CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1348
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:29 pm
 


Robair Robair:
Pretty sure this is the general feeling out west and the reason for these post election temper tantrums.

The hypocrisy of Herb's position on AB/SK's post-election "tantrums" when it was the Lower Mainland and Victoria pitching a fit over the pipelines is always rich. Dealing with British Columbia was always like dealing with a stuck-up teenager at best, but Trudeau never showed enough spine to give them the backhand they deserve. Frankly, I often feel vindicated at mocking this so-called "country" for how dysfunctional it is thanks in part to PET's legacy.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1795
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:26 pm
 


I sent an email to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley about using the Portland pipeline. I got a canned response, obviously she didn't read it. It was during the Alberta provincial election. So after the election, I sent a similar message to the office of Jason Kenney. I received a response from a staffer that my message has been forwarded to the Ministry of Energy for consideration.

I pointed out the Portland pipeline was used to transport oil from the ocean port at Portland Maine to Montreal, where it connects to the end of Line 9. Long story short, that pipeline can transport Alberta oil all the way to tidewater. Quebec Premier François Legault has said he won't allow any *NEW* pipelines through his province, but he doesn't have any issue with existing ones. So there's no dispute, this pipeline can be used. It was built during World War 2, before technology to extract bitumen from tarsands, so isn't rated for DilBit. If you try, the additional pressure will cause it to fail. It isn't a risk it would fail, is guaranteed. But it can transport synthetic crude. I'm told by workers in the oil patch that currently 40% of all bitumen harvested is upgraded to synthetic crude, so there is oil that can be exported. Besides, profit from synthetic crude is much higher.

Environmentalists tried to get the town of Portland Maine to prohibit Alberta oil, claiming it's "dirty". The town council denied that. Then environmentalists more narrowly defined their bill, prohibiting a pair of smokestacks used to burn off vapours during the loading process. The town council passed that. So the "Clean Skies" town ordinance is the only thing preventing Alberta access to tidewater. The pipeline is still active, the commercial corporation that owns it is transporting a tiny bit of oil just to keep the pipe "wet". Technically, Alberta has access to tidewater right now, it could transport oil all the way to a storage tank in the ocean port, it just can't load anything onto a ship.

My two suggestions:
  1. since vapours can now be captured, directed to a smokestack, instead direct them to a refrigeration pump, liquefy the petroleum. That would separate air from petroleum vapours, the petroleum could be stored in a tank then transported by rail back to Canada. Either the refinery at Montreal could process into products for sale, or transport to the Lennox power generation station in Ontario. That power plant currently in winter burns recycled oil from car oil changes, in summer burns natural gas. Since it's a flex-fuel power plant, it could burn captured vapours as-is.
  2. still burn vapours in smokestacks, but instead of burning oil as the "pilot light" to ignite vapours, burn pure hydrogen. Hydrogen burns to become pure water. The vapours would still burn, but that would reduce emissions.
If neither of those are acceptable, find something else. But find a solution to the smokestacks. That's the only obstacle to tidewater *RIGHT NOW*.

Another catch: environmentalists would complain about transporting DibBit on a ship. If there's a spill, bitumen is heavier than water, would sink to the ocean floor. There's no way to clean that up. Bit synthetic crude is essentially the same as natural crude, it floats. So existing clean-up technology works. That port has received Middle East oil for decades, oil transport there is not anything new, so exporting synthetic crude is not a new risk. Again, same solution as the pipe: synthetic crude.

Another issue: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The Rockefellers got their money from oil, but they've funded environmental groups protesting anything that would export Canadian oil anywhere but the US. They want all Canadian oil to the US so the US can profit. They're funding environmental groups; I doubt environmentalists know they're accepting American oil money. Jason Kenney said he's willing to take on the Rockefellers. Ok, the Rockefellers funded protests about Alberta oil through Portland Maine. So I have to call him on this one: Do it!

We'll see what happens. (Am I a shit disturber? ;) )


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:42 pm
 


the butthurt is funny but i can't convert these types lol

leave bc the fuck out of your fantasies pls


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:02 pm
 


can you imagine a canada without alberta and saskatchewan?

Image

jk it'd still be hell and like half my family would be on the other side of the gator infested border moat


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9920
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:37 pm
 


Public_Domain Public_Domain:
can you imagine a canada without alberta and saskatchewan?

Image

jk it'd still be hell and like half my family would be on the other side of the gator infested border moat

I can, imagine Canada... now imagine the same Canada with no money to pay for all the social programs you so love dearly. Also, if we go; the French will go too. Consider it a final gift from us to you.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31004

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:15 pm
 


Honestly right now I can't say I'd support a separatist party. I'm gun-shy over too much of the goofery that happened with the Reformers, especially with the constant fight that even an evangelical like Preston Manning had to wage against the true social conservative loons and the outright racists that tried to infiltrate from the Heritage Party. I'm also keeping in mind the absolute disaster that happened to the Wild Rose when the back room boys, all of them hard right social conservatives, backstabbed Danielle Smith during the last days of Redford/Prentice. That was an embarrassment, and it was all caused by the bible-thump puritans who can't get along with ANYONE, period. And now, with the alt-right and these Twitter idiots with the affection for the dipshits from MAGA and the other scunge in the US, there has to be serious diligence to make sure those clods don't gain any stroke at all in an Albertan independence movement.

That being said, while I won't support or join a separatist party that gets flooded with idiots, backwoods cretins, or religious kooks, I do support the independence philosophy and idea in general. Alberta gains nothing from staying in Canada. I personally gain nothing from being Canadian, and neither does my family, friends, or co-workers. Any affection I had for this country is threadbare and tattered beyond repair. As such if a semi-decent separatist movement takes over the Alberta government one day and submits to the people of this province a referendum to separate from Canada I will most likely vote in support of it.

We have nothing to lose, and potentially quite a lot to gain. I'm not a traitor. I'm just beyond tired in my bones of getting sneered at by the stuck-up assholes who control the real power in this country. With fellow citizens like this who needs enemies? :|


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2507
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:32 pm
 


Public_Domain Public_Domain:
can you imagine a canada without alberta and saskatchewan?

Image

jk it'd still be hell and like half my family would be on the other side of the gator infested border moat

Why would you say such a thing? Seriously?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1168
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:33 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:

That being said, while I won't support or join a separatist party that gets flooded with idiots, backwoods cretins, or religious kooks, I do support the independence philosophy and idea in general. Alberta gains nothing from staying in Canada. I personally gain nothing from being Canadian, and neither does my family, friends, or co-workers. Any affection I had for this country is threadbare and tattered beyond repair. As such if a semi-decent separatist movement takes over the Alberta government one day and submits to the people of this province a referendum to separate from Canada I will most likely vote in support of it.

We have nothing to lose, and potentially quite a lot to gain. I'm not a traitor. I'm just beyond tired in my bones of getting sneered at by the stuck-up assholes who control the real power in this country. With fellow citizens like this who needs enemies? :|


I feel the same way about intelligent, eloquent Alberta separatists the same way I do about eloquent Quebec separatists (yes, they exist) or Native activists who don't consider themselves Canadian.

I don't agree with those positions, but I can at least respect them and quite often like the people who hold them on a personal level.

I'm probably the biggest Captain Canada on the entire forum, but I'm proudly Albertan too and it sticks in my fucking craw when we're depicted as moustache-twirling Captain Planet villains who get up every morning plotting about how we're going to rape Mother Earth today while eating a breakfast made of little orphans' hopes and dreams. Never mind that we pull our weight in Confederation with everything from equalization to the fact that so many people have come out here for work and sent money back to their families that goes into the local economies.

So no, I might ridicule an idiot like Craig Chandler, but I won't insult or look down on somebody like Thanos.

I hate the smug, preening asshats in our province who looked down at the ROC when times were good. Not only because it's bad form in itself, but it makes the rest of us look bad. I loathe the schadenfreude jackasses who're enjoying our misery now. That, as much as any particular policy, is one of the most toxic things driving Canadians apart right now.

I'd love nothing more than to try and somehow make it all right...I just wish I knew how.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:40 pm
 


rickc rickc:
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
can you imagine a canada without alberta and saskatchewan?

jk it'd still be hell and like half my family would be on the other side of the gator infested border moat

Why would you say such a thing? Seriously?

as opposed to what? begging alberta/saskatchewan seperatists to chill out? lol


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:48 pm
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Opinion: Why Alberta separatism is the dumbest political movement in Canada today


An article from the Wexit opposition.....

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/wh ... nada-today



Ahh so if the $600million MSM is already out telling everyone how hard/bad it will be,
then it is something worth chasing. :lol: :lol:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:58 pm
 


JaredMilne JaredMilne:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Yep, just like First Nations and cities like Edmonton could just as easily vote to stay in Canada, making Alberta look like a piece of Swiss cheese.


Again, remember Quebec in 1995 and people saying that it could be partitioned if some parts of it wanted to stay part of Canada? Remember how much support there was for that in the ROC?

Why would we get off any easier?



What you boys probably forget (or don't want to remember) is the argument over borders
was because Quebec in 1867 is not what Quebec is today, the borders were changed several times
over the years.


This led to the argument the Natives up North didn't join the original 1867 Quebec and thus
were not subject to the separation of 1867 Quebec.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 1905 Alberta is the same as today, so the border argument is not the same, not even close.




The other argument was about border areas around Ottawa and Gatineau, they at least had land access to Ontario, and an English speaking minority population.


