[martin14]

andyt andyt:

One argument for shipping oil west instead of south was that we, sorry, Alberta, doesn't get world price when it's shipped south. Anybody know how shipping it east will play out in this regard?

Right now, the Eastern refineries pay world price to import from Arabia.

I hope the Alberta crude will come in a bit cheaper, doesnt have to be much
cheaper, and then Irving can turn around and screw the Maritimers for the difference.

[kilroy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

kilroy kilroy:

PJB PJB:

kilroy. I agree that mankind is destroying the only home that we have but we are living in a world that is greedy and self driven so what do we do?

My opinion is that we can let it be understood that Canadians are willing to work it out so we make a beneficial impact on our part of the world. Using less, R and D'ing alternative energy, figuring out renewable resource potentials, there could even be a lot of credit in it for us.

You know, as much as I'm a greenie treehugger, I wish other greenie treehuggers would bring more to the discussion than the vague pie in the sky dreams that address and amount to nothing.

After dumping on the way we do business, do you have something more substantive to bring in? For example, in BC, do we want to increase our dependence of green hydro power to the detriment of ecosystems that we destroy when we flood valleys or salmon habitats we destroy when we dam rivers - like the 100 or so kms of river valley for the Site C dam?

Green does not in any way shape or form equal good always. It also has a cost, but the lobbyists conveniently overlook that.

Maybe you should spend less time hugging trees and go to some of the environment/energy/agriculture/forestry/fisheries/mining/sustainability meetings that are going on. Vague pie in the sky is good as far as it goes, but it goes way beyond that.

My opinion on Site C is that we don't need it anymore now than we did back in the seventies when these discussions were getting going. When Canadian Sovereignty issues were being recognized, when conservation of resources was recognized as being a pursuit worth pursuing, when small personal energy options made their play only to be subsumed by large and less socially efficient power production.

The lobbyists forget that green has a cost? do you have a reference for where you have seen that if you haven't been taking part in the discussions?

[Canadian_Mind]

I would LOVE to see this go through for several reasons:

Alberta would be able to sell oilsands crude for more than they do now across the board (supply and demand), and the refineries would be able to purchase it for less than the world prices they pay now.

This, in turn, would make fuel in eastern Canada cheaper, way cheaper. To the order of 500 million+ dollars people can spend elsewhere in the economy. This would provide a much-needed bump to the service industry and personal savings.

You would also see an increase in blue collar jobs, and sustainment. Oil is not going away any time soon. So there is a gaurunteed career for some guy working at a refinery. He'd be more inclined to purchase a home, make investments, savings, etc. Not to mention that with the cheaper oil, the refineries wont have as much difficulty hiring. They know the money is there.

If enough demand is there for this new supply, they may even open previously closed refineries. More jobs.

Being in-house (we process our own and use our own oil), the only people we have to worry about dropping the "dirty oil" bomb on us is us. We can safely export ALL of our light sweet crude at top dollar and use the cheaper stuff for ourselves.

All this would lead to a more balanced national economy and bring us together as a country. Yes Western Canada still sees the most benifit, but now we reap the rewards of oil nationwide.

The only potential danger is a pipeline break, but that rarely occurs, and there are so many checks in place along a pipeline that any environmental damage would be minimal. I could also see this temporarily hurting the rail industry with the new demand for shipping oil via rail car, but if keystone doesn't go through, there will be plenty of demand for the service there.

I really hope this goes through, and the sooner the better. We all could use the benifit.

[martin14]

^^ +5

[Gunnair]

kilroy kilroy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

kilroy kilroy:

My opinion is that we can let it be understood that Canadians are willing to work it out so we make a beneficial impact on our part of the world. Using less, R and D'ing alternative energy, figuring out renewable resource potentials, there could even be a lot of credit in it for us.

You know, as much as I'm a greenie treehugger, I wish other greenie treehuggers would bring more to the discussion than the vague pie in the sky dreams that address and amount to nothing.

