As for why refining doesn't happen up here in Canada, that's a question I've asked before too. Why are we building long pipelines to ship crude down to Texas, and then trucking the gas they refine back up to Canada? I'm honestly not sure if there's some sort of engineering reason or if it's just business or political or what.
Profit margin basically
a) Refineries have economies of scale like whoa, so funneling product to one big one down in Texas will yield more profit than lots of little ones do if the transit is cheap.
b) Back when hydrocarbons were pricey no one wanted to take the financial risk of building new refineries (since the margins were super low), that's changed now but the lifecycle for building one is long.
c) You want to build your refinery near to the coast so you can work with tankers, waterfront property in BC is expensive and mountainous (and might not be receptive to a big one), and Atlantic Canada is even further away than Texas (Most tankers are >Seawaymax).
Hmm. Fair enough. But it seems quite contrary to our national economic interests to be a banana republic, at least for oil. :eh:
It seems like the choice is bigger spills versus spills on fire?
I think why not improve the rails and rail cars to reduce its risks because smaller spill is preferable, even if it carries the risk of fire. Why not rails instead that can have more uses than the pipe and potentially have a longer economic life span due to that diversity? With technology that exists today, rail could be vastly improved to serve more than just the interests of oil while at the same time benefiting them.
Heck, why not go full hog and combine the two, make a low pressure tube maglev train system a couple decades from now?
I'm ok with pipelines, but the govt needs to impose much harsher fines/punishments for spills. Such that the pipeline companies would do things like double walled pipes with automatic leak detectors and more inspectors. As it is now its cheaper to just pay for the cleanup on spills.
I'm ok with pipelines, but the govt needs to impose much harsher fines/punishments for spills. Such that the pipeline companies would do things like double walled pipes with automatic leak detectors and more inspectors. As it is now its cheaper to just pay for the cleanup on spills.
I think that's the crux of it. An energy east pipeline would be good for the economy down east here, and provide a safer alternative to rail. The restrictions and monitoring have to be strict and enforceable. Also the focus should be on monitoring and report to make small leaks contained instead of ballooning into major ecological problems. IT's a good solution to the problem of increased load on an aging out of date rail system. I think it can benefit rail as well, because it can free up the rail lines to focus on other products that need shipping.
I want to address the economics of building refineries in canada. I think its a good idea to incorporate processing and "value added products" for times like this. When there is cheap oil this is a boom and a boon for all industry that use oil to make a product. And it also provides good full time jobs. We should have a balance, so that the effects of the price aren't as devastating as it is now. That required a long term planning and investment; something that was not done, because hey we can just ship oil away and make money. Good business sense does not always equate to a strong stable long term resilient large scale economy.
I'm ok with pipelines, but the govt needs to impose much harsher fines/punishments for spills. Such that the pipeline companies would do things like double walled pipes with automatic leak detectors and more inspectors. As it is now its cheaper to just pay for the cleanup on spills.
I think that's the crux of it. An energy east pipeline would be good for the economy down east here, and provide a safer alternative to rail. The restrictions and monitoring have to be strict and enforceable. Also the focus should be on monitoring and report to make small leaks contained instead of ballooning into major ecological problems. IT's a good solution to the problem of increased load on an aging out of date rail system. I think it can benefit rail as well, because it can free up the rail lines to focus on other products that need shipping.
I want to address the economics of building refineries in canada. I think its a good idea to incorporate processing and "value added products" for times like this. When there is cheap oil this is a boom and a boon for all industry that use oil to make a product. And it also provides good full time jobs. We should have a balance, so that the effects of the price aren't as devastating as it is now. That required a long term planning and investment; something that was not done, because hey we can just ship oil away and make money. Good business sense does not always equate to a strong stable long term resilient large scale economy.
If it wasn't for NAFTA, we could probably enforce some sort of refining quota on oil mined in Canada, but unfortunately, I think the only thing we could do legally is to provide "subsidies", which would mean jack-all when push comes to shove (see US Steel in Hamilton).
