Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[Hobble]

1. Forget coal/oil, pump money into renewables for cheap electricity.

2. Modernize and create a trans-Canada electrical grid, so power generated across country can be sent to areas of higher usage when needed.

3. Increase sale of electricity to US.

4. Cheap electricity, high standard of living, and government incentives to attract science/technology firms to be established in Canada. Cheap electricity would be very attractive for AI, marijuana, cryptoassets, etc.

 

People in the resource fields can be shifted to other fields, and allow our lands/forests to be preserved.

[CBH1926]

Time will tell.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4000351/biz-report-site-c-pipelines/

 

[kingofsurrey]

3 hours ago, greenbean30 said:

This pipeline is definitely going to happen, as it should. Can’t wait for the Libs to step in and put an end to this.

0 % chance this pipeline expansion happens....

 

0 % chance Trudeau is wllling to be seen on TV as  thoussands of grey haired BC senior citizens are getting handcuffed and arrested........

 

So happy that at least one province is making a statement about reducing global warming

[kingofsurrey]

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

The Alberta oil industry is the safest on earth. I don't get you, you want to kill jobs in Canada and cut revenue to this Country only to prop up and support nations like Arabia, Venezuela, Russian, U.S, etc.

Bitumen needs to stay in the earth.   Global warming is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:

0 % chance this pipeline expansion happens....

 

0 % chance Trudeau is wllling to be seen on TV as  thoussands of grey haired BC senior citizens are getting handcuffed and arrested........

 

So happy that at least one province is making a statement about reducing global warming

Heard on the news, that Alberta is suing BC over this.  I wonder if the courts could decide this?  

[Alflives]

Just now, kingofsurrey said:

Bitumen needs to stay in the earth.   Global warming is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. 

Methane released from thawing permafrost is way worse.  I really don’t know if global warming (climate change) can be addressed, without immediately stopping the use of all fossil fuels, burning of wood, and raising animals for food.  Maybe, We are past the point of any change making a difference?  

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Methane released from thawing permafrost is way worse.  

I don't feel we can do much about that though...

 

We can control our consumption of fossil fuels   though.....

[greenbean30]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

I don't feel we can do much about that though...

 

We can control our consumption of fossil fuels   though.....

Oil products will pretty much always be needed. Yes we don’t need to use them for producing energy, which we don’t really do all that much in Canada.

But the use of diesel, and oil will never go away. Big industry will always require it,

Hell, even those solar panels and wind turbines and electric vehicles everyone goes on and on about, require products from oil.

Canada’s economy requires this pipe line to go through, and it will happen. The world is no where close to being to the point where we can cut back drastically on our oil usage, and we won’t be anytime soon.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 1/30/2018 at 7:43 PM, King Heffy said:

I'd rather just subsidize building refineries.  Create some well-paid, long-term jobs

There was a refinery in BC but the NDP shut it down in the 70s - right?     Further, you need a pipeline to get the oil to the refinery unless you seemingly prefer rail which is far more environmentally and human safety wise much riskier.

[King Heffy]

27 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

There was a refinery in BC but the NDP shut it down in the 70s - right?     Further, you need a pipeline to get the oil to the refinery unless you seemingly prefer rail which is far more environmentally and human safety wise much riskier.

Not sure where you got the idea I'm opposed to pipelines.  I didn't like the Enbridge one due to the ridiculously unsafe terminus.  I just feel that we sell off our natural resources at far too cheap a cost.  It's shortsighted and will hurt us financially in the long run.

[slippers]

13 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

0 % chance this pipeline expansion happens....

 

0 % chance Trudeau is wllling to be seen on TV as  thoussands of grey haired BC senior citizens are getting handcuffed and arrested........

 

So happy that at least one province is making a statement about reducing global warming

Would you prefer BC to maintain an affiliation with Ontario east or do you favour BC independence?  I assume you wouldn't be in favour BC being a part of an independent Western Canadian energy superpower if the protest ultimately backfires.

Edited February 2, 2018 by slippers

[inane]

10 hours ago, greenbean30 said:

Oil products will pretty much always be needed. Yes we don’t need to use them for producing energy, which we don’t really do all that much in Canada.

But the use of diesel, and oil will never go away. Big industry will always require it,

Hell, even those solar panels and wind turbines and electric vehicles everyone goes on and on about, require products from oil.

Canada’s economy requires this pipe line to go through, and it will happen. The world is no where close to being to the point where we can cut back drastically on our oil usage, and we won’t be anytime soon.

Oil, in some form, will be needed for a long time. No doubt.
 

The question is moving forward. Doubling down on a resource we know is finite and that we know has all these impacts, seems ludicrously short sighted. Why expand now, spending on that capital and taking all that risk when we could invest in the future. Yes, there will be impacts. Yes, some people will lose jobs, etc.. but that' how progress works. I'm sure you heard from the cart and buggy industry when cars were coming out but, you know, we moved forward.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, inane said:

Oil, in some form, will be needed for a long time. No doubt.
 

The question is moving forward. Doubling down on a resource we know is finite and that we know has all these impacts, seems ludicrously short sighted. Why expand now, spending on that capital and taking all that risk when we could invest in the future. Yes, there will be impacts. Yes, some people will lose jobs, etc.. but that' how progress works. I'm sure you heard from the cart and buggy industry when cars were coming out but, you know, we moved forward.

What doubling down and spending are you talking about?

Edited February 2, 2018 by Ryan Strome

[inane]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

What doubling down and spending are you talking about?

Big picture. 

