Quantcast
Alberta turning off the taps. New take - constitutional reforms - Page 2 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Alberta turning off the taps. New take - constitutional reforms

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    calgary ab
    My Ride
    4x4
    Posts
    2,396
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    At what point did I say for 90 days?

    No shut them down for good.

    I don't think it would take 90days to suddenly have progress on pipeline approval and exports. Once an announcement is made.

    We've been negotiating and asking politely for change for 30+ years to resolve exports and WCS-WTI offsets. It's about time we stopped being polite.

    One winter without CNG... One spring without fertilizer for the crops. That's all it would take for the north American economy to completely fall apart.

    I'm very much saying we announce it, let the insanity start flying and absolutely follow through since we're so unimportant in the grand scheme. If we're not going to get proper revenue for the resources - there's no reason to be Canada's embarrassing cousin anymore.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyL View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    At what point did I say for 90 days?

    No shut them down for good.

    I don't think it would take 90days to suddenly have progress on pipeline approval and exports. Once an announcement is made.
    Wait, so you want to give 90 days notice?! 90 days to stockpile, work out supply line changes, ramp up production, effectively 3 months to prepare? I don't think you understand how brinksmanship works.

    One winter without CNG... One spring without fertilizer for the crops. That's all it would take for the north American economy to completely fall apart.
    The current reserves will let the North American economy get through the first winter and spring without much of a hiccup. They have over 9 months before they even have to deal with the supply shortages. In that time, Alberta is the place not making any money. Everything you expect and hope to happen in the rest of NA will happen in Alberta first, only a lot worse and a lot more permanent. After that 9 months, there would have been 9 months worth of work going to reduce the supply needs coming out of Alberta as small a number as possible. What will you need a pipeline approved for then?

    I'm very much saying we announce it, let the insanity start flying and absolutely follow through since we're so unimportant in the grand scheme. If we're not going to get proper revenue for the resources - there's no reason to be Canada's embarrassing cousin anymore.
    I'm guessing you were a pretty angsty and melodramatic teenager?

    "Well if I'm so embarrassing and useless why don't I just kill myself?!"

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    calgary ab
    My Ride
    4x4
    Posts
    2,396
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Haha, onto attacks rather than logic?

    3 months would do little/nothing in terms of allowing alternative supply lines. You're talking 25 days each way to bring in a tanker of oil.

    Putting a productive well in place - even if you ignored environmental approvals? How many months?

    Us wouldn't release it's strategic stockpiles. It could match our us exports sure - but it would be less than 3 months before it was dry. But where exactly are CNG reserves? That's the kicker.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyL View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Haha, onto attacks rather than logic?
    What logic? You want to kill Alberta and send it into economic collapse because a teenager said something that makes you feel upset. There's no logic here.

    3 months would do little/nothing in terms of allowing alternative supply lines. You're talking 25 days each way to bring in a tanker of oil.

    Putting a productive well in place - even if you ignored environmental approvals? How many months?

    Us wouldn't release it's strategic stockpiles. It could match our us exports sure - but it would be less than 3 months before it was dry. But where exactly are CNG reserves? That's the kicker.
    The US wouldn't release the stockpiles it created specifically for this type of scenario, even though they've done so for a lot less multiple times over the years? The SPR can exceed our exports, not just match it. it's over 6 months and that's if you assume that Premier Wall has indeed come back out of political retirement to get Saskatchewan on board. So does 3 months on it's own do a whole lot? Not really, but it's better than nothing. 3 months on top of the 6+ they'd get from the SPR is definitely enough time to get things rolling on seeing minimal effects from an Alberta production shutdown. This is over 9 months until the effects of a shortage are felt. That's the point you're missing here. Alberta's economy will have effectively stopped for those 9 months, and not until after those 9 months will the economies you desire to target even start to slow down because of it, if at all.

    And that just assumes they'd really need to use the SPR in the face of seeing "the north American economy to completely fall apart."

    The reality is that prices will increase a bit and US exports fall to pre-2010 levels to make up for the difference, and those higher prices make more projects feasible in the US and Saskatchewan. If the Oil Embargo in the 70s didn't collapse the economy, I don't know why you think this would.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    calgary ab
    My Ride
    4x4
    Posts
    2,396
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kertejud2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What logic? You want to kill Alberta and send it into economic collapse because a teenager said something that makes you feel upset. There's no logic here. .
    Actually no, because this debate and issue has been going on since the 70s, with no resolution in sight. But continued campaigning to shut us down I feel this is the only way.

    Strategic reserves are largely intended for military needs. Go see what Wikipedia says about capacity and possible output.

    In 30+ years of trying to resolve this - nothing's been accomplished. We're being hurt more annually as everyone's favorite scapegoat.