I'm ok with pipelines, but the govt needs to impose much harsher fines/punishments for spills. Such that the pipeline companies would do things like double walled pipes with automatic leak detectors and more inspectors. As it is now its cheaper to just pay for the cleanup on spills.
No Problem with that. Just to be clear, @AngelHedgie , the oil currently consumed in Quebec mostly comes from over seas and comes in tankers.
The Quebec mayors oppose it because someone forgot to send them their bribe money.
Or, and this might surprise you, they oppose it because it's incredibly unpopular in Quebec.
Amazing, I know, that some people have some serious concern about the safety of pipelines and don't especially want to have to deal with oil spills.
Especially when the pipeline in question would basically just go through the province without doing much for the economy.
But hey, we should just all follow Alberta's example and sacrifice everything for all-mighty Oil. Nothing else matter!
Hyperbole much?
Going to be fun when Quebec is on the sending end of transfer payments. Also, you would be buying Alberta oil instead of Saudi Oil. Take that as you will.
How are we supposed to take it exactly? What's the point of this comment?
The Quebec mayors oppose it because someone forgot to send them their bribe money.
Or, and this might surprise you, they oppose it because it's incredibly unpopular in Quebec.
Amazing, I know, that some people have some serious concern about the safety of pipelines and don't especially want to have to deal with oil spills.
Especially when the pipeline in question would basically just go through the province without doing much for the economy.
But hey, we should just all follow Alberta's example and sacrifice everything for all-mighty Oil. Nothing else matter!
Hyperbole much?
Going to be fun when Quebec is on the sending end of transfer payments. Also, you would be buying Alberta oil instead of Saudi Oil. Take that as you will.
How are we supposed to take it exactly? What's the point of this comment?
What part? Currently, oil being transferred to Quebec is coming by boat or train. I think history has proven those are not the most reliable way to move hydrocarbons. For the transfer payments', Quebec has been on the receiving end for a while now, mostly because of Alberta's economy. Now with Alberta in a tailspin that will change. I wonder how the provincial goverment there will be able to balance it's books as this was clearly unexpected by all parties.
Was not a Ezra Levant typical transfer payment rant. I truly think some provinces will struggle because of the trickle down of the oil sands no longer being viable.
The Quebec mayors oppose it because someone forgot to send them their bribe money.
Or, and this might surprise you, they oppose it because it's incredibly unpopular in Quebec.
Amazing, I know, that some people have some serious concern about the safety of pipelines and don't especially want to have to deal with oil spills.
Especially when the pipeline in question would basically just go through the province without doing much for the economy.
But hey, we should just all follow Alberta's example and sacrifice everything for all-mighty Oil. Nothing else matter!
Hyperbole much?
Going to be fun when Quebec is on the sending end of transfer payments. Also, you would be buying Alberta oil instead of Saudi Oil. Take that as you will.
How are we supposed to take it exactly? What's the point of this comment?
What part? Currently, oil being transferred to Quebec is coming by boat or train. I think history has proven those are not the most reliable way to move hydrocarbons. For the transfer payments', Quebec has been on the receiving end for a while now, mostly because of Alberta's economy. Now with Alberta in a tailspin that will change. I wonder how the provincial goverment there will be able to balance it's books as this was clearly unexpected by all parties.
Was not a Ezra Levant typical transfer payment rant. I truly think some provinces will struggle because of the trickle down of the oil sands no longer being viable.
Come on, you really don't get how that transfer payment comment could be taken the wrong way?
Was on the phone when I wrote it and should have worded that clearer. Transfer payments make sense and I don't resent anyone for obviously taking them.
The Quebec mayors oppose it because someone forgot to send them their bribe money.
Or, and this might surprise you, they oppose it because it's incredibly unpopular in Quebec.
Amazing, I know, that some people have some serious concern about the safety of pipelines and don't especially want to have to deal with oil spills.