Edmonton, like London and Scotland, has none of this. :lol: :lol:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1795
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:18 am
 


Martin15 Martin15:
Quebec in 1867 is not what Quebec is today
...
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 1905 Alberta is the same as today

From the Government of Canada, Atlas website. Canada in 1867:
Image

1870: Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory are acquired to form the Northwest Territories. The province of Manitoba is created
Image

1871: British Columbia joins the federation as a province with the boundaries it attained in 1866.
Image

1873: Prince Edward Island joins

1876: The District of Keewatin is formed from part of the Northwest Territories
Image

1880: Canada acquires title to the Arctic Islands that become part of the Northwest Territories

1881: Manitoba is enlarged by extending its boundaries westward, northward and eastward.
Image

1882: The provisional district of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Athabaska and Alberta are created
Image

1886: The south-western boundary of Keewatin is adjusted
Image

1889: Ontario is enlarged west to Lake of the Woods and north to the Albany River. The southwestern boundary of Keewatin is adjusted
Image

1895: Ungava, Mackenzie, Yukon and Franklin are established as additional districts in the Northwest Territories.
Image

1897: Boundaries are changed for the districts of Franklin, Keewatin, Mackenzie, Ungava and Yukon.
Image

1898: The District of Yukon is separated from the Northwest Territories to become Yukon Territory with the boundaries as assigned to the district in 1895. The boundaries of Quebec are extended northward to the Eastmain River.
Image

1901: The boundaries of Yukon Territory are changed to those of today.

1905: Alberta and Saskatchewan are created as provinces with the boundaries they have today. The District of Keewatin is transferred back to the Northwest Territories.
Image

1912: Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are extended northward.
Image

1920: The boundaries of the districts within the Northwest Territories are redescribed.

1927: the boundary between Canada and Newfoundland is defined by the Imperial Privy Council.

1949: Newfoundland enters Confederation as the tenth province with the boundaries as delimited in 1927.
Image

1999: Nunavut becomes Canada's third territory on April 1, 1999. For the first time since the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation fifty years before, the internal boundaries of Canada have changed.
Image


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1795
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:58 am
 


Martin15 Martin15:
Quebec in 1867 is not what Quebec is today
...
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 1905 Alberta is the same as today

True, but Alberta is not what it was when it was created as a district of the Northwest Territories in 1882. If you argue Quebec should give up Ungava, that same argument could demand that Alberta give up Athabaska. Athabaska is everything north of Edmonton, including Fort McMurray.

Or that Saskatchewan give up Assiniboia. The district of Saskatchewan was the middle part: Saskatoon to La Ronge. Assiniboia was the southern part, including Regina. The northern part of what is now Saskatchewan was part of the Northwest Territories. From 1895 to 1905 Athabaska was expanded east to include what is now the northern part of Saskatchewan.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40100
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:24 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
And speaking of pipelines and Native land, people always form Trudeau as the bad guy for not approving pipelines, but it's the limits of what the Federal Government can do on Native land, and the Tribes themselves that have been fighting the pipelines.


Natives can't stop Federal Projects deemed to be essential to Canada and they've been meaningfully consulted with so once all those criteria are met they have no recourse.

Besides it's not all Tribes opposing the Trans Mountain Pipeline it's just the ones who aren't directly impacted by the pipeline and who want money or are being paid by outside sources to create havoc.

As it stands now every tribe that the Trans Mountain Pipeline passes through has been properly consulted with and have agreed to the project. It's the non direct stakeholders who are continually mounting court challenges that have no merit just to delay the project and unfortunately they're the ones that the Gov't and courts seem to be listening to.


Natives however decide on what 'meaningful' looks like.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/tran ... -1.5103341

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
So to fix this problem all Trudeau has to do is pull the notwithstanding clause out and use it. But that won't happen because he doesn't want the pipeline built and if the Natives were so against this pipeline why the fuck would they bid 6.9 billion to purchase it?


Therein lies the limits of what the Federal Government can do to Natives on unceded land. Most of BC is unceded land.

$1:
Starting with the premise that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have an inherent right of self-government which is constitutionally protected, this article analyzes the issue of whether Aboriginal governments exercising that right are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This issue is examined from a legal perspective based on t
extual analysis and common law principles. It is concluded that, as a matter of Canadian constitutional law, with the exception of the section 28 gender equality provision, the Charter does not apply to Aboriginal governments. This avoids imposition of the Charter generally on these governments by judicial decree, leaving the more fundamental policy issue of whether the Charter should apply in this context open to negotiation and political agreement with the Aboriginal peoples.


http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ ... ntext=ohlj

So Trudeau cannot apply section 35 of a Charter that does not apply to them. And, as you note, not all the tribes are against the pipeline. Ones that are for it see it as an investment they can use long term to fund their reserves where the Federal Government falls very very short.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Oh and one more question. Where the fuck are they getting the 6.9 billion to purchase a pipeline anyway? My guess is either tax payers will give them the money meaning we'll pay twice for the pipeline or it's coming from an outside investor like our friends in China but either way when, not if they purchase it, you'll see a much different response to pipelines from them.


They purchased it though the Crown Corporation - CDIC.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9920
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:30 am
 


I would disagree. Alberta has remained unchanged since it's inception in 1905. Quebec has had 3 border redraws in the same time, further if you look at the borders of the provinces 1905, Alberta looks as it does today whilst the Ungava region is still part of the NWT. Ungava wasn't ceded until 1912, along with the northern portions of Ontario and Manitoba.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.