After dumping on the way we do business, do you have something more substantive to bring in? For example, in BC, do we want to increase our dependence of green hydro power to the detriment of ecosystems that we destroy when we flood valleys or salmon habitats we destroy when we dam rivers - like the 100 or so kms of river valley for the Site C dam?

Green does not in any way shape or form equal good always. It also has a cost, but the lobbyists conveniently overlook that.

Maybe you should spend less time hugging trees and go to some of the environment/energy/agriculture/forestry/fisheries/mining/sustainability meetings that are going on. Vague pie in the sky is good as far as it goes, but it goes way beyond that.

My opinion on Site C is that we don't need it anymore now than we did back in the seventies when these discussions were getting going. When Canadian Sovereignty issues were being recognized, when conservation of resources was recognized as being a pursuit worth pursuing, when small personal energy options made their play only to be subsumed by large and less socially efficient power production.

The lobbyists forget that green has a cost? do you have a reference for where you have seen that if you haven't been taking part in the discussions?

Are you serious? The suggestion that you are doing any of this after posting what amounts to a novice first year Greenpeace subscriber mantra is ludicrous.

Yes, lobbyists forget green has a cost. Wind farms have an environmental cost. Solar farms have an environmental cost. Do you honestly need it spoon fed to you?

[kilroy]

andyt andyt:

No way Canada can have a meaningful effect on CO2 emissions all by itself. All it would do is to impoverish us. And, no way the world will ever get it together to reduce CO2 enough to make a real impact. Too many people being born every minute, all of whom want at least the living standard we have. What Canada can do by itself tho is learn to adapt to the change.

The trouble with that is that there will be no "the change" to get adapted to. Change will be as mercurial as the weather, As a farmer I can prepare for what averages are going by year to year and seasons through. But from what I have seen that is going to be as useless as ... well I can't think of anything that useless. Storms, droughts, heat waves, floods as regular as clouds, dry spells, warm days, rainy days etc. Think about what that is going to do to food production.

Global warming acidifies the oceans, making fishing a redundant past-time, increases the spread in the viable ecos for insects and diseases. Forestry, agriculture, urban life, you name it, are going to feel those effects. And while it is coming down, we will potentially be using up our oul at an ever increasing rate, making coping/adapting even harder.

How is not using the oil as fast as we are going to impoverish us? What we don't use will still be there in the ground. This is an asset. If you have money in your pocket do you spend it as fast as you can with no thought for tomorrow?

[bossdog]

Tehehe - tree huggers. They're cute with their granola bars in their back pockets and wool socks in teva's. I see them get heli rescued daily out here in the rockies.

They're adorable. They bring balance. I love it when they dress up like mountain goats and dance around parking lots. We need more of that. That's cute and fun. Everybody likes dancing mountain goats. They make people smile.

[Caelon]

kilroy kilroy:

The trouble with that is that there will be no "the change" to get adapted to. Change will be as mercurial as the weather, As a farmer I can prepare for what averages are going by year to year and seasons through. But from what I have seen that is going to be as useless as ... well I can't think of anything that useless. Storms, droughts, heat waves, floods as regular as clouds, dry spells, warm days, rainy days etc. Think about what that is going to do to food production.

Global warming acidifies the oceans, making fishing a redundant past-time, increases the spread in the viable ecos for insects and diseases. Forestry, agriculture, urban life, you name it, are going to feel those effects. And while it is coming down, we will potentially be using up our oul at an ever increasing rate, making coping/adapting even harder.

How is not using the oil as fast as we are going to impoverish us? What we don't use will still be there in the ground. This is an asset. If you have money in your pocket do you spend it as fast as you can with no thought for tomorrow?

Are you really that naive?? First tell me one time in the last billion years there has not been climate change. It has been much colder and much warner than current temperatures no matter where you currently reside. Adaptation has been the rule for all biological entities.

