U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2018, 05:41 AM
 
Location: New York Area
15,948 posts, read 6,276,213 times
Reputation: 12383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Your government is too erratic and inconsistent to only rely on it. If it had continuity of approach we wouldn't really be having this discussion in the first place.
Effectively we do especially if the infrastructure is built during business-friendly and Canada-friendly periods such as the present and next seven years. It makes a lot more sense than pushing a pipeline up vertiginous mountains and to a place with even more erratic politics, BC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2018, 07:58 AM
 
18,294 posts, read 10,386,738 times
Reputation: 13359
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
It seems to me that the sensible solution is to continue routing nort-south through the U.S.
Well; that works to a degree, however most of that is oil purchased at below market prices by the U.S. as the result of NAFTA giving the U.S. preferential rates.

I believe the nonsense we saw with one minute approval of XL to then watch as it was blocked by Presidential decree with a lot of acrimony towards Canada thrown into the press only to now have it restart, gave us all a head's up about finding other markets and methods to reach them for Alberta's oil.

The more we can sell overseas, the higher the prices we can get for it.

Canada should be a lesson in NIMBY revulsion gone mad.

We should refine that bitumen at point of origin to then put it into pipes west....AND east for markets abroad and stop reliance upon the U.S. to buy all of it they might decide they want to refine and sell for profit.

Last edited by BruSan; 02-09-2018 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,693 posts, read 8,765,998 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
So the answer is no period is what i'm getting from the last few posts.. You land locked people just don't get it etc etc. If the expectation is that the risk must be 0 than yeah, I guess nothing will ever appease such a demand. Now if people want to be reasonable and discuss ways to minimize risk as much as possible using technology and innovation than that is a discussion worth happening. Bridging a gap isn't - you land locked people just don't get it and on the flip side banning B.C exports..
I'd say with some confidence, that some people who do not know the area don't get it. Kinder Morgan has a video of the pipeline....when it get's to Burnaby, the camera moves up to the sky. End of video. I believe they were also the ones that got criticized for an animation of the coastal route that simplified the coast, to make it look like an easy trip.

The media is playing this as boycotting dispute between BC and Alberta, but BC is boycotting nothing. BC is just want clarification on the clean-up process, since there seems to be some major disagreements on due diligence on the accuracy being given.

Yes there are some that don't want any increased tanker traffic regardless.

Perhaps if I put what is at stake into a Toronto frame of mind. Imagine that there was a substance that they wanted to move through the Toronto region that could potentially spill and ruin for years the environment around you. A spill ruins all of the Toronto Islands, all the beach front, all the ravine parks, closes the vast majority of parkland within the city, and could also possible destroy cottage country. It also destroys tourism and a major food source and industry ( here of course, that's fishing ).


That is what we are facing here.

Last edited by Natnasci; 02-09-2018 at 12:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,693 posts, read 8,765,998 times
Reputation: 7313
The other question, is how many jobs and for how long will this pipeline provide?
Once it's built, very few will be working.

...and of course...how good is this for the planet overall? Selling out by investing in an energy source that is not going to be the major source much longer? For what? To make an oil company richer?

Last edited by Natnasci; 02-09-2018 at 01:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 01:22 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,260 posts, read 6,594,669 times
Reputation: 14273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post


....... I believe they were also the ones that got criticized for an animation of the coastal route that simplified the coast, to make it look like an easy trip......

Yeah, that animation was a joke, it made it look like there were no islands and no inlets. No mention of the stormy waters. No show in their animation of the shallower waters and dangerous submerged hull-ripping rocks and literally a maze of multiple hundreds of islands that have to be navigated through along the west coast. The list below only mentions a couple of hundred of the larger named islands, it doesn't include the many more smaller non-human inhabited or privately owned islands that might number in the thousands and are all part and parcel of the crucial maritime environment. Far too many to show on a video map and can only be best seen and their numbers comprehended from a satellite view. People who haven't seen all the islands and all the thousands of inlets with their own eyes just don't get it. The coastlines of the islands themselves would quadruple the amount of actual mainland coastline of BC if they are added in to the equation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itish_Columbia


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,693 posts, read 8,765,998 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Yeah, that animation was a joke, it made it look like there were no islands and no inlets. No mention of the stormy waters. No show in their animation of the shallower waters and dangerous submerged hull-ripping rocks and literally a maze of multiple hundreds of islands that have to be navigated through along the west coast. The list below only mentions a couple of hundred of the larger named islands, it doesn't include the many more smaller non-human inhabited or privately owned islands that might number in the thousands and are all part and parcel of the crucial maritime environment. Far too many to show on a video map and can only be best seen and their numbers comprehended from a satellite view. People who haven't seen all the islands and all the thousands of inlets with their own eyes just don't get it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itish_Columbia


.
Another issue BC has, is apparently none of the emergency plans take into consideration, earthquakes and tsunamis. I'd have to research further though on this, as it sounds incredible.

