Biden's decision to cancel Keystone is one the US will eventually regret.

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Bro, there’s almost nothing but hard left cultists in the political section. You won’t get honest answers from any of them, and 99% have no posts outside the political subsection of a goddamn weed forum.
i had a page called Simplicity and it went somewhere when they changed the Xenforo. i grow tight and green..probably use a little too much N all with A/B and a small pair of shears. Lollipop like DJ Short.

what else do you need to know?
 

WintersBones

Well-Known Member
not true at all. you need our refineries b/c your gov't won't allow you to build one north of vancouver to process the tar sludge.
You're both right, really. Canada doesn't want to invest in refineries, but neither do the corporations themselves, the environmental aspect is only a small factor in the business reasons why it is more profitable for these companies to export it to/through the US instead. Shit, Canada imports gas and oil to use ourselves from the middle east and the US while we export our tar oil back! The US and other importers dont 'need' the tar sand oil for domestic use either, but it is profitable to import it on the cheap from Canada and refine it because you guys have the facilities to do it. Hence the corporations make money while exporting the profits and carbon emissions while they downsize their work forces locally. All the while Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in America keep trying to double down on their investment into fossil fuels in hopes of making these corporations money and pumping up the GDP as much as possible in the short term. It's a giant clusterfuck of greed and short term thinking.
 

WintersBones

Well-Known Member
But Canadians are sunny and nice.
and they care about their land, water, indigenous people. strange concept.
We put on a nice facade but the harsh truth is we're not that different or any better than anyone else and have a long history of environmental disasters, racism and inequality ourselves. We're trying to do better of course but there's still horror stories happening today.
 

WintersBones

Well-Known Member
bet you their native population gets running water and WiFi in their houses.
Sadly no. We've seen some good improvements on these issue under the Liberal government these last 5 years but still have something like 80+ first nations communities that struggle with clean water today. Internet in the north is very sketchy and low speed still. People are excited about Starlink cause it's better than the traditional/old infrastructure up there.
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
We put on a nice facade but the harsh truth is we're not that different or any better than anyone else and have a long history of environmental disasters, racism and inequality ourselves. We're trying to do better of course but there's still horror stories happening today.
and you guys haven't won a Stanley cup in 3 decades!!!! lol. just kidding: i know that's below the belt. lol.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Is this the beginning of the end for gas/diesel powered vehicles?
not a well founded opinion piece.

This, for example isn't even true: Keystone XL is widely viewed as uneconomic because Canada currently enjoys more pipeline capacity than it needs, and with oil demand on track to peak soon, expensive resources from places like Canada will not be needed. But complacency will last only until the next inevitable boom cycle in oil prices.

Keystone XL was not denied permits because it "is widely viewed as uneconomic". It was denied permits because it violates treaties, threatens our water supplies and threatens environmentally sensitive areas.
 

MICHI-CAN

Well-Known Member
and you guys haven't won a Stanley cup in 3 decades!!!! lol. just kidding: i know that's below the belt. lol.
I touched it once. How many times have you? Sports? Another waste of our world. Just another excuse for the endorsement of public brutality. Indoctrinated we have become. LOL.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Not quite sure boats use diesel

In international waters, ship emissions remain one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon.

I just copied this. True or not it’s not good.
The specific gravity of a particular No. 6 fuel oil can vary from 0.95 to greater than 1.03. Thus, spilled oil can float, suspend in the water column, or sink. Small changes in water density may dictate whether the oil will sink or float.

Unless you are pretty good at walking on water you may have a hard time. As far as just copying and not checking, why not? It took me one click on Google to find out the answer to what is the specific gravity of bunker fuel (which ships use). But why not behave like a Trump supporter and post anything?
 

printer

Well-Known Member
that is by far the most direct route: sludge, refine on west coast of CA, ship to china.
Big mountain in the way. Most of the pipeline is already built. The capacity through the lower half of the US has been doubled.

It would be wonderful if the BRITISH COLUMBIA government would allow even the pipeline to carry crude to the port to go ahead. But BC is our California. An extra ship a day carrying the oil is soooow bad. It might hit a whale. Ignoring that Vancouver is a port and cargo ships come and go. They were against adding another pipeline, the Alberta government decided to put off sending gas through the existing pipeline, all of a sudden gas prices went up in BC and they were yelling that Alberta was holding them hostage.

Sure, it is ok to be environmentalists until you can not fill up your tank and drive to work. The problem with something like a pipeline is you can get 99% of the people on board but the 1% ends up having a veto power. And that is where it comes down to.

Irving pipeline, canceled 2017. A lot of finger pointing. Basically it was the Irvings wanting someone else to pay for the project.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
While I love our neighbors to the north and have fond memories of the few times I've visited, they need to move that oil on their own. The United States does not need that oil from Canada and should not be a transit route for Canadian oil.

The Bakken formation extends into the US so we have all the tar sands we need if we actually needed the oil.
But is it viable to mine it. Especially when the companies that would do it already built the infrastructure in Alberta. So it is not a environmental problem for you but rather that the oil crosses a border?
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Big mountain in the way. Most of the pipeline is already built. The capacity through the lower half of the US has been doubled.

It would be wonderful if the BRITISH COLUMBIA government would allow even the pipeline to carry crude to the port to go ahead. But BC is our California. An extra ship a day carrying the oil is soooow bad. It might hit a whale. Ignoring that Vancouver is a port and cargo ships come and go. They were against adding another pipeline, the Alberta government decided to put off sending gas through the existing pipeline, all of a sudden gas prices went up in BC and they were yelling that Alberta was holding them hostage.

Sure, it is ok to be environmentalists until you can not fill up your tank and drive to work. The problem with something like a pipeline is you can get 99% of the people on board but the 1% ends up having a veto power. And that is where it comes down to.

Irving pipeline, canceled 2017. A lot of finger pointing. Basically it was the Irvings wanting someone else to pay for the project.
if you read that article i posted, i had it backwards. it was a wealthy canadian refiner that wanted to run a pipe to the East to his refinery on the east coast. that was denied permits by the CA govt though.

edit: ooops, you touched on that at the end of your post.
 
Top