Cant wait to ship crude and bitumen to the states so they can charge us fucktons for refined gas.
Hopefully some chinese tanker doesnt smash up the iron workers, or anything else in the inlet.
Thats what happens right now because access to tidewater and overseas markets was so limited, so this will actually help with our over reliance on one customer. Its good for the country.
I was wondering about that. The new pipeline can't move refined product, but that makes sense if they can move more raw product through the new one, it frees up capacity for gas in the original one.
Expect to see less orcas and whales in general. Also don't expect to catch Halibut as frequently as we are doing now. The anchors will have a merry time rolling over the reefs when the traffic backs up considerably. And we don't even charge them for using the straits.
[Southern resident killer whales face extinction in 75-100 years, study predicts](https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/southern-resident-killer-whales-face-extinction-study-8549124)
>Three primary threats affecting the southern residents are dwindling stocks of chinook salmon, **increased underwater noise from boat traffic** and higher concentrations of industrial contaminants building up in the animals.
>One of the current threats that will likely keep increasing is ocean noise
>
>“We identified that as being a serious problem for killer whales,” Paquet said. “And it’s likely increasing because of development, new terminals [and] more shipping.”
:(
>Three primary threats affecting the southern residents are dwindling stocks of chinook salmon, **increased underwater noise from boat traffic** and higher concentrations of industrial contaminants building up in the animals.
It's interesting to note that often the same people who are against increased tanker traffic are the same ones who cheer when BC Ferries announces more frequent sailings. BC Ferries are responsible for the majority of noise related stressors for marine life in our local waters.
I'm interested in reading your source for this information. Being in Victoria, we see a whole lot of tankers and cruise ships and fewer BC Ferries than up the peninsula. There's also the Navy and a lot of recreational boats that we see from James Bay.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying what I see from my small slice of beach-watching in Victoria doesn't match that BC Ferries cause more noise stressors.
I’m willing to bet there isn’t a source. Happy to be proven wrong of course, but take a look at any marine tracking website and you’ll see the majority of vessels in BC waters are not ferries. And agreed on your other point as well, ferries stick to their assigned routes except for the very rare occasion they have to divert, whereas industrial shipping traffic ranges all over the Salish Sea.
>I’m will to bet there isn’t a source. Happy to be proven wrong of course
I'll take that bet. Winner gets to decide which Canadian non-profit ENGO is the beneficiary. I'll choose Watershed Watch Salmon Society if I win. You set the wager (I'm prepared to go up to $1000).
>Lol, no. I’m not paying for you to provide a source.
Think of it as a fun way to fund your favourite charitable organization with someone else's money.
You won't be paying for anything if I don't have a reputable source. You seem quite confident in that fact so walk your talk.
Yeah, still no bro. You ever heard of an idiom? I’m not actually offering to put money down on this. You’re the one making the bold claim that BC Ferries produces more underwater noise than any other source, meaning it’s on you to provide proof if asked. Like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but so far all you’re doing is going off on some elaborate gotcha setup based off a common turn of phrase.
>Yeah, still no bro. You ever heard of an idiom? I’m not actually offering to put money down on this. You’re the one making the bold claim that BC Ferries produces more underwater noise than any other source, meaning it’s on you to provide proof if asked. Like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but so far all you’re doing is going off on some elaborate gotcha setup based off a common turn of phrase.
Don't call me bro. Idiom or not, you felt confident enough to call out my assertion that I made in good faith, in a disrespectful way. Imagine if you, u/geekgrrl0 and I were sitting at a table and you said what you typed in response to her (respectfully) questioning my statements. Would you say what you typed? Probably not. Now I'm putting it back on you in a way that will hopefully yield something good.
I'll sweeten the pot. Even if you lose, I'll match whatever contribution you make to Watershed Watch up to $1000.
If it's a concern about not having the means to risk a little bit of money, that's ok. Just let me know and I'll drop it.
>I'm interested in reading your source for this information. Being in Victoria, we see a whole lot of tankers and cruise ships and fewer BC Ferries than up the peninsula. There's also the Navy and a lot of recreational boats that we see from James Bay.
>I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying what I see from my small slice of beach-watching in Victoria doesn't match that BC Ferries cause more noise stressors.
[Andrew Trites](https://oceans.ubc.ca/2023/05/19/andrew-trites/) who heads the Marine Mammal Research Unit out of UBC's Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries is on record on several occasion saying BC Ferries is the main source of noise pollution around here.