I think it's too easy for people who don't live here to truly understand what is at risk. That is not an insult to their intelligence, it's just human nature to be less concerned about something that isn't your backyard.

Yes, cleaning up the thousands upon thousands of inlets, plus hundreds upon hundreds of islands, is much more difficult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 01:45 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,260 posts, read 6,594,669 times
Reputation: 14273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post

Yes, cleaning up the thousands upon thousands of inlets, plus hundreds upon hundreds of islands, is much more difficult.

Beyond difficult Nat. It would be impossible...... cataclysmic.


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 04:18 PM
 
Location: New York Area
15,948 posts, read 6,276,213 times
Reputation: 12383
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
The more we can sell overseas, the higher the prices we can get for it.
No. There is one world price for oil; only differences in grades. In the absence of price controls (which have problems of their own) the price paid is identical. The only difference is transportation, which is a deduct from the price received by the producer. Oil is sold a an "f.o.b." price meaning the shipper pays the producer a market price. F.O.B. means "free on board."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,149,109 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
I'd say with some confidence, that some people who do not know the area don't get it. Kinder Morgan has a video of the pipeline....when it get's to Burnaby, the camera moves up to the sky. End of video. I believe they were also the ones that got criticized for an animation of the coastal route that simplified the coast, to make it look like an easy trip.

The media is playing this as boycotting dispute between BC and Alberta, but BC is boycotting nothing. BC is just want clarification on the clean-up process, since there seems to be some major disagreements on due diligence on the accuracy being given.

Yes there are some that don't want any increased tanker traffic regardless.

Perhaps if I put what is at stake into a Toronto frame of mind. Imagine that there was a substance that they wanted to move through the Toronto region that could potentially spill and ruin for years the environment around you. A spill ruins all of the Toronto Islands, all the beach front, all the ravine parks, closes the vast majority of parkland within the city, and could also possible destroy cottage country. It also destroys tourism and a major food source and industry ( here of course, that's fishing ).


That is what we are facing here.
No I get that there is environmental impact if s**t hits the fan and no you did not have to put it into a Toronto frame of mind lol..I get It - I guess the question is, is there the potential for a solution in this that is agreeable or are people willing to sit down and discuss that possibility. I totally get B.C wanting very detailed information on what this is all about. If I were there i'd want the same thing too or really any community/communities/regions that would be impacted.

If the answer is simply going to be no it is too much of a risk regardless of any plan or any solutions that would possibly address concerns than really - it could be a case where it is either dead in the water or the Feds will try and ram it through and override local concerns. So as I said before, I think it would be more productive for all parties to get involved and try and work this out. The operative word is try as opposed to what appears to be going on now.

As for if this were happening in Lake Ontario - i'd be saying the same thing because I know how important this project is not only on a regional level, but to the entire country including B.C.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,149,109 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Effectively we do especially if the infrastructure is built during business-friendly and Canada-friendly periods such as the present and next seven years. It makes a lot more sense than pushing a pipeline up vertiginous mountains and to a place with even more erratic politics, BC.
Sorry Jbgusa but you would be living in outer space if you think Canadians feel as though we see the U.S as a reliable trading partner under Trump. Trudeau may put on a smile and say publicly that he has a productive and good relationship with Trump but we all know the reality - Trumps Presidency has thus far been a disaster for Canada/U.S relations. I'm talking politically of course, people are people and there is no ill will towards the American people but as far as the national politic it is not good and there is a strong feeling here that the U.S is no longer a reliable or trustworthy partner on matters of trade. I don't think I am being out of place or exaggerating that whatsoever. Some people will say the above isn't 'diplomatic' but I think it is actually real sentiment based on real action and real behaviours of the Trump administration.

We will always be neighbours and have a large trading relationship by necessity I think, but it'll be a long time the government in this country will trust that the U.S is the reliable trading partner it was thought to be so yes, absolutely I stick by what I said regarding your government being erratic and inconsistent it its FP approach. Unilaterally slapping tariff after tariff after tariff on various Canadian industries one after the other after the other and in short order will do that. Publicly saying that your trading relationship has been a 'Disaster' and publicly saying Canadians are difficult is not a great way to develop trust with your friendly neighbour to the north now is it. C'mon get real!

As for relying on the U.S to refine oil or relying on it to get our oil overseas and only it I say a big balls on that! Why should we put all our eggs in the Trump basket.. Maybe you do but most of the world wouldn't..

Last edited by fusion2; 02-09-2018 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top