CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:56 am
 


BRAH BRAH:
Truth!


[B-o]


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 54218
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:56 am
 


Mowich Mowich:
I have been against the NG project almost since its inception because of the involvement of Enbridge - a company who have proven to be untrustworthy when it comes to protecting the environment. I am also completely against the very idea of running a pipeline through the Great Bear Rain Forest - an issue that united many British Columbians who otherwise might have stayed on the sidelines.

I am fully in support of Line 3 and Kinder Morgan.


Agree, 100%. [B-o]

rickc rickc:
The government of Canada should have made a refinery in Canada (and the jobs and tax base that go with it ) a condition for signing off on any pipeline. Oh well I guess half a loaf is better than none.


The Government of Canada has no say in what the provinces do with our resources. It's in the Constitution. ;)

There is a refinery being built specifically to refine Bitumen into Synthetic Crude and Diesel fuel.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2265665/alber ... tart-date/

What the Government can do is tax Bitumen exports at a higher rate than Crude so it is more economical than exporting Bitumen. Safer too.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:08 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Well done Mr. Prime Minister it's nice to see a little common sense used when weighing the potential benefits with the potential problems this pipeline might cause. [B-o]

Now, for entertainment, all we have to do is wait for the radical environuts to come out of the woodwork and start chaining themselves to the trees on Burnaby mountain while their heads explode. [cheer]


After the announcement was made yesterday, I started wondering about its timing........could it be that Justin took into consideration that with winter coming the inevitable backlash and protests might be somewhat hindered by winter conditions? Nah.......he ain't that smart......still watching the so-called SJWs, FNs, politicians et al freezing their hypercritical asses off in the snow will be great fun to watch.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3164
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:39 am
 


andyt andyt:
rickc rickc:
I think this pipeline is a good idea. I agree with Herbie that a refinery turning the bitumin into several different end products would be a MUCH better idea for Canada.


The proposal to build a refinery in Kitimat is floundering, with experts saying it's not economically feasible to export refined products. Countries want their own refineries so they can produce what they want. Sure we should be building our own refineries, instead of re-importing the stuff from the US, but Canadians don't think like that. How can we make the easiest quick buck, never mind if that's in our long term interests.



The result of a centralized government instead of embracing free market principles and the individual freedoms that go with these principles.

If businesses could make more money refining, they would invest and do so. Unfortunately, businesses in Canada are reliant on the taxpayer to survive, and competition in a dirty word for them. As much as Canada pretends we love globalization so much, we get crushed on the world stage because we have a system that does not encourage innovation and ingenuity.

I know who to blame, do you?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:06 am
 


No, silly. It's a result of the oil companies colluding together to not build more refineries so they can keep prices for the fuels that refineries produce artificially high. They need to do this kind of price inflation because fuel sales are now their bread-and-butter for profit thanks to OPEC collapsing the base value of oil two years ago with overproduction. It's that and also because they don't want to pay upwards of $6 billion per project to construct more refineries in Canada. It's more economical for them to expand and modernize existing ones in the US. If there will ever be any more refineries built in Canada then the governments are going to have to come in as at least a 50% partner in order for the companies to get on board.

There's no Saint Capitalism vs. Satan's Socialism in any of this. Get over it already.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11851
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:45 am
 


FYI there's Chevron and 3 or 4 shuttered refineries in Burnaby/Ioco. Most are just storage facilities now. Chevron still refines jet fuel.
The reason rickc never saw a BP station is because they were called B/A (British American) in Canada, they were taken over by Phillips for a short time, then Gulf which was bought out by PetroCanada.
As I've pointed out the real threat is the increased tanker traffic. Screaming and whining about treaties and land rights problems doesn't get much sympathy from me when I know the pipeline's already been there for 60 odd years.
The "benefit" of exporting the oil, which no official is going to mention, is that if they get $15 a barrel more - WE are going to pay $15 a barrel more too. Use your head and look at the past behaviour of oil companies. Any fucking excuse to raise gas prices, only the best reasons to slowly lower them. Ready to pay 30-50c/L more for gas?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:20 pm
 


Pretty sure that under the current NAFTA framework, we can't place additional taxes on crude exports to the states, or tarrifs on refinwd product imports. If NAFTA gets renegotiated or scraped, we should put a reasonably steep tarrif on refined products entering the country. Yes we the consumers will have to pay more initially, but over the next 5-10 years, prices will drop as the companies will find it cheaper to refine product here.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6932
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:09 pm
 


I'm so glad you people in BC are concerned how oil is shipped.