    You might see I don't say much about Greta couldn't care less, she brings no value to the discussion. Though I did say we should say her name to take advantage of the celebrity, let her take the 'win' - until people see what the results are.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    BMW X1 35i MSport
    Posts
    675
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Maybe I'm completely missing something here... but I've never been able to understand how attacking O&G producers/pipelines contributes towards climate change or sustainability.

    The demand for O&G is still there, so all that does is decrease our market share for less responsible producers in the US and overseas. Ie) Importing oil from Saudi Arabia into Eastern Canadian refineries. If anything, it's giving more power to producers with less regulation/compliance and making climate change worse, is it not?

    I'm 100% for investing into clean technology, renewable energy, hybrids/EVs, etc... and decreasing this demand on oil would eventually impact our producers... but just don't get how restricting and protesting against our O&G producers and pipelines benefits us whatsoever.
    Last edited by [GaGe]; 10-15-2019 at 01:46 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyL View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually no, because this debate and issue has been going on since the 70s, with no resolution in sight. But continued campaigning to shut us down I feel this is the only way.

    Strategic reserves are largely intended for military needs. Go see what Wikipedia says about capacity and possible output.

    As of September 6, 2019, the inventory was 644.8 million barrels
    ---
    the maximum total withdrawal capability from the SPR is only 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m3/d), so it would take over 150 days to use the entire inventory.


    Canada exports 3.5 million barrels to the US, meaning 184 days (or just over 6 months). Don't know what Alberta's share of that is (presumably >80%), but whatever the others choose to sell, only extends that amount of time.


    In 30+ years of trying to resolve this - nothing's been accomplished. We're being hurt more annually as everyone's favorite scapegoat.
    Again, what do you think this will accomplish? It will kill Alberta's economy, and that's about it. You want a 70s style oil embargo, what do you think that accomplished?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    3,090
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    You should be hoping that some greenie ludwig type sabotages transmountain shutting it down for a while. Cause some pain to those idiot's in the lower mainland

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Vancouver/Calgary
    My Ride
    '13 GT1R
    Posts
    37
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtsniffer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You should be hoping that some greenie ludwig type sabotages transmountain shutting it down for a while. Cause some pain to those idiot's in the lower mainland
    False flags in this sector happen all the time. Mainly in other countries, but you can't put anything past these desperados.


    But on a brighter note, Buffet is a smart cookie!

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...gary-1.5321345
    GT1R. 8.82@169
    Mission

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Valladolid, Spain
    My Ride
    Boeing, Airbus
    Posts
    1,595
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [GaGe] View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Maybe I'm completely missing something here... but I've never been able to understand how attacking O&G producers/pipelines contributes towards climate change or sustainability.

    The demand for O&G is still there, so all that does is decrease our market share for less responsible producers in the US and overseas. Ie) Importing oil from Saudi Arabia into Eastern Canadian refineries. If anything, it's giving more power to producers with less regulation/compliance and making climate change worse, is it not?

    I'm 100% for investing into clean technology, renewable energy, hybrids/EVs, etc... and decreasing this demand on oil would eventually impact our producers... but just don't get how restricting and protesting against our O&G producers and pipelines benefits us whatsoever.
    You're not missing anything. The example I often use is the War on Drugs. Doesn't do a lot of good to kill a single drug kingpin when a dozen others will quickly take its place.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Greta does pose an opportunity an excuse to shutdown. Would it rattle the USA? Probably. Do we want to rattle the USA in its already fragile state? I would say no, you only want to try to gain advantage when your opponent is strong in reality.

    USA is in shitshambles right now. Best not to shake the bars of the cage of a starving gorilla. BTW: I did not expect Buzz to actually tell the world that he felt he was underpaid... That singular event is probably more damaging than what Greta has done so far IMO.

    That being said: There is a case for kicking the USA when its down, or striking when the Iron is hot - depending on what metaphor you prefer. It really only depends on how cruel you wish to be. Cruel = $150 oil Noone actually "needs" to burn a few hundred million kilos of fuel to pay a single round of golf on the moon.
    Last edited by ZenOps; 10-16-2019 at 05:22 AM.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Who's at Fault - Left turning vehicle gets hit by right turning vehicle

    By The BMW Guy in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 47
    Latest Threads: 11-15-2017, 01:56 PM
  2. First sign that the new insurance reforms don't work.

    By rage2 in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 109
    Latest Threads: 10-28-2004, 01:25 AM
  3. alberta insurance reforms going through as of october

    By finboy in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 77
    Latest Threads: 06-25-2004, 01:04 AM
  4. Reasoning behind new alberta auto insurance reforms?

    By Xpnsve in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 06-24-2004, 05:06 PM
  5. Parliamentary Reforms In Canada

    By Weapon_R in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 10
    Latest Threads: 11-26-2003, 06:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •