British Expats
Page 5 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   BC Provincial Election (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/bc-provincial-election-797067/)

Shard May 21st 2013 8:06 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718745)
Right guy, wrong memory. What he did (and I criticized him both on here and personally at the time) was to compare the effect of burning all the Alberta oil sand resources with all the coal on the planet and concluded, bizarrely, that this would not be misinterpreted. Silly boy.
Compared meaning equated ? Not sure if I understand your drift...?

Almost Canadian May 21st 2013 8:07 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718745)
Right guy, wrong memory. What he did (and I criticized him both on here and personally at the time) was to compare the effect of burning all the Alberta oil sand resources with all the coal on the planet and concluded, bizarrely, that this would not be misinterpreted. Silly boy.
So were his conclusions wrong? I accept that those you object to made hay while they could but, was what he found correct?

Is 0.03 of a degree minimal or massive? I have no idea.

Novocastrian May 21st 2013 8:19 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10718746)
Genuine question: Has there been any long term effect from an oilspill anywhere in the world? i.e., an ecological system that was unable to recover. I understand that seagulls covered in oil doesn't look great.
The one that springs immediately to mind is the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. That was in 1989 and the ecosystem is not yet restored. No doubt it will in time, but it hasn't yet, what, 24 years later.

I don't imagine the Kuwait oil fires in the 1st Gulf war did a lot of good, but there's not much of an ecosystem to damage around there.

Novocastrian May 21st 2013 8:21 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10718749)
Compared meaning equated ? Not sure if I understand your drift...?
Compared.

Novocastrian May 21st 2013 8:23 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10718750)
So were his conclusions wrong? I accept that those you object to made hay while they could but, was what he found correct?

Is 0.03 of a degree minimal or massive? I have no idea.
Minimal but an unnecessary and pointless comparison. It's completely impossible to burn all the coal on the planet.

Shard May 21st 2013 8:23 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718778)
Compared.
So what was his conclusion ? :confused:

Novocastrian May 21st 2013 8:28 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10718784)
So what was his conclusion ? :confused:
That his pointless modelling exercise wouldn't be misinterpreted.

Almost Canadian May 21st 2013 8:34 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718783)
Minimal but an unnecessary and pointless comparison. It's completely impossible to burn all the coal on the planet.
I am not too concerned with the comparison with the coal as I understood it to mean that, when compared with burning the resources of oilsands and coal, burning coal was worse.

But, if the effect of burning all the "natural resource" of the oilsands had a minimal effect on warming (as that appears to be what are saying), isn't that a significant finding, albeit one that the likes of those that profess the climate is doomed would not wish to hear?

Novocastrian May 21st 2013 8:38 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10718804)
I am not too concerned with the comparison with the coal as I understood it to mean that, when compared with burning the resources of oilsands and coal, burning coal was worse.

But, if the effect of burning all the "natural resource" of the oilsands had a minimal effect on warming (as that appears to be what are saying), isn't that a significant finding, albeit one that the likes of those that profess the climate is doomed would not wish to hear?
May I be allowed to quote myself from an earlier thread on this subject?

"Agreed. But in addition it's such a stupid strategy for Canada to base its economy on exploiting a resource which doesn't produce a reasonable return on energy invested. Oil/tar/bitumen/Teer-sands use in total roughly 0.6 energy units to "win" 1.0 energy units, and then they leave a devastated landscape, water table, atmosphere, First Nations lands etc. Not to mention rain forest destruction and more encroachment of First Nations lands when they figure out that America doesn't want that stuff but maybe China is less principled.

Was it this thread or another where I likened this strategy to basing your economy on typewriter ribbons and photographic paper?"

JonboyE May 21st 2013 8:40 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718738)
Sorry Jon, but that's an accountant speaking. You mean dispersed. :)
So I do.

Shard May 21st 2013 8:47 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718811)
May I be allowed to quote myself from an earlier thread on this subject?

"Agreed. But in addition it's such a stupid strategy for Canada to base its economy on exploiting a resource which doesn't produce a reasonable return on energy invested. Oil/tar/bitumen/Teer-sands use in total roughly 0.6 energy units to "win" 1.0 energy units, and then they leave a devastated landscape, water table, atmosphere, First Nations lands etc. Not to mention rain forest destruction and more encroachment of First Nations lands when they figure out that America doesn't want that stuff but maybe China is less principled.

Was it this thread or another where I likened this strategy to basing your economy on typewriter ribbons and photographic paper?"
Apart from FN sensitivities, these are fairly weak arguments to make against tar sand extraction. Analogy to typewriters is also irrelevant because, as you make an allusion to, there is a vast country in Asia that has a need for oil.

Almost Canadian May 21st 2013 8:52 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10718811)
May I be allowed to quote myself from an earlier thread on this subject?

"Agreed. But in addition it's such a stupid strategy for Canada to base its economy on exploiting a resource which doesn't produce a reasonable return on energy invested. Oil/tar/bitumen/Teer-sands use in total roughly 0.6 energy units to "win" 1.0 energy units, and then they leave a devastated landscape, water table, atmosphere, First Nations lands etc. Not to mention rain forest destruction and more encroachment of First Nations lands when they figure out that America doesn't want that stuff but maybe China is less principled.

Was it this thread or another where I likened this strategy to basing your economy on typewriter ribbons and photographic paper?"
OK. So where do you suggest the world obtains the energy to permit you to fly around the world for "personal" or "professional" trips? I am not intending to focus on you in an individual sense as that would be too crass but how, for example, is mankind to meet its travel needs on a daily basis?

JonboyE May 21st 2013 8:53 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10718726)
I didn't state that there was but one would assume that, as good as you are with figures, you would understand that, if the Feds didn't receive the amount they require to do the things they wished to, taxes would have to go up in order to pay for them.

I would think that, if Canadians can obtain a higher price for their product by selling it to those that wish to pay a premium for it, it would be silly not to do so which would, again, increase the amount of tax paid to the Feds that, one assumes, would benefit all Canadians; or does that kind of logic only apply to lumber?
Are Asians willing to pay a premium price for oil? Apparently so for LNG, but I am not so sure about oil.

But to turn your other question around. Do I think that if the feds get more money from oil taxes they will increase the transfer payments to BC? No. Make additional investements specifically in BC? No.

We might get a small something as part of a general increase to all provinces, but I don't think that in any way compensates for the risk.

I thought Canadians were Canadians, not BCers, or Albertans, etc.
According to Redford we are not. It's Alberta's oil and Alberta is keeping all the revenue from it.

I have no particular dog in this fight but I really do hope that the pipeline wends its way east. That way, those in BC can pat themselves on the back for sending the work ... east
Me too. Or north. Or south (where it will end up going).

(and the money that goes with it)
What money?

jimf May 21st 2013 9:02 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10718820)
OK. So where do you suggest the world obtains the energy to permit you to fly around the world for "personal" or "professional" trips? I am not intending to focus on you in an individual sense as that would be too crass but how, for example, is mankind to meet its travel needs on a daily basis?
Dilithium crystals

Shard May 21st 2013 9:19 am
Re: BC Provincial Election
 
Originally Posted by jimf (Post 10718830)
Dilithium crystals
:rofl::thumbup:

As usual the hypocrisy of the anti-oil brigade is breathtaking.


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:28 pm.
Page 5 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.