Thanks or taking a stand, Jack! - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 5Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of (permalink) Old 04-25-2018, 11:32 AM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Candy Sack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,590
Default Thanks or taking a stand, Jack!

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/who-...line-1.4621092
jefffski likes this.
Candy Sack is offline  
Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2018, 01:25 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

Do these people not understand that the oil WILL GET TO THE HARBOR, one way or another?
If not by (safe) pipeline, then by dangerous rail or tanker trucks...all of which produce more of that awful CO2 that they are concerned about.

You CANNOT simply stop using fossil fuels overnight...it will cripple the entire economy...and did you know that without fossil fuels, of the world's population will perish, due to lack of food supply. It's easy to "protest" when you know that you won't be in the 50% that will starve.

So, rather than (illegally) protest and blockade against it....what do the shrub-huggers offer as a VIABLE solution to getting the raw product from Alberta to our ports or better yet, to the markets that are buying it and driving our economy?
treord8 and Gasher like this.

Last edited by TheShadow; 04-26-2018 at 09:53 AM.
TheShadow is offline  
post #3 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2018, 02:21 AM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Gibsons, BC
Posts: 93
Default

"Now most of the people who object to this pipeline, I believe, are not saying we shut down the pipeline. We're not saying stop using fossil fuels. We're not saying that we go back to the 17th century and burn candles. That's not what's being said. What is being said is that we do not start to build fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 60 years when that will not meet the way forward for Western society." - dude who was interviewed, Jack Bryceland
woodland.telegraph is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2018, 09:52 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

Yeah...I read what he said, now read what I said:
"So, rather than (illegally) protest and blockade against it....what do the shrub-huggers offer as a VIABLE solution to getting the raw product from Alberta to our ports or better yet, to the markets that are buying it and driving our economy?"

This isn't going away overnight...and the pipeline construction will create more JOBS, that fuel (pardon the pun) the economy. If the protesters think for one minute, that (illegally) blockading this pipeline, will convince Asia to reconsider its dependence on fossil fuel, they are sadly mistaken. If we don't provide the materials they need, they will simply go elsewhere.

Last edited by TheShadow; 04-26-2018 at 09:57 AM.
TheShadow is offline  
post #5 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2018, 04:08 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodland.telegraph View Post
"Now most of the people who object to this pipeline, I believe, are not saying we shut down the pipeline. We're not saying stop using fossil fuels. We're not saying that we go back to the 17th century and burn candles. That's not what's being said. What is being said is that we do not start to build fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 60 years when that will not meet the way forward for Western society." - dude who was interviewed, Jack Bryceland
Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. All projections call for increasing global demand for oil over the next several decades (albeit at a slowing rate of growth). These projections factor in Paris Agreement targets and the rapid growth of electric vehicles (which even under the most rosy assumptions will not account for over 50% of vehicle sales for another 20-25 years). The reality is that the world will demand more oil over the coming years, and it can either be supplied by countries that actually care about and enforce environmental, health, safety and labour standards, or countries that don't. Would we rather those dollars go to Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Canada? If we desire to displace less ethically produced oil products, we need to bring them to market, and the safest way to do that is via pipeline

What's odd is that the Government of BC seems fine to continue to expand coal exports (Port of Vancouver is the largest exporter of coal in North America) even though global demand for coal is in decline (much of that is due to conversion over to natural gas)
treord8 likes this.
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #6 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2018, 10:29 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

Global National news tonight shows an alternate route that Kinder Morgan has planned if these blockades persist.
The new route will go north through Alberta, then across the Yukon and into Alaska where it will merge with the existing Alaskan pipeline, to deliver the product to Anchorage for shipping.

Therefore these protests will accomplish NOTHING, other than costing the BC economy jobs and millions of dollars of revenue that could go into education, healthcare, social-programs that finance/feed/clothe/shelter the professional protesters, etc.
TheShadow is offline  
post #7 of (permalink) Old 04-27-2018, 02:39 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada.
Posts: 168
Default

A lot of focus is being put on BC vs Alberta. Very few people are talking about the real delays which are primarily Kinder Morgan, failing to meet the requirements set by the NEB for the federal approval, and doing a piss poor job of planning the whole pipeline, deceiving both us and their investors. Seriously, if this pipeline goes in, it should be done as safe as possible. Jobs and economy are all good, but there are very good reasons the environmentalists are upset, and the cost of disaster cleanup (never mind the long term impact) far outweighs the economical benefits of pushing it through nilly willy. Protests aside, all the delays are legal, and we don't want some texas cowboys trampling all over our neighbourhood for what essentially is their profit.

And to add insult to injury, the extra oil isn't destined for BC, but for foreign markets, while BC gets to pay the increased pipeline transportation costs in the form of fuel increases. Can you blame us for being upset?
woodland.telegraph likes this.
Lythe is offline  
post #8 of (permalink) Old 04-28-2018, 04:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

https://globalnews.ca/news/4174275/t...pe-alberta-cn/

Lucky this time....when it's full of crude or bitumen, it won't be so pretty. The rail lines through BC wind along the Fraser and Thompson rivers...imagine THAT mess....

Pipelines don't de-rail.
TheShadow is offline  
post #9 of (permalink) Old 04-29-2018, 10:25 PM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Gibsons, BC
Posts: 93
Default

Kelly + The Shadow, I have read your comments above and have taken the time to consider your perspectives. I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your passion on the issue.