Next test. As you are sitting infront of your computer reach out with both arms. Tell me one thing you can physically touch that did not depend on petroleum. Come on just one thing. I will even let you walk from room to room in your home. Found anything yet?

[kilroy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I would LOVE to see this go through for several reasons:

Alberta would be able to sell oilsands crude for more than they do now across the board (supply and demand), and the refineries would be able to purchase it for less than the world prices they pay now.

This, in turn, would make fuel in eastern Canada cheaper, way cheaper. To the order of 500 million+ dollars people can spend elsewhere in the economy. This would provide a much-needed bump to the service industry and personal savings.

Do you have any stats for that, or is it wishful thinking? What is the price in the maritimes for gasoline? What makes you think that as mentioned earlier the Irvings won't simply pocket the differnce?

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You would also see an increase in blue collar jobs, and sustainment. Oil is not going away any time soon. So there is a gaurunteed career for some guy working at a refinery. He'd be more inclined to purchase a home, make investments, savings, etc. Not to mention that with the cheaper oil, the refineries wont have as much difficulty hiring. They know the money is there.

If enough demand is there for this new supply, they may even open previously closed refineries. More jobs.

More jobs than what? Conservation has the potential to create way more jobs than a few possible extra jobs at a refinery. Solar energy has a lot of good blue collar jobs jut waiting to be brought on. As I understand it the Alberta government aren't into building a pipeline anywhere unless they think they can get world price for oil. And can you imagine the uproar if someone starts staking out a right of way through cottage country?

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Being in-house (we process our own and use our own oil), the only people we have to worry about dropping the "dirty oil" bomb on us is us. We can safely export ALL of our light sweet crude at top dollar and use the cheaper stuff for ourselves.

All this would lead to a more balanced national economy and bring us together as a country. Yes Western Canada still sees the most benifit, but now we reap the rewards of oil nationwide.

The only potential danger is a pipeline break, but that rarely occurs, and there are so many checks in place along a pipeline that any environmental damage would be minimal. I could also see this temporarily hurting the rail industry with the new demand for shipping oil via rail car, but if keystone doesn't go through, there will be plenty of demand for the service there.

I really hope this goes through, and the sooner the better. We all could use the benifit.

So how do you feel about dropping the dirty oil bomb on ourselves? There are benefits to the idea, keeping it in Canada etc, but there are also costs which haven't been completely worked out yet. Shouldn't there be an analysis like that before we get all hyped up about it?

[bossdog]

Why do you hate our troops?

[Gunnair]

bossdog bossdog:

Tehehe - tree huggers. They're cute with their granola bars in their back pockets and wool socks in teva's. I see them get heli rescued daily out here in the rockies.

They're adorable. They bring balance. I love it when they dress up like mountain goats and dance around parking lots. We need more of that. That's cute and fun. Everybody likes dancing mountain goats. They make people smile.

As a tree hugger, I rather like my granola...especially when I was patrolling Douglas Channel in an MCM ship or even Grenville channel helping hard ass rightie fisherman off the rocks...even if they were Yanks.

[kilroy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Are you serious? The suggestion that you are doing any of this after posting what amounts to a novice first year Greenpeace subscriber mantra is ludicrous.

Yes, lobbyists forget green has a cost. Wind farms have an environmental cost. Solar farms have an environmental cost. Do you honestly need it spoon fed to you?

Tough to go farther than that Gunnair? C'mon man give it a shot. Let's compare these costs we speak of. A wind farm uses less land than a hydro project to generate equal amounts of power.

Solar housing doesn't have to have photovoltaic to be much more efficient and therefore less costly than Natural gas generation.

Aside from the pollution associated with lung cancer, building deterioration, water use and the cost of using a non-renewable energy source like oil, we are bringing on climate change. It is true that I don't know what those costs are per litre of gasoline. But I am somewhat accepting of my ignorance because no one else does either. Time to do that homework.

