Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

It has nothing to do with popularity - it has to do with reality.

Why should anyone sit on a resource worth hundreds of billions of dollars when there is no replacement in sight for it?

It's akin to telling Ontario to immediately stop manufacturing cars with IC engines, because we probably won't need them in twenty to thirty years (assuming manufacturers will eventually shift to electric/hydrogen powered cars).

As long as the market wants a product (and a corporation can make a profit off of its production), it will get made.

I agree it would be great if we could stop using oil and transition to hydrogen or fusion or whatever it is that will replace oil, but the fact is it is a decade or two of R&D (as well as billions of dollars), and probably a couple TRILLION dollars to transition over from oil to the next thing.

Frankly, I'd love a hydrogen powered car (assuming it was safe and reliable), but that is at least a couple of decades away.

   

Pretty much this.

On the subject of this particular Pipeline, I don't care either way. The US will buy this oil either way, regardless of all the issues surrounding it. It needs vast quantities of oil and simply is unable to supply its' own demand. So it can complain about all the other issues all it wants, but until it changes from oil to some other energy source, it simply has no choice in the matter.

That said, we certainly should make the effort to "Clean up" the production of this oil. I still think a Nuclear Power Plant is the best way of doing this. Switching from Nuclear/Electric from the Fossil Fuels currently being used will not only decrease emissions, but it will also provide a longterm Electrical Source that can be used Domestically and/or Exported as well after the oil has run out or is no longer in high enough demand.

   

In the end, I'd prefer more oil refineries in Canada, but, barring that, I'd like to have a safe method to transport oil to our biggest customers. Even if we develop refineries, we'll never reach the level of already existing oil refining infrastructure in the United States without a huge monetary expense.

   

no. refine it here, keep it here. commit to rolling some of the profit into alternate energy markets that (hopefully) take hold in the next century.

..and let the u.s. burn 'clean' opec product..

   

Good post, Scott. Don't be discouraged.

Leave it in the Earth as Lemmy wrote.

Interesting this emphasis on "jobs." It is perhaps too profound for the ayes to comprehend that thee creation of this type of job has already cost Canada at least as many jobs. Permanent, well paying manufacturing jobs that are gone with the oil.

   

YES, because risks are low and tolerable. Boo!

   

I wouldn't mind working on one of the pipeline expansions. It'd be a nice uninterrupted flow of work for a change, as opposed the usual poorly organized gong show of constuction that always happens on the plant sites these days. Pipelines are fun by comparison. Dig trench. Fit-up. Weld. X-ray. Coat. Bury. Repeat ad infinitum.

Of course you know exactly what'll happen as soon as the line crossed into the US. The Canadian side will be top-notch quality, fully meeting all code material and construction requirements. On the US side it'll probably be put together from cardboard tubing and duct tape, with all the federal/state/county regulators being threatened/paid-off to look the other way. After the oil rig explosion last spring something similiar happening on the US side of the line is all but inevitable.

   

There's what, FIVE of them mothballed in Burnaby/Port Moody... because they've been pumping gas refined in Alberta through the pipleine for years.
For half the kids in my high school, Dad worked at one of them. We worked summer jobs in them.

   

Okay, Scott Yee, you've started two relatively interesting threads. How about an introduction? Are you for real or are you a kook? Which is it, 'cause that constitution thing has me leaning strongly "kook"? Convince me you're not a kook.

   

   

We're all kooks in our own ways.

I'm against keystone, I don't like the risks inherent in shipping raw bitumen down a pipe that far and don't see the point in exporting jobs outside of the province.

I also have enough reservations regarding the environmental impact of the oil sands on wildlife and fresh water as it is without exporting the potential problems to other jurisdiction.

   

The thing is, people who are "crazy", don't know that they are crazy. So how would I know, if I am a "kook" or not?

As for me, I am 28y/o. I have ran for public office 8 times. Twice for Mayor of Vancouver and Toronto.

I have stopped running for public office, because I am an independent, and running as an independent, means I will only lose.

If the media would have given me equal press access, then I wouldn't mind losing so much, but to run and lose, and have nobody know your positions, then what's the point?

After the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Toronto Sun & Star, etc, etc, ignored me about the creation of an International Government, I then decided I had to use YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and post on, online forums to get my message out there.

I am not shocked they have chosen to ignore me, but you can't tell me, the creation of an International Government is not news worthy.

You know the shit politicians try to peddle, especially during election time. Now yes, it is important to cover it, because they are in-power. But because most of it is spin and shit, when I propose a real idea, I like to think the media would cover it.

And governments should run on their record, not what they will promise to do, if they are re-elected.

I always think to myself, when I see a government running for re-election: how come you didn't already do that? Or did you just come up with this great idea of yours, but didn't have the time to install it?

The real reason: because they did jack shit as government, so they can't run on their record, so they have to run on promises.

   

I never suggested you were crazy. I suggested you were a kook. You're doing little on this forum to alter my gut instinct. Not judging, just sayin'.

   

It won't be all that steady and it will be over in less than a year just like the Alliance Pipeline. Most guys will only get 6 to 8 months of work out of it.



I’d have to agree with Boot’s original post, we need to upgrade more product here. It’s all most laughable that we ship bitumen down south and then turn around and ship condie from the US to Alberta so we can thin the bitumen down enough to make it transportable.

One thing I’d like people to get straight though is that there is a big difference between refining and upgrading. Upgrading more in Alberta would be beneficial and possibly more practical than what we’re doing now but refining is a completely different story. It doesn’t make sense to refine here and then ship it since there are hundreds of bi-products created.

One thing I would love to see Trans Canada do though is use more “Canadian” companies. Lately the only thing Canadian on Trans Canada jobs has been the “Canada” in their name. They utilize way to many large US firms on the construction end of things.

   

Fine. I am the "Kookie Monster". Mmm... "kookies".

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next