I am curious about your reading on this article by Jeffrey Sachs in the Globe & Mail that I just came across: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...energy-sector/

He actually reminded me of your point Kelly about declining oil consumption as we move towards 2050. Does Sachs have a point about how we should focus on sustainable energy alternatives based on the fact that the price of bitumen may be devalued in the future?
woodland.telegraph is offline  
post #10 of (permalink) Old 04-30-2018, 02:13 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodland.telegraph View Post
Kelly + The Shadow, I have read your comments above and have taken the time to consider your perspectives. I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your passion on the issue.

I am curious about your reading on this article by Jeffrey Sachs in the Globe & Mail that I just came across: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...energy-sector/

He actually reminded me of your point Kelly about declining oil consumption as we move towards 2050. Does Sachs have a point about how we should focus on sustainable energy alternatives based on the fact that the price of bitumen may be devalued in the future?
A few thoughts, firstly it's not an either / or question. We do need to continue to focus on renewables and they reduction of overall carbon footprint. Renewables are going to continue to surge forward and make up an increasingly significant portion of our energy supply. They are growing fast, but on a fairly small comparative base (the numbers depend on if you include hydro or not). However I don't think many people realize just how intertwined the modern world is with the use of hydrocarbons. The demand that each and every one of us create through our daily choices. To put this in perspective, natural gas (in actual GW of capacity), grew faster in 2017 than renewables (renewables were greater percentage growth rate).


You don't have to believe me that demand for oil will continue to grow in coming decades. I can cite numerous studies such as the IEA (https://www.iea.org/weo2017/). We may wish it wasn't so, but there are no realistic scenarios at this point that doesn't show peak demand for oil any earlier than the 2040's. CO2 emissions growth will slow substantially as the energy mix changes and new technologies are introduced, but global demand will continue to grow.


Specifically from the Globe and Mail opinion piece. There are a few invalid assumptions
1. The vast bulk of increasing demand for energy and chemical feedstocks isn't going to come from the US, but rather Asia and Africa (Demand in Europe, Japan and North America are expected to decline) . Building transmission lines to the US doesn't address this. It is China, and more importantly, India where demand will continue to grow and they'll need to get their oil from somewhere. Like it or not, constraining Canada's ability to responsibly export oil, is a choice to put hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of despots and increased human misery.
2. Production costs within the sands have dropped substantially over the past 3 years with heavy investment in R&D and operational changes to reduce costs. Numbers currently average in the $40's per barrel, with some operators in the high $30's. Several are targeting low $30's or high $20's over the next few years. To assume that the technology used to extract bitumen will stand still while renewables leap forward doesn't reflect reality.
3. Synthetic production of aviation fuel entirely from renewables is no where near economical at this point in time, nor does the industry exist at any scale to meet demand. While technology in this area will continue to advance, so does the technology to extract and process bitumen
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #11 of (permalink) Old 04-30-2018, 05:26 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
5thhorseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Aldergrove, BC, Canada.
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellymcdonald78 View Post
Like it or not, constraining Canada's ability to responsibly export oil, is a choice to put hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of despots and increased human misery.
Could you elaborate on this? I keep hearing this kind of assertion but it`s never explained.
5thhorseman is offline  
post #12 of (permalink) Old 04-30-2018, 06:54 PM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

"The reality is that the world will demand more oil over the coming years, and it can either be supplied by countries that actually care about and enforce environmental, health, safety and labour standards, or countries that don't. Would we rather those dollars go to Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Canada? If we desire to displace less ethically produced oil products, we need to bring them to market, and the safest way to do that is via pipeline."

He did here.
Richard Vee is offline  
post #13 of (permalink) Old 04-30-2018, 07:53 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellymcdonald78 View Post
Like it or not, constraining Canada's ability to responsibly export oil, is a choice to put hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of despots and increased human misery.
I think every protester should read this....over and over and over, until they understand it....and more importantly, until they understand that their actions are leading to this exact scenario.
Are they against pipelines and tanker traffic EVERYWHERE, or just here?
TheShadow is offline  
post #14 of (permalink) Old 04-30-2018, 08:12 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShadow View Post
I think every protester should read this....over and over and over, until they understand it....and more importantly, until they understand that their actions are leading to this exact scenario.
Are they against pipelines and tanker traffic EVERYWHERE, or just here?

I'm sure many are against pipelines and tanker traffic everywhere. The difference is that while Trudeau, Notley and even Kinder Morgan will listen and work to engage stakeholders and make changes (maybe not to everyone's satisfaction). Folks like Putin, Maduro, and King Salman don't give two craps about what they think (beyond that the protests help reduce global competition for their product)
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #15 of (permalink) Old 05-01-2018, 03:21 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada.
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShadow View Post
I think every protester should read this....over and over and over, until they understand it....and more importantly, until they understand that their actions are leading to this exact scenario.
Are they against pipelines and tanker traffic EVERYWHERE, or just here?
My main problem is that oil companies are playing cowboy, focusing on profit and trashing our environment in their eagerness to get oil to the market. The biggest delays with the pipeline (the legal challenges may be ongoing, but aren't the cause for the delays) is Kinder Morgan itself. It's not even meeting the requirements the NEB set as part of permission to build this pipeline.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...filings-reveal

The oil will get to the market one way or another now or in future. The whole point is that when the demand subsides, we can look back and say yes, we still have a beautiful home, and we didn't destroy the natural beauty that is irreplaceable, and playing an ever increasing part in our economy

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/02/09/O...rta-Regulator/
If you look at Alberta, oil spills are a daily thing, with poor cleanup, and you don't have to research very hard to find evidence of contaminated land that isn't or can't get cleaned up. I don't want that to happen to my home, and if you look at the statistics for ocean spill crude cleanup, 15% recovery rate isn't very much, even land spills average only 43% recovery.
Lythe is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1