Especially when the pipeline in question would basically just go through the province without doing much for the economy.
But hey, we should just all follow Alberta's example and sacrifice everything for all-mighty Oil. Nothing else matter!
Hyperbole much?
Going to be fun when Quebec is on the sending end of transfer payments. Also, you would be buying Alberta oil instead of Saudi Oil. Take that as you will.
How are we supposed to take it exactly? What's the point of this comment?
What part? Currently, oil being transferred to Quebec is coming by boat or train. I think history has proven those are not the most reliable way to move hydrocarbons. For the transfer payments', Quebec has been on the receiving end for a while now, mostly because of Alberta's economy. Now with Alberta in a tailspin that will change. I wonder how the provincial goverment there will be able to balance it's books as this was clearly unexpected by all parties.
Was not a Ezra Levant typical transfer payment rant. I truly think some provinces will struggle because of the trickle down of the oil sands no longer being viable.
Come on, you really don't get how that transfer payment comment could be taken the wrong way?
Of course he knows. That's why he added "Take that as you will".
We shouldn't be building large pipeline infrastructure because it's an investment in future continued dependence on an energy source that we know we can't continue using.
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
I'm also from Quebec. Yes, I am. Unless Quebec is suddenly not using oil then it will still be coming into the province, pipeline or not.
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
I'm also from Quebec. Yes, I am. Unless Quebec is suddenly not using oil then it will still be coming into the province, pipeline or not.
Sorry, I didn't get the impression you were from Québec at all with how you talked higher in the thread. Anyway my point still stand. We definitly don't need more oil coming into Québec, or worse more oil transiting through it. We'd hugely gain by massively transitionning to electrified transportation. Since Lac Mégantic, more and more people are sympathetic to this idea because of the risks.
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
I'm also from Quebec. Yes, I am. Unless Quebec is suddenly not using oil then it will still be coming into the province, pipeline or not.
Sorry, I didn't get the impression you were from Québec at all with how you talked higher in the thread. Anyway my point still stand. We definitly don't need more oil coming into Québec, or worse more oil transiting through it. We'd hugely gain by massively transitionning to electrified transportation. Since Lac Mégantic, more and more people are sympathetic to this idea because of the risks.
Born and raised. Have been out in Calgary for about 8 years but all my family and friends are still back there. I follow the news as much as I can but can't say I'm 100% plugged into the local Zeitgeist anymore. The goal to move to electric based vehicles and is great (I would buy a Tesla in a heartbeat if I could) but we are decades away from mass implementation. Also, hydrocarbons are also used for a million other things but fuel such as plastics, lubricants etc.
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
I'm also from Quebec. Yes, I am. Unless Quebec is suddenly not using oil then it will still be coming into the province, pipeline or not.
Given that oil companies have shown than they don't care about spills, and that they don't have to, it's not surprising that anything that increases the transportation of oil is not popular.
When that pipeline fails, and it will fail at some point, given the track record of pipeline, it's not the oil companies who will have to deal with the long term consequences.
That's why it's unpopular: it's perceived as an increased risk, without any compensating factors.
The first step to convince people it is worth it would be to have actual accountability for oil companies.
The second step would be to actually demonstrate that they are, which might involves actually bankrupting a few companies and jailing a few execs.
Incidentally, personally, I'm not against the pipeline if inspections are increased, which I would not have trusted our previous New Conservative Government of Canada to do.
The alternative is rail transportation, which is also dangerous, and pipelines do seem safer, overall.
That does not mean I don't get the objections, since it's a visible increase in risk for little gain.
Ideally, we should be moving away from oil. Now that we have a low dollar and a federal government that does not want an economy based on one resource, we might have more investment into research, so that could help a bit.
Oh, and oil is fungible. It does not change much for Quebec or Alberta where Quebec gets its oil. Last time we tried to use the Canadian oil in Canada to the advantage of Canadian, well...