$1:
Raw Log Exports: A Made-in-BC Problem that's Only Getting Worse

BC Stats shows the practice has reached record levels in recent years.

or as long as I've been aware of raw log exports I've been unwaveringly against them. The controversial practice of shipping logs overseas without processing them or adding any value has been in place for years. When logs are exported in raw form, they provide the lowest possible value for B.C. communities and starve the mills and the livelihoods that rely on timber.

Prosperity? Forestry not Fracking
read more
Contests, events & more from Tyee and select partners

What If BC Has an Election and the News Media Says ‘I Forgot’? What If BC Has an Election and the News Media Says ‘I Forgot’?

Over the last few weeks, I've looked into the most recent data and I've been heartbroken to see just how bad things have become.

Earlier this year, I penned an op-ed with one of my Wilderness Committee colleagues and with the president of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada -- a major union representing forest sector workers in British Columbia and beyond. We argued that the B.C. government should abandon short-sighted plans to develop a liquefied natural gas industry and focus instead on rebuilding the province's ailing forest industry.

For us, the biggest flag with LNG is climate change. It's 2015, and climate science tells us that building a new industry based on fossil fuels shouldn't be part of our economy. Plus, many say falling gas prices have put this proposed industry on shaky economic ground.

On the other hand, healthy forests -- a prerequisite for a healthy forest industry -- can absorb and store carbon while providing more jobs over the long-term than LNG.
The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Exporting raw logs eliminates forest sector jobs and diminishes the value of our forest products. The practice is in place to benefit the large corporations that dominate B.C.'s forest industry, and is facilitated by a provincial government that lacks the courage to address its failings.

We've got a long way to go to improve forestry in B.C. But by rebuilding the industry, we could address its most pressing problems: the lack of protection for old-growth, endangered species and drinking water sources; inadequate First Nations involvement and decision-making authority; and insufficient benefits for forest-based communities.

And of course, we could ban raw log exports.

Exports shoot up

As recently as the mid-1990s, raw log exports only made up a tiny sliver of the forest sector. By the early 2000s however, the provincial government was feverishly promoting the practice. As raw log shipments increased, so did the outrage from forest industry workers, unions, environmentalists, resource policy experts and many others.

Growing up in small-town Vancouver Island, I never met anyone who agreed with raw log exports. Even my most conservative, pro-extraction relatives froth with anger at the mere mention of this practice.

Unfortunately, it looks like there's more to be angry about than ever before. The 2014 data -- available through BC Stats but summarized neatly by blogger Norman Farrell -- indicates that raw log exports have reached record levels in recent years.

In 1997, for example, less than 200,000 cubic metres of B.C. timber was exported in raw form (one cubic metre roughly equals one city telephone pole). For the past three years, raw log shipments have exceeded 5.5 million cubic metres annually.

In just five years, from 2009 to 2013, annual raw log exports jumped from under 2.5 million to well over 6.5 million cubic metres.

To put that in perspective: a standard logging truck can hold around 40 cubic metres of timber. A standard single family home contains about 37 cubic metres of wood. So, in 2014 alone, B.C. exported enough wood to fill 147,250 logging trucks or build over 159,000 homes.

If lined up end to end, those trucks would stretch from Vancouver to Thunder Bay, Ontario. If inhabited by four people each, those homes would house more people than all of Vancouver.

Why the huge increase in raw log exports? Has the value of raw logs in foreign markets skyrocketed?

The data from BC Stats shows the exact opposite: raw log prices have fallen by almost 50 per cent in the last 15 years.

Almost 97 per cent of all Canadian raw log exports come from B.C. -- the amount shipped by any other province is negligible. Because we export so many more raw logs than other provinces, we're getting a fraction of the return and a fraction of the jobs that they do.

To create one full-time job for a year, Ontario needs to harvest 292 cubic metres of wood -- between seven and eight logging trucks full. On average, each of those cubic metres provides $839 to the provincial economy. In B.C., one full-time year-round job requires 1,312 cubic metres (almost 33 logging trucks). Each of those cubic metres, on average, brings in only $233.

We don't have another decade to ignore the problems in our forest industry. We need to stop chasing the reckless LNG pipe dream and commit to rebuilding the sector that can help us mitigate climate change and provide economic stability in forest communities once more.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/04/BC ... g-Exports/


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4914
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:29 pm
 


oh redneck...don't tell them that! They live in a land of rainbows and unicorns and they don't want to hear your facts...how dare you!


