Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree19Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 14th, 2017, 10:41 AM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
I know he's good at symbolism, and that seems to be 90% of politics these days...even since the TV Age began. And, I'll concede that he's taken the helm of our country in the New World Order, where secret societies of bankers and invited acolytes have more control than elected officials; but I wish he was the leader promised by the campaign rhetoric! When it comes to issues like Dirty Oil (tar sands slurry), he's picked up the ball and is still running with it in the same direction as Harper.

There were a lot of aboriginals up here who registered to vote(majority in first nations don't participate in federal elections&those who do mostly voted NDP in the past)..and in most ridings, voted Liberal to stop HarperCons, and because of the Liberal move to the left/as well as disenchantment with the NDP's waffling on tar sands and pipeline issues. Most of those votes were gained by the Libs on promises of full funding for schools, ensuring safe water supplies, recognizing treaty rights with various band councils, and most of all, the right of veto over pipelines proposed to run through recognized treaty territories. It's that last one where an obvious scam took place...since there was no way to honour the treaties/and be friends with the oil and oil development companies!
"Tar sands slurry" is completely, idiotically wrong.
RNG is offline  
Old March 14th, 2017, 11:23 AM   #12
Exposing Rightwing lies
 
GhostRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Anywhereiam, USA
Posts: 5,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
First, I am well over 50 - way too far, although it still beats the alternative.

I'm quite cynical about the First Nations stance on all these things here. And I don't think Trudeau sold them out.

And I am strongly in favor of the pipelines given our level of regulation, inspection and the teeth in our environmental liability laws.
Maybe the level of regulation and inspection is higher in Canada, the U.S doesn't have a very good track record and trump's attitude towards our EPA will only make things worse. I doubt if most U.S. Citizens would be against the pipeline if we had better guarantees, the EPA had bigger teeth and more powers to prosecute the offenders.
GhostRider is online now  
Old March 14th, 2017, 11:25 AM   #13
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRider View Post
Maybe the level of regulation and inspection is higher in Canada, the U.S doesn't have a very good track record and trump's attitude towards our EPA will only make things worse. I doubt if most U.S. Citizens would be against the pipeline if we had better guarantees, the EPA had bigger teeth and more powers to prosecute the offenders.
And it seems that in fact Trump is working hard against the very part bolded above.
Thanks from imaginethat and GhostRider
RNG is offline  
Old March 14th, 2017, 11:25 AM   #14
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
"Tar sands slurry" is completely, idiotically wrong.
It does not deserve the more palatable sounding term "oil sands." Only special refineries are able to turn this crap into useable petroleum products. That's why it wasn't until the real oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan started running out, that they turned the tar sands projects from experimental digs of surface deposits to transforming the region into something equivalent of Mordor envisioned in Lord of the Rings.
right to left is online now  
Old March 14th, 2017, 11:30 AM   #15
Exposing Rightwing lies
 
GhostRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Anywhereiam, USA
Posts: 5,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And it seems that in fact Trump is working hard against the very part bolded above.
Very true, trump could care less about the environment, he has no idea of what is happening outside his gold plated penthouse, trump cares about trump and his money, NOTHING else.
GhostRider is online now  
Old March 14th, 2017, 11:42 AM   #16
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
It does not deserve the more palatable sounding term "oil sands." Only special refineries are able to turn this crap into useable petroleum products. That's why it wasn't until the real oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan started running out, that they turned the tar sands projects from experimental digs of surface deposits to transforming the region into something equivalent of Mordor envisioned in Lord of the Rings.
First, what is sent down the pipelines does not contain sand, nor is it a slurry. Secondly, refineries in the southern US were having major modifications done to them to accept heavy cruse even before the western Canadian heavy oil was a major player in north America. That was because the famous West Texas Intermediate, a light oil, was running out and production in the US was also tending towards a heavier crude. Even in the middle east, the low hanging fruit has been plucked and their production is getting heavier.

There is not a "bitumen", "heavy oil", "medium crude" and "light oil". What comes out of the ground is on a spectrum of density and viscosity.

The initial bitumen surface mining operations were exploiting a crude that was almost a solid. That is the dystopian picture you are attempting to depict in your post. And please answer this honestly. Have you seen the lands that have been reclaimed? I have. I've been involved in the process.

In Alberta, the producers have to post bonds to cover the costs of reclamation.

Putting a heavy crude into a refinery designed for light crude feedstock is inefficient. But equally well, putting a light crude into a refinery designed for a heavy crude feedstock is inefficient.

So your emotionally based, factless accusations that "special refineries" are needed are just so much fanatical hyperbole.
RNG is offline  
Old March 14th, 2017, 06:02 PM   #17
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRider View Post
Standing up to the 'moron' in the White House - Winnipeg Free Press

Not only Canada but EVERY civilized country and every intelligent American should stand against trump the liar.
Canadians live in cold weather too much.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old March 15th, 2017, 10:37 AM   #18
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
"Tar sands slurry" is completely, idiotically wrong.
They call it "Dilbit" which means diluted bitumen...but go ahead call it ice cream or whatever the fuck you want, that doesn't change the product!
right to left is online now  
Old March 15th, 2017, 10:50 AM   #19
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
They call it "Dilbit" which means diluted bitumen...but go ahead call it ice cream or whatever the fuck you want, that doesn't change the product!
Diluted bitumen is a blend of miscible liquids, a long, long way from being a slurry. And its sand content is either zero or TSTM, so that description is both wrong and misleading and is only used by biased activists.

Calling it tar sands slurry is fucking idiotically wrong.
RNG is offline  
Old March 15th, 2017, 11:40 AM   #20
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
First, what is sent down the pipelines does not contain sand, nor is it a slurry. Secondly, refineries in the southern US were having major modifications done to them to accept heavy cruse even before the western Canadian heavy oil was a major player in north America. That was because the famous West Texas Intermediate, a light oil, was running out and production in the US was also tending towards a heavier crude. Even in the middle east, the low hanging fruit has been plucked and their production is getting heavier.

There is not a "bitumen", "heavy oil", "medium crude" and "light oil". What comes out of the ground is on a spectrum of density and viscosity.

The initial bitumen surface mining operations were exploiting a crude that was almost a solid. That is the dystopian picture you are attempting to depict in your post. And please answer this honestly. Have you seen the lands that have been reclaimed? I have. I've been involved in the process.

In Alberta, the producers have to post bonds to cover the costs of reclamation.

Putting a heavy crude into a refinery designed for light crude feedstock is inefficient. But equally well, putting a light crude into a refinery designed for a heavy crude feedstock is inefficient.

So your emotionally based, factless accusations that "special refineries" are needed are just so much fanatical hyperbole.
First, I never said they send sand through the pipelines...that would be totally stupid. That's why they have a complex, expensive and energy-intensive upgrading process to upgrade this crap to a grade level that at least qualifies as equivalent to heavy oil.
But, unlike heavy oil, the diluting products needed to turn it into a 'slurry' contain benzene and other toxic and highly corrosive products! That's why there is more concerns about pumping dilbit through pipelines than regular oil...it causes corrosion and deterioration of the pipeline faster, and what leaks out is more toxic and also more difficult to remove, as past leaks...like in the Kalamazoo River a few years back, leave a toxic sludge at the bottom of the river to clean up, not oil that can be removed from the surface with corexit and other toxic chemicals used to contain and remove surface oil spills.

Quote:
And please answer this honestly. Have you seen the lands that have been reclaimed? I have. I've been involved in the process.
Worse! I was in Fort Mac many years ago before Syncrude and the other major tar sands developers got things really rolling. I have a cousin and a few friends who stayed in the oil patch until recent years and I've talked to them and seen the pictures.
Let's keep in mind that the only reason why the operations steaming free the deep tar deposits is because the watershed in Northern Alberta flows north..through native lands that nobody in Edmonton or Calgary gives a shit about, as they would if the tailing ponds effluent leaked and ran south polluting their water sources! The only major city that has to deal with living with toxic conditions are the people living in the much bigger city of Fort McMurray today, and those are people drawn in by the promise of big money for working at these projects. The people there who have second thoughts about what they're doing are ones who will vote with their feet and leave, because there is no honest way to be pro-environment and live off this industry!
Quote:
In Alberta, the producers have to post bonds to cover the costs of reclamation.
Oil has owned every fucking government in Alberta ever since Socreds (farmer and ranchers' party mostly) collapsed in the early 70's and made way for "Progressive" Conservative rule for almost half a century. And this was of course interrupted by the NDP, but the Alberta NDP has always been more pro oil and pro resource development/and less environmentalist than the other NDP parties across the country. But, the Notley Government has obviously signaled that they are far more concerned about the big majors pulling out of tar sands because they've realized the global economy cannot grow with oil prices of $100 per barrel. When they're half that, they barely make a return on investment, and they went there and sunk billions into this crap to earn the big bucks...not risk losing money!
So, end result....those bonds are our equivalent of confederate money! They're totally worthless, because the provincial and federal governments will cover the costs of major environmental disasters, while the investors keep taking profits.
Right now, tarsands developments are Canada's Fukushima reactors: upgrading tarsands requires a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of freshwater used in upgrading, and that toxic water is collected in mammoth tailing ponds....just like Fukushima! Hundreds, perhaps thousands of migratory birds land in these tailing ponds, not realizing a brand new threat, and die soon afterwards. But the Alberta and Canadian Governments both pretend that everything will be okay...will figure out a way to process Fukushima....or Athabasca tailing ponds some day! In the meantime, Justin tries to wear both hats in public of environmentalist and pro-oil.

Stephen Harper knew he had to make a choice and he went with grab the money now/consequences be damned! Trudeau is like so many upper class liberal environmentalists who want their cake and eat it to: a strong, growing economy making everyone richer and richer/and cutting CO2 emissions and doing all that other green stuff. Maybe today's environmental movements will have to wake up and realize that environment has to take priority over economy! Preventing an anarchistic, nihilistic fight for necessities will require economies that provide the basics (food, shelter, health) to everyone, while everyone's luxuries will have to fit into Mother Nature's plans...not the other way around.

And, as so many climatologists have been pointing out for 10 years now, dirty, or "unconventional" petroleum sources cannot be made green and allow an overall reduction of carbon emissions necessary to prevent disaster. And on that subject, a few days ago, Climate Central was going over the numbers kept by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography on the daily Mauna Loa atmospheric measurements; and the results are that CO2 increases continue to accelerate! 2015 and 2016 showed 3ppm increases/triple what the annual CO2 increases were back in the early 60's. The other equivalent blip on the chart of course was that record warm El Nino year-1998. But, as the world's oceans take in and try to balance out by giving off heat, El Nino years will continue to be more frequent than they were in the past...so just blaming it on El Nino is shallow comfort the way the world is heading today!

Carbon Dioxide Is Rising at Record Rates | Climate Central

Thanks from GhostRider
right to left is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
1000%, canada, correct, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canada PM says ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump excalibur Current Events 34 November 18th, 2016 11:34 AM
How to move to Canada (if Trump wins) Sabcat Political Talk 7 November 8th, 2016 10:05 PM
Medicare spending $1000 lower than projected goober Healthcare 16 September 3rd, 2014 07:38 PM
Immigration Bill Now Over 1000 Pages excalibur Current Events 11 May 29th, 2013 11:38 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.