NEP.
ya.
That's not going to fly either. If we get oil at market price, might as well get it the from Norway if it's cheaper.
We shouldn't be building large pipeline infrastructure because it's an investment in future continued dependence on an energy source that we know we can't continue using.
I too wish we could transition to *green* energy, but I dont think the political will nor the investment is there yet. I think pipelines would be a great way to reduce the dangers and damaging effects, while we still use oil. I don't know any estimates, but realistically what's the timeline for transitioning off oil? 5 years? 25 years? 100? I think oil will be here for a long time, and I don't see us economically abandoning a valuable, exploitable, and profitable resource.
I wish we could do both, minimize the impact using oil has, and also transition to renewable energy. It's a tall order.
Oil pipelines are specialized infrastructure; they can't do anything aside from transport oil. Rail, by contrast, can ship anything you like (as can cargo ships & tankers).
The pitfalls of transporting oil by rail or boat vs transporting it by pipeline are kind of a wash, and I'm not even going to entertain the debate. Shipping dangerous goods by rail / cargo ship / tanker can result in catastrophic accidents, certainly; that has nothing to do with why oil pipeline proponents want more pipelines built.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to actually transition to ore reasonable consumption levels of hydrocarbons - we need to start making the decision now to change course. Continuing to pursue things like pipeline projects that can only be used for oil transport is the equivalent of shrugging and saying, "Fuck it, someone else can clean this mess up later,"
the way i look at it; if ontario and quebec build pipelines, we WILL have to deal with spills. it is just inevitable if they are built. people are right to talk about the drawbacks of pipelines, and be skeptical about them. Speaking purely on economic terms: would the cost of these spills vs the gains of having the pipline be worth it to Quebec and Ontario? And then the whole environmental question, which is more than just the spills and speaks to the larger question of economic development of the oil sands at all*.
Regarding railway oil shipments: calling the risk "fires" is a serious understatement. Its more like huge, catastrophic explosion and fire. One leveled a whole town. The cause was determined to be human failure because the minimum number of hand brakes were not applied to the train when it was stopped.
I would make further arguments into this; like was the train engineer set up to succeed or was he set up to fail (like: was he overworked, given so many tasks that it was not humanly possible to complete them and also get required sleep, eat, etc).
Train derailments are also a thing that WILL happen. The question becomes, how serious of a disaster will the next one be, and how much more likely is a catastrophic one to be with widespread crude shipments.
regarding refineries: it makes economic sense for the oil companies to pump oil to the maritimes or texas, but what about economic sense to canada and alberta? that is the real question with building new refineries. As others have said - there are serious advantages to building one on the coast for shipping, so maybe that is reason enough for it to not make sense to build one in Alberta.
*My own estimation is that all the oil will be exploited whether you personally like it or not.
i have a friend that is a senior vp in development for a large oil and gas company and we had this exact conversation a while ago. New refineries will not happen in the short to medium term, full stop.
They take a massive capital investment, run very thin profits and pollute like a mofo. Also, as silly as it sounds, it's safer to transport crude oil then refined and it let's you bring it closer to Market.
Transporting gasoline is massively more dangerous if spilled let alone catch fire.
Oh good. There is a developing thread where students / staff are receiving support from other folks... and, of course, some asshole has already stepped in to remark about how the young offender is going to abuse our kid gloves system to walk free.
Oil pipelines are specialized infrastructure; they can't do anything aside from transport oil. Rail, by contrast, can ship anything you like (as can cargo ships & tankers).
The pitfalls of transporting oil by rail or boat vs transporting it by pipeline are kind of a wash, and I'm not even going to entertain the debate. Shipping dangerous goods by rail / cargo ship / tanker can result in catastrophic accidents, certainly; that has nothing to do with why oil pipeline proponents want more pipelines built.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to actually transition to ore reasonable consumption levels of hydrocarbons - we need to start making the decision now to change course. Continuing to pursue things like pipeline projects that can only be used for oil transport is the equivalent of shrugging and saying, "Fuck it, someone else can clean this mess up later,"
Well here's the thing I disagree with it being a wash, as my thought was that pipelines have risks, but generally less than boat and rail ( they also use less hydrocarbons in transport)
like I said I would like to do both, and its not a let someone clean up the mess later, its how to ease the transition and reduce risks now. It also seems that companies are willing to invest in pipelines, for whatever reasons, so if pipelines are safer they can be a mid-term solution. There's never gonna be progress in the all or nothing venture.
Also the length of time does matter for transition! If it is going to be around for the next 50 years, the pipeline is a prudent choice! safer transport for the next 50 years, is a hell of alot better than just doing the same. A worthy investment now, providing construction jobs in a downturn economy? it seems good.
Oh good. There is a developing thread where students / staff are receiving support from other folks... and, of course, some asshole has already stepped in to remark about how the young offender is going to abuse our kid gloves system to walk free.
(We don't even know who the suspect is yet).
TGIF.
*drinks*
Just saw an update on my CBC app, death toll up to 5
The annual suicide rate in the Keewatin Yatthe Regional Health Authority is the highest of any health authority in Saskatchewan. The area, which includes La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, Ile a la Crosse and other communities in the province’s northwest, averaged 43.4 suicide deaths per 100,000 people between 2008 and 2012. That’s more than triple the average annual provincial rate of 12.7 suicide deaths per 100,000. The average annual suicide rates in the Saskatoon and Regina Qu’Appelle health authorities were 10.2 and 11.5 per 100,000 people respectively for the same time frame.
I know we were talking about the Syrian refugees coming in a month ago in the thread, I just wanted to share the good news that the family my Ontario town sponsored has finally arrived in Canada. I leave the details to our quality, local independent paper.
I know we were talking about the Syrian refugees coming in a month ago in the thread, I just wanted to share the good news that the family my Ontario town sponsored has finally arrived in Canada. I leave the details to our quality, local independent paper.
Never prouder to be a Canadian.
I hope we do right by those folks (and the rest that will hopefully be coming in over the next year) for the long haul. That's the real challenge.
I love reading those stories of refugee resettlement. I always take away the feeling that families are all the same and it shows that there is always plenty to relate to other humans
+2
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Oh good. There is a developing thread where students / staff are receiving support from other folks... and, of course, some asshole has already stepped in to remark about how the young offender is going to abuse our kid gloves system to walk free.
(We don't even know who the suspect is yet).
TGIF.
*drinks*
Just saw an update on my CBC app, death toll up to 5
Update, apparently one of the five didn't actually die?
Anyway, they're saying 4 now.
0
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Your media has done an excellent job of handling the situation. "Male suspect in custody", nothing more, like how this kind of news should be handled. Down here the shooter's face would be blazed across every TV and newspaper with countless "why did he do it" and "the background of a killer" articles/tv discussions. I'm sorry for your loss and good job with the aftermath.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Your media has done an excellent job of handling the situation. "Male suspect in custody", nothing more, like how this kind of news should be handled. Down here the shooter's face would be blazed across every TV and newspaper with countless "why did he do it" and "the background of a killer" articles/tv discussions. I'm sorry for your loss and good job with the aftermath.
It's illegal for Canadian news to publish personal information of young offenders and it's pretty rare for them to publish victim details unless the victim or family is open to journalists.
Your media has done an excellent job of handling the situation. "Male suspect in custody", nothing more, like how this kind of news should be handled. Down here the shooter's face would be blazed across every TV and newspaper with countless "why did he do it" and "the background of a killer" articles/tv discussions. I'm sorry for your loss and good job with the aftermath.
100% agreement.
I think part of it is that there is no national sensationalist tabloid body in Canada. The biggest news organization is the CBC, and it's biggest fault is probably that it strives for as banal a tone as possible (which is probably not the worst idea, honestly).
Local news does most of the heavy lifting, and local news is usually pretty sensitive to things like identifying suspects (even in the U.S., in the shadow of CNN & Fox, I find local coverage of events to be quite tasteful).
Another part of it may be that we simply do not have have the frequency of attacks here, so people don't become jaded to and/or accustomed to the behavior & reporters don't feel pressured to go the extra mile, as it were, to try and find something unique to spin about a given shooting's details. The shooting itself is story enough.
Your media has done an excellent job of handling the situation. "Male suspect in custody", nothing more, like how this kind of news should be handled. Down here the shooter's face would be blazed across every TV and newspaper with countless "why did he do it" and "the background of a killer" articles/tv discussions. I'm sorry for your loss and good job with the aftermath.
It's illegal for Canadian news to publish personal information of young offenders and it's pretty rare for them to publish victim details unless the victim or family is open to journalists.
IIRC, the laws in Canada on public disclosure via the media and things like libel are tougher than in the US, but I think Harper et al. reduced their stringency while in power. In particular, I remember they tried to remove a provision that made lying illegal for news media.
Your media has done an excellent job of handling the situation. "Male suspect in custody", nothing more, like how this kind of news should be handled. Down here the shooter's face would be blazed across every TV and newspaper with countless "why did he do it" and "the background of a killer" articles/tv discussions. I'm sorry for your loss and good job with the aftermath.
It's illegal for Canadian news to publish personal information of young offenders and it's pretty rare for them to publish victim details unless the victim or family is open to journalists.
IIRC, the laws in Canada on public disclosure via the media and things like libel are tougher than in the US, but I think Harper et al. reduced their stringency while in power. In particular, I remember they tried to remove a provision that made lying illegal for news media.
There's also the ever present struggle to keep the Young Offender's Act intact & relevant, as a certain segment of the population believes it should only apply to petty crimes. Which would rather defeat the point of the legislation.
Posts
Have we done a statistical comparison of their relative risks before in this thread? I feel like we may have and I've just forgotten the conclusions.
Hmm. Fair enough. But it seems quite contrary to our national economic interests to be a banana republic, at least for oil. :eh:
While not a statistical analysis, I did find these articles from a year ago:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pipelines-vs-trains-which-is-better-for-moving-oil-1.2988407
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3624116/how-would-you-like-your-oil-spilled-today-sir/
It seems like the choice is bigger spills versus spills on fire?
I think why not improve the rails and rail cars to reduce its risks because smaller spill is preferable, even if it carries the risk of fire. Why not rails instead that can have more uses than the pipe and potentially have a longer economic life span due to that diversity? With technology that exists today, rail could be vastly improved to serve more than just the interests of oil while at the same time benefiting them.
Heck, why not go full hog and combine the two, make a low pressure tube maglev train system a couple decades from now?
This does not happen with pipelines.
No, they just leak.
I think that's the crux of it. An energy east pipeline would be good for the economy down east here, and provide a safer alternative to rail. The restrictions and monitoring have to be strict and enforceable. Also the focus should be on monitoring and report to make small leaks contained instead of ballooning into major ecological problems. IT's a good solution to the problem of increased load on an aging out of date rail system. I think it can benefit rail as well, because it can free up the rail lines to focus on other products that need shipping.
I want to address the economics of building refineries in canada. I think its a good idea to incorporate processing and "value added products" for times like this. When there is cheap oil this is a boom and a boon for all industry that use oil to make a product. And it also provides good full time jobs. We should have a balance, so that the effects of the price aren't as devastating as it is now. That required a long term planning and investment; something that was not done, because hey we can just ship oil away and make money. Good business sense does not always equate to a strong stable long term resilient large scale economy.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
If it wasn't for NAFTA, we could probably enforce some sort of refining quota on oil mined in Canada, but unfortunately, I think the only thing we could do legally is to provide "subsidies", which would mean jack-all when push comes to shove (see US Steel in Hamilton).
No Problem with that. Just to be clear, @AngelHedgie , the oil currently consumed in Quebec mostly comes from over seas and comes in tankers.
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/12/02/grounded-russian-oil-tanker-leaks-into-bering-strait/
How are we supposed to take it exactly? What's the point of this comment?
What part? Currently, oil being transferred to Quebec is coming by boat or train. I think history has proven those are not the most reliable way to move hydrocarbons. For the transfer payments', Quebec has been on the receiving end for a while now, mostly because of Alberta's economy. Now with Alberta in a tailspin that will change. I wonder how the provincial goverment there will be able to balance it's books as this was clearly unexpected by all parties.
Was not a Ezra Levant typical transfer payment rant. I truly think some provinces will struggle because of the trickle down of the oil sands no longer being viable.
Come on, you really don't get how that transfer payment comment could be taken the wrong way?
Was on the phone when I wrote it and should have worded that clearer. Transfer payments make sense and I don't resent anyone for obviously taking them.
Of course he knows. That's why he added "Take that as you will".
We shouldn't be building large pipeline infrastructure because it's an investment in future continued dependence on an energy source that we know we can't continue using.
Are you seriously using Lac Mégantic as an argument when people from Québec are telling you that an increase oil transport is hugely unpopular in Québec ?
I don't see the irony at all. The so-called flushgate can hardly be blamed on Denis Coderre and the coverage of this story has been a total joke.
I'm also from Quebec. Yes, I am. Unless Quebec is suddenly not using oil then it will still be coming into the province, pipeline or not.
Fuck. I hope there are no casualties.
Sorry, I didn't get the impression you were from Québec at all with how you talked higher in the thread. Anyway my point still stand. We definitly don't need more oil coming into Québec, or worse more oil transiting through it. We'd hugely gain by massively transitionning to electrified transportation. Since Lac Mégantic, more and more people are sympathetic to this idea because of the risks.
Sigh...
La Loche has been getting shit on by tragedies and bullshit for like the entire past year.
Born and raised. Have been out in Calgary for about 8 years but all my family and friends are still back there. I follow the news as much as I can but can't say I'm 100% plugged into the local Zeitgeist anymore. The goal to move to electric based vehicles and is great (I would buy a Tesla in a heartbeat if I could) but we are decades away from mass implementation. Also, hydrocarbons are also used for a million other things but fuel such as plastics, lubricants etc.
Also, in places that don't have massive clean energy sources such as Quebec and get electricity from coal it's not much of a net gain, pollution wise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html
And the batteries cause their own problems.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091060_electric-car-batteries-graphite-and-pollution-in-china
Given that oil companies have shown than they don't care about spills, and that they don't have to, it's not surprising that anything that increases the transportation of oil is not popular.
When that pipeline fails, and it will fail at some point, given the track record of pipeline, it's not the oil companies who will have to deal with the long term consequences.
That's why it's unpopular: it's perceived as an increased risk, without any compensating factors.
The first step to convince people it is worth it would be to have actual accountability for oil companies.
The second step would be to actually demonstrate that they are, which might involves actually bankrupting a few companies and jailing a few execs.
Incidentally, personally, I'm not against the pipeline if inspections are increased, which I would not have trusted our previous New Conservative Government of Canada to do.
The alternative is rail transportation, which is also dangerous, and pipelines do seem safer, overall.
That does not mean I don't get the objections, since it's a visible increase in risk for little gain.
Ideally, we should be moving away from oil. Now that we have a low dollar and a federal government that does not want an economy based on one resource, we might have more investment into research, so that could help a bit.
Oh, and oil is fungible. It does not change much for Quebec or Alberta where Quebec gets its oil. Last time we tried to use the Canadian oil in Canada to the advantage of Canadian, well...
NEP.
ya.
That's not going to fly either. If we get oil at market price, might as well get it the from Norway if it's cheaper.