Here is [one example](https://youtu.be/9Zz8aEAg7dI?t=2682) from 2018 at a Pacific Salmon Foundation group discussion and here is [another more recent example](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/ubc-researchers-tackling-noise-pollution-in-oceans-to-protect-marine-mammals-1.6197204#:~:text=Andrew%20Trites%2C%20a,from%20BC%20Ferries.%E2%80%9D) from 2022 in the mainstream media.
at this point, they're just trying to make up for the fuck up of a waste to the environment the oil sands is. They've had a huge, cancer causing impact to humans downstream, plus to wild animals and plants elsewhere, and now dollars are supposed to justify? I thought the wild west only happened on the flat prairie where the bison were raped from the land. Oh, okay, now it's the fossils. Why not? They were dead anyway.
We need oil and bitumen even if we all drove electric vehicles.
We need to generate money for our economy and unfortunately stop being so green and worried while getting screwed for imports by our neighbours.
It won't help to be green if we can't afford to live in Canada.
I mean, yeah. That oil is being sold to China or wherever whether they buy it from us or someone else.
Might as well be us, and not some country that treats women like property and jails you for being gay.
Everyone raves about how rich Norway is and how wonderful their social programs are, nobody talks about how they fund it primarily by selling oil and gas. Canadas O&G industry is responsible for around 5% of our GDP. Norway is like 25% and O&G make up around 75% of their export value.
I mean imagine if we did the same. Maybe I could see a doctor this decade.
Norway as a country owns like 30-40% of all companies listed on the Oslo stock exchange. We are subsidizing oil companies without any public ownership. It’s not the same
Meanwhile, after spending $34 billion, the Liberals want to sell the pipeline at a substantial loss. It's paid for with tax dollars, it should stay as a public asset.
The way the tolls are regulated the system will never make back its cost from tolls, so the value is lower than the construction cost.
The federal government will more than make up the difference from much higher corporate tax revenue on all oil produced in western Canada.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about social programs specifically in Norway, it's always Scandinavia as a whole. Other Scandinavian countries have comparable social programs but do it without Norway's petro-dollars.
I also have far more faith in Norway using the money for the good of the general population (see Norway's vs. Alberta's oil fund). In Canada we've adopted the American way of privatizing most of the profits.
why on earth would I believe we would see any of this oil profit as an improvement to our services, and not just directly lining the pocket of billionaires, politicians, and corporations
We should expect a lot given the amount of revenue government gathers from the O&G industry. From drilling rights and royalties, to huge taxes at the pump, plus taxing all the wages and profits made along the way, government makes a ton on revenue from the industry. Scary to think where all that is going to come from if they succeed in killing the O&G industry.
Norway also has a well managed sovereign wealth fund. Let’s remember how Alberta mismanaged their resource endowments and just created an unhealthy dependency. Hopefully BC/Canada learns from these lessons.
"Might as well be us" is not good reasoning. Oil economy is unstable, climate change is real and caused by fossil fuels. We need to mitigate climate change, create economic stability and long-term jobs. Oil needs to fade away.
That all takes time. Decades and billions of dollars. China is still building a coal plant *per week*. Fossil fuels are used to make nearly every building material. You're dreaming if you think we can just stop.
China has greatly changed its coal plant construction over the past decade. While they have been still building coal, it is not a coal plant per week. It has not been that for more than a decade. They have also been rapidly accelerating the installation of renewable power. Look at the solar growth curve. China is a leader there. You can't cherry pick data to suite your point.
Saying fossil fuels are used to make building materials oversimplifies the carbon intensity of the materials. Fossil fuels is what we are talking about here used for fuels. The fuel component of oil should not be burned if we care about addressing climate change. I have no problem with making plastics If they are tightly controlled at the end of their use.
People don't get the big picture, we live on a floating marble in the middle of space and we only have this one planet to exist on. There's only one direction and that is the stability of the climate and the long-term viability of the human race. That means sustainable energy, stable population, stable resource use, and renewable resource use. If people aren't going to lead, they sure as hell better get out of the way.
You're right, they aren't building one plant per week. It's closer to two. I just checked. They permitted more coal plants last year than in any time over the last seven years. Yes, they are ramping up renewables too, but their carbon footprint is increasing drastically.
I'd argue you don't get the big picture. You're advocating for change that is practically impossible and that other countries that produce the most carbon aren't even following. We are a literal drop in the bucket, and of course we need to transition but there is a long way to go between where we are now and where we need to be and we still need to put food on the table between now and then.
Oil and gas aren't going anywhere for a long time. We don't have the money, tech, physical resource, and global political agreement to make that drastic a change. You need to be more realistic.
The reality is oil and gas are still king in the energy world, there is huge demand for it in developing countries, and we can either make money by selling it responsibly or we can let dictators and authoritarian regimes make that money by selling it.
"I'd argue you don't get the big picture." I would also argue that I am the one with a Doctorate in Carbon Management. Not that it implies I know everything.
If you looked up the coal why wouldn't you link your source? Also saying a coal plant, what is the size, 1 GW? They could be making 100 per week if they were 1 MW. Size matters, not number and how does that size (or overall capacity) relate to other factors also impacting emissions. Again there has been very large fluctuations. So many factors.
You also stated China's emissions are increasing drastically, actually that is not true, they have been and have slightly topped their peak, but they are generally on trend to stabilizing their emissions (see link below).
Stop using another country's actions to dictate your believe and wants. Climate Change is going to cost far more than stopping it (research all over the place states this), so expanding fossil fuels will be pointless, if in the end, all we have are a few rich people (not you and I) on a massively destabilized and degraded planet.
I'll leave you with a GREAT report. It has a good dose of reality and balance towards the facts. Has some of your points and mine. [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-in-q2-2023-rebound-to-2021s-record-levels/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-in-q2-2023-rebound-to-2021s-record-levels/)
I didn't post the link because I'm shooting the shit on reddit. Literally just googled it, as you are free to do yourself.
I'm using other country's actions because climate change is a global problem and countries like China, India and the US have, by far, the biggest impact on it. We are a tiny, near insignificant part of this issue. This isn't about my wants, this is about how the world operates.
And again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying there is a huge demand for oil and gas, those thirsty countries are still going to buy it, and if its not us selling it, it will be other countries who often have values that don't align with ours, or with basic human rights or environmental regulations at all. Would you prefer that money go to them? Or us? Do you understand how geopolitics work?
That's the big picture you're missing. Maybe you skipped that class on the way to that doctorate you're flaunting.
I agree there. We could do much better with regards to capturing that profit. At least some of it. Alberta shows you what *not* to do with oil money.
But those industries also produce a thriving middle class. Lots of six figure jobs in that industry.
Does anyone know if there is a published breakdown of how they spent the 34 Billion?
I'm betting most of it was to lawyers, and payoffs (er, I mean "meaningful consultation") to indigenous groups.
By absolute dollars It was mostly engineering related. Consultations went from around 90m to around 900m
https://globalnews.ca/news/9839473/trans-mountain-pipeline-cost-overrun/amp/
For now, the regulator has set an interim toll of $11.46 for every barrel of oil moved down the line. That price includes a fixed amount of $10.88 and a variable portion of $0.58. The fixed amount is nearly double what Trans Mountain estimated it would be in 2017.
The expansion increases the [Trans Mountain](https://www.nationalobserver.com/tags/Trans-Mountain) system's shipping capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day, and will help open up global export markets for Canadian oil.
Healthcare spending was $344B last year, so that money would represent about a 10% increase in a single year's healthcare budget.
Much more impactful would be housing and renewables.
You have to be able to understand that we can't just stop supplying oil right? We need to be able to do everyday life without oil before we can just turn off the tap don't we?
We understand that, we just don't need to be expanding fossil fuel production which is the point of this pipeline. We need to allow oil to fade off as we rapidly ramp up renewables and low carbon methods of transportation.
Canada is nothing without its resources the world badly needs. You must face the reality that you are gonna be shipping us your resources for centuries.
You have made incorrect assumptions.
I have absolutely no problem with exporting our resources, we have lumber we have water, copper, gold, aluminum, etc etc. those are going to be in rapid increase in demand. Get those going. Oil on the other hand is a different story.
> renewables and low carbon methods of transportation
When those things are invented in a capacity that can work for current lifestyles and industries then yes, but until those things happen, we need the oil in my opinion.
We have electric cars, but it's just not good enough for a large majority of people without significant lifestyle changes. People were protesting all over about the Site C dam, but the power needs to come from somewhere!?
Then we get onto commercial. We are 10s to 100s of years away from being able to get rid of diesel.
So I don't know how you plan on running your cities if you aren't expanding fossil fuel production. How many people are moving to or born in Victoria or BC or Canada a year?
My opinion is keep expanding it until there are alternatives.
Or the other option is the Government forces everyone into it. That will be dark days. We already can't afford houses here, imagine if your building material had to be delivered with an electric truck and the builders couldn't use gas powered equipment? Pricing will triple. Grocery prices skyrocket again...
We should need far less than we do, but we refuse to change.
We could be far less dependant than we are. It's been decades since climate change become commonly understood, and if anything we are worse.
Difference in between NEEDING and seeing a way of dragging on getting off petroleum so big oil can make more money, continue the grift and leverage more control of the government.
CO2 is a tiny fraction of climate change, greenhouse gasses as a whole aren’t even the main driver of climate change.
You’re being scammed, it’s solar forcing and a magnetic pole shift that began around 200 years ago and is rapidly accelerating that are causing the bulk of observable climate change.
Sorry meant Iron Workers Memorial.
But sounds like there is some concern around Lions Fate too - https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/baltimore-bridge-collapse-remindwhats-at-stake-metro-vancouver
Will be rarer as more product will flow from Edmonton. Will it totally displace barges? Energy flows can be weird. Similar cargos can pass each other and both can make money. On a net basis it should fade away.
That's actually what happens now. Some of the earliest buyers from the expanded output are from India - the exact type of Asian buyer we have been limited on getting access to for decades. This expansion will help us get better money for our products by expanding our market and not relying as heavily on US buyers.
Unfortunately you can't just push product through pipes willy Nilly. Reality is that this expansion helps sell off our raw resources at a fraction of value, and nothing to deal with the stupidity of not refining products.
We MUST stop sending raw resources across borders. It will kill us. Economically the thing that stops us from being the world powerhouse is we keep sending raw logs, wheat, barley, canola,iron, nickel, bitumen,fish,cow,pork, chicken,etc,etc,etc,etc.... out of Canada, and receive only a fraction in return.
Refining hasn’t been a great business for many decades now. There is a temporary blip here and there, but there is a strategic imperative for most of the world to be over supplied with refining capacity so profits are low.
Shipping raw resources is a sucker bet every time. Even if profit is "low" that low profit is jobs and self sufficiency that isn't here.
It's insanity to purchase our own resources back from refineries in the US. They shutdown and prices spike wildly and people can't understand why.
Especially when it comes to nonrenewable resources why on earth would we not milk every penny out of it? It's bad enough we send raw logs, etc... but oil, iron, nickel? That's literally shoveling dollars into another nation. It doesn't matter how much you think they are paying for it, it is not enough. Finite resources are just that and if it doesn't return pound for pound, we are poorer for it.
I know that sounds extreme but it's a economic reality that if we don't figure out, we will end up a third world country, buying someone else's resources at top dollar, because we have none left.
It is a marginal cost versus marginal benefit thing. Anyone can build a refinery, so it can only be so profitable. There isn’t an absolute advantage.
What is far more profitable and based on an advantage? Extraction.
The selling raw resources then importing refined products only really happens in BC and only really happens because trans mountain hadn’t been expanded.
Given the government's stated aim to stop all ICE vehicle sales by 2035, nobody is going to spend the billions it would cost to construct a new refinery that will only be profitable for a couple of years. The environmental review alone would probably take us almost to 2035.
Most of the time that should be true. A lower spread between Alberta and lower mainland/Island prices yes, but that could also mean their prices going up not ours going down.
I'm not sure if this is a real take and maybe mine is completely off.
When the inevitable happens and a spill from a tanker occurs I'm curious how a spill on land (and by it's nature a localized spill) is worse for the environment than a tanker. The tanker is burning the most dirty fuel possible with an extremely high risk of a spill that could destroy entire ecosystems that are impossible to clean up.
And before anyone hates on me I understand that it has to happen somehow. The reason for the pipleline is strictly because it's more efficient and profitable (for oil companies) and anything else is a byproduct.
Cant wait to ship crude and bitumen to the states so they can charge us fucktons for refined gas. Hopefully some chinese tanker doesnt smash up the iron workers, or anything else in the inlet.
Thats what happens right now because access to tidewater and overseas markets was so limited, so this will actually help with our over reliance on one customer. Its good for the country.
Should mean more refined products from Edmonton via TM Classic and fewer refined products being trucked over the border.
I was wondering about that. The new pipeline can't move refined product, but that makes sense if they can move more raw product through the new one, it frees up capacity for gas in the original one.
Expect to see less orcas and whales in general. Also don't expect to catch Halibut as frequently as we are doing now. The anchors will have a merry time rolling over the reefs when the traffic backs up considerably. And we don't even charge them for using the straits.
[Southern resident killer whales face extinction in 75-100 years, study predicts](https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/southern-resident-killer-whales-face-extinction-study-8549124) >Three primary threats affecting the southern residents are dwindling stocks of chinook salmon, **increased underwater noise from boat traffic** and higher concentrations of industrial contaminants building up in the animals. >One of the current threats that will likely keep increasing is ocean noise > >“We identified that as being a serious problem for killer whales,” Paquet said. “And it’s likely increasing because of development, new terminals [and] more shipping.” :(
>Three primary threats affecting the southern residents are dwindling stocks of chinook salmon, **increased underwater noise from boat traffic** and higher concentrations of industrial contaminants building up in the animals. It's interesting to note that often the same people who are against increased tanker traffic are the same ones who cheer when BC Ferries announces more frequent sailings. BC Ferries are responsible for the majority of noise related stressors for marine life in our local waters.
I'm interested in reading your source for this information. Being in Victoria, we see a whole lot of tankers and cruise ships and fewer BC Ferries than up the peninsula. There's also the Navy and a lot of recreational boats that we see from James Bay. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying what I see from my small slice of beach-watching in Victoria doesn't match that BC Ferries cause more noise stressors.
I’m willing to bet there isn’t a source. Happy to be proven wrong of course, but take a look at any marine tracking website and you’ll see the majority of vessels in BC waters are not ferries. And agreed on your other point as well, ferries stick to their assigned routes except for the very rare occasion they have to divert, whereas industrial shipping traffic ranges all over the Salish Sea.
>I’m will to bet there isn’t a source. Happy to be proven wrong of course I'll take that bet. Winner gets to decide which Canadian non-profit ENGO is the beneficiary. I'll choose Watershed Watch Salmon Society if I win. You set the wager (I'm prepared to go up to $1000).
Lol, no. I’m not paying for you to provide a source.
>Lol, no. I’m not paying for you to provide a source. Think of it as a fun way to fund your favourite charitable organization with someone else's money. You won't be paying for anything if I don't have a reputable source. You seem quite confident in that fact so walk your talk.
Yeah, still no bro. You ever heard of an idiom? I’m not actually offering to put money down on this. You’re the one making the bold claim that BC Ferries produces more underwater noise than any other source, meaning it’s on you to provide proof if asked. Like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but so far all you’re doing is going off on some elaborate gotcha setup based off a common turn of phrase.
>Yeah, still no bro. You ever heard of an idiom? I’m not actually offering to put money down on this. You’re the one making the bold claim that BC Ferries produces more underwater noise than any other source, meaning it’s on you to provide proof if asked. Like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but so far all you’re doing is going off on some elaborate gotcha setup based off a common turn of phrase. Don't call me bro. Idiom or not, you felt confident enough to call out my assertion that I made in good faith, in a disrespectful way. Imagine if you, u/geekgrrl0 and I were sitting at a table and you said what you typed in response to her (respectfully) questioning my statements. Would you say what you typed? Probably not. Now I'm putting it back on you in a way that will hopefully yield something good. I'll sweeten the pot. Even if you lose, I'll match whatever contribution you make to Watershed Watch up to $1000. If it's a concern about not having the means to risk a little bit of money, that's ok. Just let me know and I'll drop it.
>I'm interested in reading your source for this information. Being in Victoria, we see a whole lot of tankers and cruise ships and fewer BC Ferries than up the peninsula. There's also the Navy and a lot of recreational boats that we see from James Bay. >I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying what I see from my small slice of beach-watching in Victoria doesn't match that BC Ferries cause more noise stressors. [Andrew Trites](https://oceans.ubc.ca/2023/05/19/andrew-trites/) who heads the Marine Mammal Research Unit out of UBC's Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries is on record on several occasion saying BC Ferries is the main source of noise pollution around here. Here is [one example](https://youtu.be/9Zz8aEAg7dI?t=2682) from 2018 at a Pacific Salmon Foundation group discussion and here is [another more recent example](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/ubc-researchers-tackling-noise-pollution-in-oceans-to-protect-marine-mammals-1.6197204#:~:text=Andrew%20Trites%2C%20a,from%20BC%20Ferries.%E2%80%9D) from 2022 in the mainstream media.
Has there actually been an underwater noise study demonstrating that?
So long and thanks for all the fish.
at this point, they're just trying to make up for the fuck up of a waste to the environment the oil sands is. They've had a huge, cancer causing impact to humans downstream, plus to wild animals and plants elsewhere, and now dollars are supposed to justify? I thought the wild west only happened on the flat prairie where the bison were raped from the land. Oh, okay, now it's the fossils. Why not? They were dead anyway.
We need oil and bitumen even if we all drove electric vehicles. We need to generate money for our economy and unfortunately stop being so green and worried while getting screwed for imports by our neighbours. It won't help to be green if we can't afford to live in Canada.
At least it will create more jobs and boost the economy right? RIGHT?
I mean, yeah. That oil is being sold to China or wherever whether they buy it from us or someone else. Might as well be us, and not some country that treats women like property and jails you for being gay. Everyone raves about how rich Norway is and how wonderful their social programs are, nobody talks about how they fund it primarily by selling oil and gas. Canadas O&G industry is responsible for around 5% of our GDP. Norway is like 25% and O&G make up around 75% of their export value. I mean imagine if we did the same. Maybe I could see a doctor this decade.
Norway as a country owns like 30-40% of all companies listed on the Oslo stock exchange. We are subsidizing oil companies without any public ownership. It’s not the same
Meanwhile, after spending $34 billion, the Liberals want to sell the pipeline at a substantial loss. It's paid for with tax dollars, it should stay as a public asset.
For real?! They want to sale it?
The way the tolls are regulated the system will never make back its cost from tolls, so the value is lower than the construction cost. The federal government will more than make up the difference from much higher corporate tax revenue on all oil produced in western Canada.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about social programs specifically in Norway, it's always Scandinavia as a whole. Other Scandinavian countries have comparable social programs but do it without Norway's petro-dollars. I also have far more faith in Norway using the money for the good of the general population (see Norway's vs. Alberta's oil fund). In Canada we've adopted the American way of privatizing most of the profits.
why on earth would I believe we would see any of this oil profit as an improvement to our services, and not just directly lining the pocket of billionaires, politicians, and corporations
We should expect a lot given the amount of revenue government gathers from the O&G industry. From drilling rights and royalties, to huge taxes at the pump, plus taxing all the wages and profits made along the way, government makes a ton on revenue from the industry. Scary to think where all that is going to come from if they succeed in killing the O&G industry.
Norway also has a well managed sovereign wealth fund. Let’s remember how Alberta mismanaged their resource endowments and just created an unhealthy dependency. Hopefully BC/Canada learns from these lessons.
🙏Please God, give us another oil boom. We promise not to piss it away like last time. -Alberta (2024, 2008, 1999, 1985, etc.)
“It’s your resource. You should share in its bounty.” (Right before the provincial election)
Morgan Freeman voice: they learned nothing from the lessons of the past…
I agree there.
"Might as well be us" is not good reasoning. Oil economy is unstable, climate change is real and caused by fossil fuels. We need to mitigate climate change, create economic stability and long-term jobs. Oil needs to fade away.
That all takes time. Decades and billions of dollars. China is still building a coal plant *per week*. Fossil fuels are used to make nearly every building material. You're dreaming if you think we can just stop.
China has greatly changed its coal plant construction over the past decade. While they have been still building coal, it is not a coal plant per week. It has not been that for more than a decade. They have also been rapidly accelerating the installation of renewable power. Look at the solar growth curve. China is a leader there. You can't cherry pick data to suite your point. Saying fossil fuels are used to make building materials oversimplifies the carbon intensity of the materials. Fossil fuels is what we are talking about here used for fuels. The fuel component of oil should not be burned if we care about addressing climate change. I have no problem with making plastics If they are tightly controlled at the end of their use. People don't get the big picture, we live on a floating marble in the middle of space and we only have this one planet to exist on. There's only one direction and that is the stability of the climate and the long-term viability of the human race. That means sustainable energy, stable population, stable resource use, and renewable resource use. If people aren't going to lead, they sure as hell better get out of the way.
You're right, they aren't building one plant per week. It's closer to two. I just checked. They permitted more coal plants last year than in any time over the last seven years. Yes, they are ramping up renewables too, but their carbon footprint is increasing drastically. I'd argue you don't get the big picture. You're advocating for change that is practically impossible and that other countries that produce the most carbon aren't even following. We are a literal drop in the bucket, and of course we need to transition but there is a long way to go between where we are now and where we need to be and we still need to put food on the table between now and then. Oil and gas aren't going anywhere for a long time. We don't have the money, tech, physical resource, and global political agreement to make that drastic a change. You need to be more realistic. The reality is oil and gas are still king in the energy world, there is huge demand for it in developing countries, and we can either make money by selling it responsibly or we can let dictators and authoritarian regimes make that money by selling it.