[Gunnair]

kilroy kilroy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Are you serious? The suggestion that you are doing any of this after posting what amounts to a novice first year Greenpeace subscriber mantra is ludicrous.

Yes, lobbyists forget green has a cost. Wind farms have an environmental cost. Solar farms have an environmental cost. Do you honestly need it spoon fed to you?

Tough to go farther than that Gunnair? C'mon man give it a shot. Let's compare these costs we speak of. A wind farm uses less land than a hydro project to generate equal amounts of power.

Solar housing doesn't have to have photovoltaic to be much more efficient and therefore less costly than Natural gas generation.

Aside from the pollution associated with lung cancer, building deterioration, water use and the cost of using a non-renewable energy source like oil, we are bringing on climate change. It is true that I don't know what those costs are per litre of gasoline. But I am somewhat accepting of my ignorance because no one else does either. Time to do that homework.

I know you tap out quick these days, but I submitted that Green projects had environmental costs and you ignored that.

Are you positing that Green energy has zero environmental cost?

[kilroy]

Caelon Caelon:

kilroy kilroy:

The trouble with that is that there will be no "the change" to get adapted to. Change will be as mercurial as the weather, As a farmer I can prepare for what averages are going by year to year and seasons through. But from what I have seen that is going to be as useless as ... well I can't think of anything that useless. Storms, droughts, heat waves, floods as regular as clouds, dry spells, warm days, rainy days etc. Think about what that is going to do to food production.

Global warming acidifies the oceans, making fishing a redundant past-time, increases the spread in the viable ecos for insects and diseases. Forestry, agriculture, urban life, you name it, are going to feel those effects. And while it is coming down, we will potentially be using up our oul at an ever increasing rate, making coping/adapting even harder.

How is not using the oil as fast as we are going to impoverish us? What we don't use will still be there in the ground. This is an asset. If you have money in your pocket do you spend it as fast as you can with no thought for tomorrow?

Are you really that naive?? First tell me one time in the last billion years there has not been climate change. It has been much colder and much warner than current temperatures no matter where you currently reside. Adaptation has been the rule for all biological entities.

Are you really that ignorant?? First tell me of one time in the last billion years when the climate change has been as fast as it is projected to occur over the next hundred years if we don't do anything about it. Adaptation for humans in the last hundred thousand years has been rather unforgiving, even at the relatively slow rate of change we experienced prior to this.

Caelon Caelon:

Next test. As you are sitting infront of your computer reach out with both arms. Tell me one thing you can physically touch that did not depend on petroleum. Come on just one thing. I will even let you walk from room to room in your home. Found anything yet?

This is a good point, and a tough one to find answers for. I don't think it negates the value of the argument I was making however that we would be well advised to use our petroleum resources as wisely an efficiently as we can. In fact it justifies my argument very nicely, thank you.

[kilroy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

kilroy kilroy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Are you serious? The suggestion that you are doing any of this after posting what amounts to a novice first year Greenpeace subscriber mantra is ludicrous.

Yes, lobbyists forget green has a cost. Wind farms have an environmental cost. Solar farms have an environmental cost. Do you honestly need it spoon fed to you?

Tough to go farther than that Gunnair? C'mon man give it a shot. Let's compare these costs we speak of. A wind farm uses less land than a hydro project to generate equal amounts of power.

Solar housing doesn't have to have photovoltaic to be much more efficient and therefore less costly than Natural gas generation.

Aside from the pollution associated with lung cancer, building deterioration, water use and the cost of using a non-renewable energy source like oil, we are bringing on climate change. It is true that I don't know what those costs are per litre of gasoline. But I am somewhat accepting of my ignorance because no one else does either. Time to do that homework.

I know you tap out quick these days, but I submitted that Green projects had environmental costs and you ignored that.

Are you positing that Green energy has zero environmental cost?

I have said it before Gunnair, if you can't keep up to what is being said why don't you find a thread more to your liking?