place for that inevitable spill are nowhere near sufficient. This has nothing to do with consuming products that are not even manufactured in Canada. Honestly that is such a moronic argument, I don't know how you or the 6 people that upvoted that could be so obtuse. There is already an old pipeline currently in use. Is everyone forgetting this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 25 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: So you are saying Alberta does not use Fracking ? Really.... have you even ever been to Alberta ? You crack me up....... Alot of it outside of the sands is for gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightycpc Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 11 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Tar sands oil is worse for the environment than conventional crude oil....... Same deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Warhippy Posted April 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, trek said: JT should grow some balls and just ram it down horgan/corrigan's throat. And no, the indians don't get a say either - we do far too much pandering to them already. Natives dipsh** We're natives not indians. Sit the hell down until you figure out the difference and why we do get a say. Then understand that more and more bands are on board with this and stop using us as your scapegoat. It shines a pretty ugly light on you when you make statements like that Edited April 9, 2018 by Warhippy 1 2 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RWMc1 Posted April 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 9, 2018 Maybe Snotly , Kinder Morgan, and True Dough should have tried to invest in insuring that cleanup of eventual spills could be done in a manner satisfactory to BC citizens instead of trying to force it down our throats. That's all that Horgan actually wanted. Did they even consider that option? 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: Maybe Snotly , Kinder Morgan, and True Dough should have tried to invest in insuring that cleanup of eventual spills could be done in a manner satisfactory to BC citizens instead of trying to force it down our throats. That's all that Horgan actually wanted. Did they even consider that option? not really. The big peeve for me with Trudeau is the lack of emphasis on marine safety details, and believe me I've looked for it. This is one of those things that needed a lot of press and some actual R&D, but all we keep getting is the "it'll be world class" (whatever that means) and the "balancing the economy and environment" thing.... the more I keep hearing that line the more it annoys me. I've always suspected that the legal issues around this are not as clear cut as Alberta and the Fed's makes them out to be, which is why we're seeing KM's press release. I don't believe for a second that they are truly holding back on anything but are happy to stoke the anger and force Notely to really ramp things up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: "it'll be world class" (whatever that means) and the "balancing the economy and environment" The first term means that since 1953 standards and technology have increased tenfold. This expansion would be built to the highest of standards and most likely even set new ones. It would be safer and more stable than the one that no one seems gripe about that's already there. The second, and important, is there is opportunity for Canada to benefit financially from this expansion. Everyone wants to green and work on new energy cleaner energy sources, but the fact is you need to make money to spend money. If we as Canadians do not capitalize on what we have to the extent we are capable we are only dooming ourselves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, MikeyBoy44 said: The first term means that since 1953 standards and technology have increased tenfold. This expansion would be built to the highest of standards and most likely even set new ones. It would be safer and more stable than the one that no one seems gripe about that's already there. The second, and important, is there is opportunity for Canada to benefit financially from this expansion. Everyone wants to green and work on new energy cleaner energy sources, but the fact is you need to make money to spend money. If we as Canadians do not capitalize on what we have to the extent we are capable we are only dooming ourselves. On the 1st part: it would go a long way if they had the details laid out on that and available publicly, or even better breaking ground on a new marine safety centre. JT is leaving a lot to trust and there isn't much of that left when it comes to pipelines in Canada. On the 2nd, sure of course there is economic benefit. But why does that have to come at the risk of some of BCs coastal industries? If the feds had a research report e.g., saying that clean-up was possible that wouldn't deviate a fishing or prawn area e.g., then there'd be a lot less opposition to it. The benefits to BC are also fairly small so there just isn't a lot of incentive for BC to take the risks if there's anything they can do about it. To me this is a massive failure in R&D and communications that started under Harper and continues under Trudeau who isn't doing any better, and possibly a worse job on this file. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trek Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: Natives dipsh** We're natives not indians. Sit the hell down until you figure out the difference and why we do get a say. Then understand that more and more bands are on board with this and stop using us as your scapegoat. It shines a pretty ugly light on you when you make statements like that Nice. Thanks for that. I'll be sure to go re-educate myself because one guy on the internet said so. And I disagree, I wasn't using your people as a scapegoat - I'll apologize for calling you indians. However, if a majority of bands support this pipeline expansion; along with Ottawa, Alberta, Trans Mountain and since it has passed the BC Environmental Impact Assessment why do we have the same goretex laden treehuggers and band leaders up there blockading a worksite that has been approved to proceed? There is a pipe there already, the right-of-way is already established - they are increasing capacity of an existing thoroughfare. if the thing is going to explode it's going to do it whether or not there are one or two lines in the ground there. Therefore my point stands - JT needs to ram it down Horgan's throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 The issue isn't only about the pipeline itself. Seems like pro pipeline voices are ignoring the increase in tanker traffic and the potential catastrophes that are increased to a significant degree. If they've been properly addressed, then why haven't BC's citizens been informed of the details. Instead we get rhetoric and threats. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, trek said: Nice. Thanks for that. I'll be sure to go re-educate myself because one guy on the internet said so. And I disagree, I wasn't using your people as a scapegoat - I'll apologize for calling you indians. However, if a majority of bands support this pipeline expansion; along with Ottawa, Alberta, Trans Mountain and since it has passed the BC Environmental Impact Assessment why do we have the same goretex laden treehuggers and band leaders up there blockading a worksite that has been approved to proceed? There is a pipe there already, the right-of-way is already established - they are increasing capacity of an existing thoroughfare. if the thing is going to explode it's going to do it whether or not there are one or two lines in the ground there. Therefore my point stands - JT needs to ram it down Horgan's throat. BC's citizens are also opposed to this because of environmental concerns. Your last sentence epitomizes the opinions of the feds, Alberta, and Kinder Morgan. That was probably their biggest mistake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, trek said: Nice. Thanks for that. I'll be sure to go re-educate myself because one guy on the internet said so. And I disagree, I wasn't using your people as a scapegoat - I'll apologize for calling you indians. However, if a majority of bands support this pipeline expansion; along with Ottawa, Alberta, Trans Mountain and since it has passed the BC Environmental Impact Assessment why do we have the same goretex laden treehuggers and band leaders up there blockading a worksite that has been approved to proceed? There is a pipe there already, the right-of-way is already established - they are increasing capacity of an existing thoroughfare. if the thing is going to explode it's going to do it whether or not there are one or two lines in the ground there. Therefore my point stands - JT needs to ram it down Horgan's throat. More than just one guy... Anyone with a brain should understand that the use of the term "Indian" when referring to First Nations peoples is unacceptable and has been for several decades. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trek Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, RWMc1 said: BC's citizens are also opposed to this because of environmental concerns. Your last sentence epitomizes the opinions of the feds, Alberta, and Kinder Morgan. That was probably their biggest mistake. BC wants to out-wait Trans Mountain and delay the project indefinitely using the court system to fight for jurisdiction. It's pretty transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts