 Ottawa gives nod to west-to-east oil pipelineBusiness | 206978 hits | Feb 02 9:30 am | Posted by: commanderkai  The federal government is firming up its support of two projects that would see oil from Alberta piped to Atlantic Canada.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Consumers could eventually see lower gasoline and other fuel prices, because Western crude is much cheaper than the Brent crude refineries are using now.
It could also reverse the recent trend of refineries closing their doors, said former Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who runs a website dedicated to the tracking of pump prices.
all win win win. for everyone.
So of course, the lefty retard Greenpeace doesnt want..
Consumers could eventually see lower gasoline and other fuel prices, because Western crude is much cheaper than the Brent crude refineries are using now.
It could also reverse the recent trend of refineries closing their doors, said former Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who runs a website dedicated to the tracking of pump prices.
all win win win. for everyone.
So of course, the lefty retard Greenpeace doesnt want..
Yeah... because it was only lefty retard Greenpeace that didn't want a pipeline to Kitimat and tankers through Douglas Channel.
I'd buy into your opinion if you had a bit more of a clue on the risks beyond the pretty video done by Enbridge.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Greenpeace doesn't oilsands oil going . They'd shut down the entire oilsands in the blink of an eye if they had the power to do so.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Greenpeace might, but they are not the only group opposed to Northern Gateway. Demonizing any group involved in the process that one happens to disagree with hardly promotes dialogue.
One would think the proponents of Northern Gateway might look at how successful INM is with Joe Canuck with that approach.
Greenpeace doesn't oilsands oil going . They'd shut down the entire oilsands in the blink of an eye if they had the power to do so.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Greenpeace might, but they are not the only group opposed to Northern Gateway. Demonizing any group involved in the process that one happens to disagree with hardly promotes dialogue.
One would think the proponents of Northern Gateway might look at how successful INM is with Joe Canuck with that approach.
Northern Gateway is most likely dead. Too much stakeholder opposition. West-to-East pipeline and Keystone XL are the best hopes now.
Greenpeace doesn't oilsands oil going . They'd shut down the entire oilsands in the blink of an eye if they had the power to do so.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Demonizing any group involved in the process that one happens to disagree with hardly promotes dialogue.
How about you tell the tree huggers that as well.
In the meantime, I would much rather the East getting Alberta oil rather than having
to import from outside.
It was dumb 30 years ago, it's dumb now.
Greenpeace doesn't oilsands oil going . They'd shut down the entire oilsands in the blink of an eye if they had the power to do so.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Greenpeace might, but they are not the only group opposed to Northern Gateway. Demonizing any group involved in the process that one happens to disagree with hardly promotes dialogue.
One would think the proponents of Northern Gateway might look at how successful INM is with Joe Canuck with that approach.
Northern Gateway is most likely dead. Too much stakeholder opposition. West-to-East pipeline and Keystone XL are the best hopes now.
Agreed. Stakeholder opposition is too high and Enbridge has mismanaged the message from day one. Kitimat and Douglas Channel was foolish from the outset and the plethora of leaks and bad press they had had over the last year or so sealed the deal. East is the only way to go but I'm willing to bet that opposition to that will start to warm up as well.
Greenpeace doesn't oilsands oil going . They'd shut down the entire oilsands in the blink of an eye if they had the power to do so.
Time to tune them out. Get down to business.
Demonizing any group involved in the process that one happens to disagree with hardly promotes dialogue.
How about you tell the tree huggers that as well.
In the meantime, I would much rather the East getting Alberta oil rather than having
to import from outside.
It was dumb 30 years ago, it's dumb now.
Greenpeace is an advocacy group - a one hit wonder that is hardly representative of the opposition writ large to Northern Gateway. Many oppose the tanker traffic, many oppose the fact that the pipeline would be crossing a lot of watersheds, some oppose the pipeline because it ships raw resources out like raw lumber in BC. Add to that the mishandling of the stakeholders by Enbridge and the government, and you move from cautious opposition by the majority to outright opposition by the majority.
Everyone wins with a west-to-east line.
Except the anti-oilsanders. Their bitching and moaning will continue with a west to east proposal.
The Kitimat line wasn't the main problem. All those damn foreign-registered rattletrap tankers going into the sound was the greater danger. One tanker crash and it would have made a hundred pipeline bursts look like a walk in the park. Everyone wins with a west-to-east line.
Well it's hard to have one without the other. Mind, I agree though. One tanker and the damage in such a remote area with minimal nearby support means game over.
Everyone wins with a west-to-east line.
Agreed. Those refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick should be happy.
And I kept asking, "Why Kitmat?" Are there not better locations on the West Coast to use?
Everyone wins with a west-to-east line.
Agreed. Those refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick should be happy.
And I kept asking, "Why Kitmat?" Are there not better locations on the West Coast to use?
Well, Prince Rupert is one, but I think it's more expensive on the pipeline side of it though a bit less risky on the tanker traffic side. Frankly, Vancouver has a lot of traffic as is without adding more tanker traffic into the Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Salish Sea route. Add to that, I'm willing to bet the US might have something to say about increasing tanker traffic near the San Juan Islands border since that traffic means oil going to China.