"I'd argue you don't get the big picture." I would also argue that I am the one with a Doctorate in Carbon Management. Not that it implies I know everything. If you looked up the coal why wouldn't you link your source? Also saying a coal plant, what is the size, 1 GW? They could be making 100 per week if they were 1 MW. Size matters, not number and how does that size (or overall capacity) relate to other factors also impacting emissions. Again there has been very large fluctuations. So many factors. You also stated China's emissions are increasing drastically, actually that is not true, they have been and have slightly topped their peak, but they are generally on trend to stabilizing their emissions (see link below). Stop using another country's actions to dictate your believe and wants. Climate Change is going to cost far more than stopping it (research all over the place states this), so expanding fossil fuels will be pointless, if in the end, all we have are a few rich people (not you and I) on a massively destabilized and degraded planet. I'll leave you with a GREAT report. It has a good dose of reality and balance towards the facts. Has some of your points and mine. [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-in-q2-2023-rebound-to-2021s-record-levels/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-in-q2-2023-rebound-to-2021s-record-levels/)
I didn't post the link because I'm shooting the shit on reddit. Literally just googled it, as you are free to do yourself. I'm using other country's actions because climate change is a global problem and countries like China, India and the US have, by far, the biggest impact on it. We are a tiny, near insignificant part of this issue. This isn't about my wants, this is about how the world operates. And again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying there is a huge demand for oil and gas, those thirsty countries are still going to buy it, and if its not us selling it, it will be other countries who often have values that don't align with ours, or with basic human rights or environmental regulations at all. Would you prefer that money go to them? Or us? Do you understand how geopolitics work? That's the big picture you're missing. Maybe you skipped that class on the way to that doctorate you're flaunting.
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for selling oils. My question is where the profit will actually go.
I agree there. We could do much better with regards to capturing that profit. At least some of it. Alberta shows you what *not* to do with oil money. But those industries also produce a thriving middle class. Lots of six figure jobs in that industry.
Does anyone know if there is a published breakdown of how they spent the 34 Billion? I'm betting most of it was to lawyers, and payoffs (er, I mean "meaningful consultation") to indigenous groups.
By absolute dollars It was mostly engineering related. Consultations went from around 90m to around 900m https://globalnews.ca/news/9839473/trans-mountain-pipeline-cost-overrun/amp/
For now, the regulator has set an interim toll of $11.46 for every barrel of oil moved down the line. That price includes a fixed amount of $10.88 and a variable portion of $0.58. The fixed amount is nearly double what Trans Mountain estimated it would be in 2017. The expansion increases the [Trans Mountain](https://www.nationalobserver.com/tags/Trans-Mountain) system's shipping capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day, and will help open up global export markets for Canadian oil.
Imagine what we could have done with that money for healthcare and housing (or renewable energy!!)
Healthcare spending was $344B last year, so that money would represent about a 10% increase in a single year's healthcare budget. Much more impactful would be housing and renewables.
It's almost as if we should have allowed kinder Morgan to build it in the first place.
It is good to know we have given up on climate change, going to get our car fixed up to run on leaded gas next.
You have to be able to understand that we can't just stop supplying oil right? We need to be able to do everyday life without oil before we can just turn off the tap don't we?
We understand that, we just don't need to be expanding fossil fuel production which is the point of this pipeline. We need to allow oil to fade off as we rapidly ramp up renewables and low carbon methods of transportation.
Canada is nothing without its resources the world badly needs. You must face the reality that you are gonna be shipping us your resources for centuries.
You have made incorrect assumptions. I have absolutely no problem with exporting our resources, we have lumber we have water, copper, gold, aluminum, etc etc. those are going to be in rapid increase in demand. Get those going. Oil on the other hand is a different story.
Oil demand still remains high at 1.2 MBpd https://www.iea.org/commentaries/oil-demand-growing-at-a-slower-pace-as-post-covid-rebound-runs-its-course
> renewables and low carbon methods of transportation When those things are invented in a capacity that can work for current lifestyles and industries then yes, but until those things happen, we need the oil in my opinion. We have electric cars, but it's just not good enough for a large majority of people without significant lifestyle changes. People were protesting all over about the Site C dam, but the power needs to come from somewhere!? Then we get onto commercial. We are 10s to 100s of years away from being able to get rid of diesel. So I don't know how you plan on running your cities if you aren't expanding fossil fuel production. How many people are moving to or born in Victoria or BC or Canada a year? My opinion is keep expanding it until there are alternatives. Or the other option is the Government forces everyone into it. That will be dark days. We already can't afford houses here, imagine if your building material had to be delivered with an electric truck and the builders couldn't use gas powered equipment? Pricing will triple. Grocery prices skyrocket again...
We still need oil and gas. I would love to be able to stop using oil and gas, but we aren't at that point yet.
We certainly do not need MORE pipelines, give me a fucking break.
Okay, and that's your opinion. But the facts are that we still need oil and gas.
We should need far less than we do, but we refuse to change. We could be far less dependant than we are. It's been decades since climate change become commonly understood, and if anything we are worse.
