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)
 
Old 09-15-2018, 07:28 PM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,368,849 times
Reputation: 13325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Do you think that you might feel differently if you had retired to a nice beachfront home here on the coast?

IMO it's easier to want to take risks, if they don't directly affect you

Come over to the dark side BruSan...LOL
Nat; I'd prefer a pipeline coming east all the way to an actual refinery built somewhere here in my neck of the woods. Why should it be totally out of the question for a depot on Lake Ontario or somewhere in the St. Lawrence. All sectors of the economy carry some environmental risk. Make everyone have a dog in the hunt.

I remember well the Exxon Valdez catastrophe and the resultant damage. No one would deliberately "risk" a repeat, but does that mean no more tankers...anywhere....ever? Everybody's coastline is precious to them but so is the wealth and continued prosperity of the entire country.

Sit down and demand over the top compliance by governments to all reasonable suggestions to mitigate the risks, but demanding there be "no risk" is simply not going to fly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2018, 08:10 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,227 posts, read 6,579,297 times
Reputation: 14178
Don't forget that we are already taking all the risks and have been doing so for decades. We already have around 50 tankers per year moving oil through here. But now the call is for 400 bigger tankers a year, we're being asked to increase those existing risks and the numbers of tankers by eight fold.



.

Last edited by Zoisite; 09-15-2018 at 08:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:12 AM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,368,849 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Don't forget that we are already taking all the risks and have been doing so for decades. We already have around 50 tankers per year moving oil through here. But now the call is for 400 bigger tankers a year, we're being asked to increase those existing risks and the numbers of tankers by eight fold.



.
Understood; what other way to move that particular crude in amounts the economy is requiring would you suggest?
Different location for the end of the pipe?
Continue and expand upon rail?
Leave it in the ground until the market is gone through growth of other alternative energy?

With getting the crude to a foreign market being the end game; what are the solutions that serve to be economically feasible but at the same time do not hold any risk?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:45 AM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,261 posts, read 4,496,801 times
Reputation: 5593
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Nat; I'd prefer a pipeline coming east all the way to an actual refinery built somewhere here in my neck of the woods. Why should it be totally out of the question for a depot on Lake Ontario or somewhere in the St. Lawrence. All sectors of the economy carry some environmental risk. Make everyone have a dog in the hunt.

I remember well the Exxon Valdez catastrophe and the resultant damage. No one would deliberately "risk" a repeat, but does that mean no more tankers...anywhere....ever? Everybody's coastline is precious to them but so is the wealth and continued prosperity of the entire country.

Sit down and demand over the top compliance by governments to all reasonable suggestions to mitigate the risks, but demanding there be "no risk" is simply not going to fly.
Everything has a risk.

I agree about going east with the pipeline too.

Crazy that in Canada nothing can get done....too much red tape,
in that case Quebec opposed it.

Not a fan of communisim but ....in China things get done.
Look at all they’ve done over the last 20 or 30 years. Amazing.

Even our Trans Canada Highway is pretty sad....compared to what it could be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Canada
3,901 posts, read 2,726,232 times
Reputation: 5084
Spuds become latest trade irritant as U.S. senator calls for probe of alleged Canadian potato dumping:

https://nationalpost.com/news/senato...rade-irritants
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 01:50 PM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,368,849 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
Spuds become latest trade irritant as U.S. senator calls for probe of alleged Canadian potato dumping:

https://nationalpost.com/news/senato...rade-irritants
It never ends with them claiming victimhood. We can't win. With their dollar gaining strength against ours, you'd think they'd understand our exports are going to be more attractive against higher priced alternatives.

Jeez, every single entity who feels they've been unfairly treated is running to Washington and whining like a cheap, garage sale leaf blower and those idiots now running the asylum are lending them an ear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,685 posts, read 8,747,108 times
Reputation: 7299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI View Post
Everything has a risk.

I agree about going east with the pipeline too.

Crazy that in Canada nothing can get done....too much red tape,
in that case Quebec opposed it.

Not a fan of communisim but ....in China things get done.
Look at all they’ve done over the last 20 or 30 years. Amazing.

Even our Trans Canada Highway is pretty sad....compared to what it could be.
Yup, getting things done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQVxQLB8YY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNufDaWbm-s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2018, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,585 posts, read 11,074,156 times
Reputation: 10295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Do you think that you might feel differently if you had retired to a nice beachfront home here on the coast?

IMO it's easier to want to take risks, if they don't directly affect you

Come over to the dark side BruSan...LOL
Does a place in Woss count?


Personally I think Burnaby is an absolute crap place for a terminal, but you play with the cards you're dealt. The preferred spot was Bella-Coola and straight out to open ocean, but multiple native issues killed all that, so the path of least resistance is an existing right-of-way. I think the thing that I find most frustrating is that the response from the BC government is a flat out no, as opposed to creative thinking. I mean they had no problem coming up with a plan and approval for their own gas pipeline, when it directly lines their coffers, so that's where the rub is coming from?


Yes, absolutely tankers are a risk, but historically BC Ferries are a bigger risk for leaking bunker oil after they try and go off-roading than a tanker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2018, 01:23 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,227 posts, read 6,579,297 times
Reputation: 14178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Does a place in Woss count?


Personally I think Burnaby is an absolute crap place for a terminal, but you play with the cards you're dealt. The preferred spot was Bella-Coola and straight out to open ocean, but multiple native issues killed all that, so the path of least resistance is an existing right-of-way. I think the thing that I find most frustrating is that the response from the BC government is a flat out no, as opposed to creative thinking. I mean they had no problem coming up with a plan and approval for their own gas pipeline, when it directly lines their coffers, so that's where the rub is coming from?


Yes, absolutely tankers are a risk, but historically BC Ferries are a bigger risk for leaking bunker oil after they try and go off-roading than a tanker.
What's the final destination of the gas in that gas pipeline? Is it for domestic use or is it being exported to over-seas destinations?


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2018, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,585 posts, read 11,074,156 times
Reputation: 10295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
What's the final destination of the gas in that gas pipeline? Is it for domestic use or is it being exported to over-seas destinations?


.
Export. Kitimat. Along with new LNG terminals.
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

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