 

Expanding/twinning/whatevering the capacity. More tankers, etc. All that has a cost even assuming no accidents which we know will happen... Doing all that just furthers our dependency, furthers the argument 'well we can't switch to something else we're so committed'. It just makes the inevitable change that much harder and significantly more costly. 

[Ryan Strome]

As pipeline battle heats up, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley calls on PM to show 'greater' leadership

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says she told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday he must do more to stop B.C. from blocking the Kinder-Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Notley said Trudeau's statements on CBC Radio Edmonton AM earlier in the day — in which he described the dispute as an inter-provincial matter — were not strong enough. She said the prime minister needs to show "greater and clearer leadership" on the issue and "turn up the dial." 

 

"This is not an Alberta-B.C. issue," she said at a news conference at the Alberta legislature. "This is a Canada-B.C. issue."

 

 

Notley said Alberta's initial response to the dispute is to formally end talks with British Columbia on buying electricity on existing transmission lines.

Asked whether she was being tough enough with B.C., Notley said the response has consequences. 

 

"I would say suspending talks on a project that had the potential to deliver up to half a billion dollars a year to B.C. Hydro is not 'not tough,'" she said. Notley added the discussions are not related to the Site C hydroelectric project in northern B.C., putting down speculation that the dispute could endanger talks on that issue. 

The province also plans to take the issue to court. 

"There are grounds for legal action, and we will be taking legal action," she said. "But we want to make sure that we come up with the best legal strategy possible."

'Sabre-rattling' 

British Columbia Premier John Horgan said Thursday that he doesn't understand why Notley is upset. 

"We have not put in place anything at this time," Horgan said, in his first public remarks since his government's announcement Tuesday. "We are going to put in place a scientific panel to look at the consequences of a catastrophic spill. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm surprised with the reaction we're getting from Alberta."

Horgan said there is nothing for Alberta to take to court at this point. 

 

"Should those regulations run afoul of Ms. Notley's aspiration, I'm sure she'll take action," he said. "But it's way premature to talk about these sorts of issues, when we're just putting together a paper to put before the people we represent.

"Sabre-rattling doesn't get you very far." 

On Wednesday, Notley threatened legal and economic action against the British Columbia government, which this week proposed new restrictions on shipments of oil through the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast.

 

She also called an emergency cabinet meeting Wednesday to discuss Alberta's options.

"The B.C. government took this action with no provocation and almost no warning," Notley said. "The government of Alberta will not, we cannot, let this unconstitutional attack on jobs and working people stand."

The meeting wrapped up after an hour without a decision.

When B.C. announced its intentions on Tuesday, Notley immediately termed the move "unconstitutional" and said Alberta would fight it.

 

"The B.C. government has every right to consult on whatever it pleases with its citizens," Notley said at the time.

"It does not have the right to rewrite our Constitution and assume powers for itself that it does not have. If it did, our Confederation would be meaningless."

Trudeau is in Edmonton for a town hall meeting Thursday evening at MacEwan University. He and Notley spoke on the telephone for half an hour.

In an interview Thursday morning on CBC Radio's Edmonton AM, Trudeau said the federal government will stand by its 2016 approval of the $7.4-billion pipeline project. "I'm not going to opine on disagreements between the provinces in this case," he said.

"We're just going to reiterate that the decision we made was in the national interest, and we're going to move forward with that decision, which means we're going to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4515589

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, inane said:

Big picture. 

 

Expanding/twinning/whatevering the capacity. More tankers, etc. All that has a cost even assuming no accidents which we know will happen... Doing all that just furthers our dependency, furthers the argument 'well we can't switch to something else we're so committed'. It just makes the inevitable change that much harder and significantly more costly. 

It's not costing tax payer money. The Country will gain revenue and if and when we don't need that pipeline anymore it's shut down.

 

 

[inane]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's not costing tax payer money. The Country will gain revenue and if and when we don't need that pipeline anymore it's shut down.

 

 

It always costs tax payer money, don't be naive.

 

But sure, we'll get revenue and then what. Why not invest in future technology? I don't get this desperation to hang on to 100 year old technology just cause it might cost us a some money in the here and now. 

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, inane said:

It always costs tax payer money, don't be naive.

 

But sure, we'll get revenue and then what. Why not invest in future technology? I don't get this desperation to hang on to 100 year old technology just cause it might cost us a some money in the here and now. 

So you want private businesses to invest into future technology? That's up to them isn't it?

[inane]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So you want private businesses to invest into future technology? That's up to them isn't it?

I disagree with your inference that no public money goes in to oil expansion but regardless, private and public should be investing in the future. 

 

Private businesses already are anyway, our government is getting in the way.

[chon derry]

9 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Not sure where you got the idea I'm opposed to pipelines.  I didn't like the Enbridge one due to the ridiculously unsafe terminus.  I just feel that we sell off our natural resources at far too cheap a cost.  It's shortsighted and will hurt us financially in the long run.

the douglas channel was viewed as a concern ,but is still used by ships laden with bauxite for rio tinto and bulk aluminum shipments as well as log ships on a daily basis, the biggest concern was the proposed pipeline route , which brings me to the transmountain route its important to twin this existing line in the event the 'old' one ruptures ,this one factor was part of eliminating the whole endbridge idea, making no mention of the smoke in mirrors approach with their proposal that they  had. twining of the trans mountain was deemed the least intrusive on the environment enroute from alta to port. and should move forward,  its as important if not more important than the necessity for the 'shorter' endbridge route ,unfortunately endbridges BS approach has brought us to this.

Edited February 2, 2018 by chon derry