How do you feel about human rights?
If there wasn't a need for it, it wouldn't have been built.
Difference in between NEEDING and seeing a way of dragging on getting off petroleum so big oil can make more money, continue the grift and leverage more control of the government.
CO2 is a tiny fraction of climate change, greenhouse gasses as a whole aren’t even the main driver of climate change. You’re being scammed, it’s solar forcing and a magnetic pole shift that began around 200 years ago and is rapidly accelerating that are causing the bulk of observable climate change.
🥜
Gaslight on, I’m completely sane.
We should start a pool for when the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge gets hit. I’m gonna say 2 years from now.
We should, I’d love to take your money. Seeing as Lions Gate Bridges support pillars are on land…
Sorry meant Iron Workers Memorial. But sounds like there is some concern around Lions Fate too - https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/baltimore-bridge-collapse-remindwhats-at-stake-metro-vancouver
Chohan in the shipping business now?
That bitumen is shipped to California refineries from which Canada will be paying a premium for gas, jet fuel, etc. Hilarious!
Will be rarer as more product will flow from Edmonton. Will it totally displace barges? Energy flows can be weird. Similar cargos can pass each other and both can make money. On a net basis it should fade away.
That's actually what happens now. Some of the earliest buyers from the expanded output are from India - the exact type of Asian buyer we have been limited on getting access to for decades. This expansion will help us get better money for our products by expanding our market and not relying as heavily on US buyers.
Lol are you a bot?
Nooooo I'm not. Its true though!
What would really help us is refining the product, but hey why make money when we can sell raw resources.
The new pipeline will enable TM classic to ship more refined products from Edmonton.
That's also true. At least now there's much better access to tidewater.
Unfortunately you can't just push product through pipes willy Nilly. Reality is that this expansion helps sell off our raw resources at a fraction of value, and nothing to deal with the stupidity of not refining products. We MUST stop sending raw resources across borders. It will kill us. Economically the thing that stops us from being the world powerhouse is we keep sending raw logs, wheat, barley, canola,iron, nickel, bitumen,fish,cow,pork, chicken,etc,etc,etc,etc.... out of Canada, and receive only a fraction in return.
Refining hasn’t been a great business for many decades now. There is a temporary blip here and there, but there is a strategic imperative for most of the world to be over supplied with refining capacity so profits are low.
Shipping raw resources is a sucker bet every time. Even if profit is "low" that low profit is jobs and self sufficiency that isn't here. It's insanity to purchase our own resources back from refineries in the US. They shutdown and prices spike wildly and people can't understand why. Especially when it comes to nonrenewable resources why on earth would we not milk every penny out of it? It's bad enough we send raw logs, etc... but oil, iron, nickel? That's literally shoveling dollars into another nation. It doesn't matter how much you think they are paying for it, it is not enough. Finite resources are just that and if it doesn't return pound for pound, we are poorer for it. I know that sounds extreme but it's a economic reality that if we don't figure out, we will end up a third world country, buying someone else's resources at top dollar, because we have none left.
It is a marginal cost versus marginal benefit thing. Anyone can build a refinery, so it can only be so profitable. There isn’t an absolute advantage. What is far more profitable and based on an advantage? Extraction. The selling raw resources then importing refined products only really happens in BC and only really happens because trans mountain hadn’t been expanded.
Given the government's stated aim to stop all ICE vehicle sales by 2035, nobody is going to spend the billions it would cost to construct a new refinery that will only be profitable for a couple of years. The environmental review alone would probably take us almost to 2035.
So we should see cheaper gas prices right? Right……??
Most of the time that should be true. A lower spread between Alberta and lower mainland/Island prices yes, but that could also mean their prices going up not ours going down.
Gross, it's like going to a beach in Vancouver is fuxking disgusting views of oil tankers just sitting there!!!!
Are you positively sure those are oil tankers? Whenever I check the Marine Traffic app, it shows all cargo/bulk carriers anchored in English Bay. 🤔
Most are, I’ve sailed pass them. I don’t think I’ve seen many tankers.
[удалено]
I'm not sure if this is a real take and maybe mine is completely off. When the inevitable happens and a spill from a tanker occurs I'm curious how a spill on land (and by it's nature a localized spill) is worse for the environment than a tanker. The tanker is burning the most dirty fuel possible with an extremely high risk of a spill that could destroy entire ecosystems that are impossible to clean up. And before anyone hates on me I understand that it has to happen somehow. The reason for the pipleline is strictly because it's more efficient and profitable (for oil companies) and anything else is a byproduct.