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4914
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:31 pm
 


herbie herbie:
FYI there's Chevron and 3 or 4 shuttered refineries in Burnaby/Ioco. Most are just storage facilities now. Chevron still refines jet fuel.
The reason rickc never saw a BP station is because they were called B/A (British American) in Canada, they were taken over by Phillips for a short time, then Gulf which was bought out by PetroCanada.
As I've pointed out the real threat is the increased tanker traffic. Screaming and whining about treaties and land rights problems doesn't get much sympathy from me when I know the pipeline's already been there for 60 odd years.
The "benefit" of exporting the oil, which no official is going to mention, is that if they get $15 a barrel more - WE are going to pay $15 a barrel more too. Use your head and look at the past behaviour of oil companies. Any fucking excuse to raise gas prices, only the best reasons to slowly lower them. Ready to pay 30-50c/L more for gas?


30 to 50c/l more? the carbon dioxide taxes will be much more than that on a liter of fuel, not to mention methane. So if you think the problem lies with the big mean oil company, look elsewhere for your anger.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:12 pm
 


Bump


Last edited by BRAH on Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:40 pm
 


uwish uwish:
oh redneck...don't tell them that! They live in a land of rainbows and unicorns and they don't want to hear your facts...how dare you!



You might want to quit lumping all BC residents in with the tree hugging, VW van driving, granola crunching, sandal wearing, long haired, dope smoking, friends of Jesus.

Most BC residents are pragmatists and not inclined to the hype or rhetoric the environmental's keep spouting. Besides alot of the residents of BC came from other provinces so trying to label all of them as believing in some mythical land of rainbows and unicorns is pretty akin to saying everyone from Saskatchewan is an uneducated dirt farmer or that, all Irishmen are drunks.

Stereotypes that are as you know, 100% inaccurate. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:35 pm
 


uwish uwish:
herbie herbie:
FYI there's Chevron and 3 or 4 shuttered refineries in Burnaby/Ioco. Most are just storage facilities now. Chevron still refines jet fuel.
The reason rickc never saw a BP station is because they were called B/A (British American) in Canada, they were taken over by Phillips for a short time, then Gulf which was bought out by PetroCanada.
As I've pointed out the real threat is the increased tanker traffic. Screaming and whining about treaties and land rights problems doesn't get much sympathy from me when I know the pipeline's already been there for 60 odd years.
The "benefit" of exporting the oil, which no official is going to mention, is that if they get $15 a barrel more - WE are going to pay $15 a barrel more too. Use your head and look at the past behaviour of oil companies. Any fucking excuse to raise gas prices, only the best reasons to slowly lower them. Ready to pay 30-50c/L more for gas?


30 to 50c/l more? the carbon dioxide taxes will be much more than that on a liter of fuel, not to mention methane. So if you think the problem lies with the big mean oil company, look elsewhere for your anger.


BC's carbon tax is $30/tonne = 7.2 cents/liter for gas. So who's proposing a carbon tax that will exceed 50c/l? If the ratio is proportional, that would be a carbon tax of $208/tonne carbon tax. Who's talking about a tax at that level?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:41 pm
 


X


Last edited by Lemmy on Mon May 01, 2017 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:28 pm
 


Good news here with the feds saying they still support Keystone XL as well.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/11/30/ca ... eystone-xl

$1:
The Trudeau government fully backs the contentious Keystone XL pipeline to the U.S., Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said Wednesday.

Carr was at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce Luncheon a day after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Ottawa had approved Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and Enbridge’s Line 3 into the U.S, but had rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal.

Asked about TransCanada’s Keystone project, which was vetoed by President Barack Obama last year but could be resuscitated under the incoming administration of Donald Trump, Carr said “the government supports Keystone XL.

“We supported the first version. We were disappointed and said so when President Obama quashed it. We now take the lead from the proponent,” said Carr, who noted that all the Canadian permits for Keystone remain in place.


So three lines out of five approved. In this political climate that's actually quite a major victory for the industry. And I'll give full credit to Trudeau who got what he wanted in terms of "social license" and also lived up to his word to grant the approvals when he was convinced better environmental input had been acheived. Screw both the federal NDP and Tories who stuck to their respective job-killing extremist ideologies (anti-oil-altogether in the case of the Dippers and anti-carbon-pricing-altogether in the case of the Tories) and now look like fools for it. Gateway wasn't going to happen, period, and the pressure to get the Line 9 reversal/extension approved disappears which means we can tell the likes of Denis Coderre to go fuck his hat because we don't need his "input" anymore. So between this and OPEC getting closer to the agreement on their own production cuts there are signs now that the two-year nightmare might be coming to an end over the next year or so. [cheer]


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.