I too wish we could transition to *green* energy, but I dont think the political will nor the investment is there yet. I think pipelines would be a great way to reduce the dangers and damaging effects, while we still use oil. I don't know any estimates, but realistically what's the timeline for transitioning off oil? 5 years? 25 years? 100? I think oil will be here for a long time, and I don't see us economically abandoning a valuable, exploitable, and profitable resource.
I wish we could do both, minimize the impact using oil has, and also transition to renewable energy. It's a tall order.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
The pitfalls of transporting oil by rail or boat vs transporting it by pipeline are kind of a wash, and I'm not even going to entertain the debate. Shipping dangerous goods by rail / cargo ship / tanker can result in catastrophic accidents, certainly; that has nothing to do with why oil pipeline proponents want more pipelines built.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to actually transition to ore reasonable consumption levels of hydrocarbons - we need to start making the decision now to change course. Continuing to pursue things like pipeline projects that can only be used for oil transport is the equivalent of shrugging and saying, "Fuck it, someone else can clean this mess up later,"
Regarding railway oil shipments: calling the risk "fires" is a serious understatement. Its more like huge, catastrophic explosion and fire. One leveled a whole town. The cause was determined to be human failure because the minimum number of hand brakes were not applied to the train when it was stopped.
regarding refineries: it makes economic sense for the oil companies to pump oil to the maritimes or texas, but what about economic sense to canada and alberta? that is the real question with building new refineries. As others have said - there are serious advantages to building one on the coast for shipping, so maybe that is reason enough for it to not make sense to build one in Alberta.
*My own estimation is that all the oil will be exploited whether you personally like it or not.
They take a massive capital investment, run very thin profits and pollute like a mofo. Also, as silly as it sounds, it's safer to transport crude oil then refined and it let's you bring it closer to Market.
Transporting gasoline is massively more dangerous if spilled let alone catch fire.
(We don't even know who the suspect is yet).
TGIF.
*drinks*
like I said I would like to do both, and its not a let someone clean up the mess later, its how to ease the transition and reduce risks now. It also seems that companies are willing to invest in pipelines, for whatever reasons, so if pipelines are safer they can be a mid-term solution. There's never gonna be progress in the all or nothing venture.
Also the length of time does matter for transition! If it is going to be around for the next 50 years, the pipeline is a prudent choice! safer transport for the next 50 years, is a hell of alot better than just doing the same. A worthy investment now, providing construction jobs in a downturn economy? it seems good.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
Just saw an update on my CBC app, death toll up to 5
Never prouder to be a Canadian.
I hope we do right by those folks (and the rest that will hopefully be coming in over the next year) for the long haul. That's the real challenge.
Update, apparently one of the five didn't actually die?
Anyway, they're saying 4 now.
It's illegal for Canadian news to publish personal information of young offenders and it's pretty rare for them to publish victim details unless the victim or family is open to journalists.
100% agreement.
I think part of it is that there is no national sensationalist tabloid body in Canada. The biggest news organization is the CBC, and it's biggest fault is probably that it strives for as banal a tone as possible (which is probably not the worst idea, honestly).
Local news does most of the heavy lifting, and local news is usually pretty sensitive to things like identifying suspects (even in the U.S., in the shadow of CNN & Fox, I find local coverage of events to be quite tasteful).
Another part of it may be that we simply do not have have the frequency of attacks here, so people don't become jaded to and/or accustomed to the behavior & reporters don't feel pressured to go the extra mile, as it were, to try and find something unique to spin about a given shooting's details. The shooting itself is story enough.
IIRC, the laws in Canada on public disclosure via the media and things like libel are tougher than in the US, but I think Harper et al. reduced their stringency while in power. In particular, I remember they tried to remove a provision that made lying illegal for news media.
Edit: Link - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/
There's also the ever present struggle to keep the Young Offender's Act intact & relevant, as a certain segment of the population believes it should only apply to petty crimes. Which would rather defeat the point of the legislation.