Dirtiest Oil on Earth

Anyone against oil (no matter where it comes from) that lives in Canada and buys even one
banana or mango is full of shit.

Anyone against oil and it's effects on our planet and drives a car is full of shit.

Anyone worried about over development or the "raping" of our natural resources and has more
than two kids is full of shit.

On the other hand, if you think the world can continue to use oil at the present rate or
more for much longer, you're fooling yourself.

If you think ANY oil is clean, you're fooling yourself.

Anyone who watches, listens or reads the news (from any source) and doesn't realize that
it is ALL biased and hyperbole is an idiot. I'd say there's some truth in tungstens posts
and there's some in the oil industry folks posts, and a whole bunch of bullshit in both.
All I know is no one here knows the 100% truth.

You've always struck me as a pretty reasonable guy. You honestly believe that this opinion isn't a bit black and white?

All of you folks who are concerned about the devastating possibilities of tanker traffic through the Queen Charlottes: I dare you to get rid of your cars. Every. Last. One.

By your logic, everyone reading this produces CO2, a greenhouse gas, so we should all end ourselves.

The video in the OP was weak. Perhaps it was intended for people from the Ozarks? Might as well have this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A

I won a debate face to face with Nikiforuk over the need to eat locally grown food in front of a crowd of 50 people at a student council session in university - I was arguing against. Give me a chance to sit down with him again on this, and I would own him… I've read all of his books on the subject, and probably most of the sources he's researched on them. He's very good at bringing in outrageous talking points, that should make many people angry, while ignoring the benefits of what he's arguing against.

By my logic, live your life, limit the amount of children you spawn, and if you're against the in situ production of oil from the oil sands (by far and away the most promising and largest portion of the production), living in a country with the largest stable recoverable reserve of land locked oil, then yes, I think you should stop driving. If you're concerned with a leak from a tanker, I think that yes, you should stop driving… because by doing so you're contributing to one tanker volume every two years (still haven't found that study… seems to have disappeared from the interwebs) of hydrocarbons into the very waters your purporting to protect.

Tankers are far safer today, clean ups are far faster and more effective than ever before - god forbid one should rupture. Do I want to see concentrated oil in the Queen Charlottes? Of course not - I do want to see our oil marketable at a stable price, and Asia is literally the only way that is going to happen. Whether the shipping happens from the Arctic, from Kitimat, or from Vancouver I don't really care. It needs to happen in order to make Ft. McMurray profitable at a good margin, providing a good rate of return, and ultimately providing investors with a reason to keep their stock.

Cognitive dissonance? I dont see how that applies.

Since subtext doesn't seem to work for you…

You said:

Get over yourself dude. Not everyone that drives a car is full of shit for being concern about the effect they are having on the planet. Your arguments are broad and carry little meaning. Two kids? Where did that number come from? Your magic 8 ball?

That has an angry connotation with it. I picked that up from the four letter words, ad hominem logic, and sarcastic tone. This suggests that you enjoy driving your car, but you also want to be seen as caring for the environment…

Cognitive Dissonance: The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

You have, on one hand, a need or want to drive a car (in case you haven't put this together yet, driving a car is a behavior). On the other hand, you have a need or want to appear environmentally caring (and since I'm being a dick, I'll also point out that an environmentally friendly attitude is… an attitude)… the two are opposed, hence, cognitive dissonance.

I hardly see the link between driving a car in vancouver or anywhere else and the need to support a oil pipeline and tanker route to china.

Yeah that's BS. Two kids is two too many. We need a massive cull of human population. Not the 80 million we keep adding every year.

Unfortunately that doesn't mesh with the insanity of the growth model.

Where's your magic 8 ball? lol
Since a wiki with over 250 references from around the world including respected scientists
isn't enough.
http://www.overpopulation.org/
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/too_many_people_too_much_consumption/2041/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7974995.stm
But I guess they aren't in the form of a over produced, "scary" youtube video with some
seriously "epic" soundtrack.

You've always struck me as a pretty reasonable guy. You honestly believe that this opinion isn't a bit black and white?

No I don't believe it's black and white at all. What I'm trying to convey is that the
far left seems to say that everything oil/government/money is bad. And, that if you in
any way support this you're evil. Of course, I'm putting quite a bit of my own personal
experiences in my posts of course, and it just seems to me to me that on the one side
it's all devils and evil, and the other is sunshine and rainbows. I find it hard to reconcile
someone who comes across as being so against oil and yet still uses oil indiscriminately…
you use more oil than necessary when you buy a banana that was shipped here.

My real point is that it's not black and white as both sides in this seem to be trying to
say.

By your logic, everyone reading this produces CO2, a greenhouse gas, so we should all end ourselves.

Now that is black and white.

I hardly see the link between driving a car in vancouver or anywhere else and the need to support a oil pipeline and tanker route to china.

I'll try again.

Currently the common fight is against tankers running through the Queen Charlottes, yes?

Tankers have a very high success rate as a method of transporting oil. Very few rupture catastrophically, and while that would be disastrous, it's unlikely.

On the other hand, you're currently dumping a tanker full of oil willingly into your storm drains every couple years. It seems to me that your fight is misplaced, and perhaps you should focus on cleaning up the damage that is happening rather than focus on a highly regulated industry that is constantly bettering itself.

On the other hand, you're currently dumping a tanker full of oil willingly into your storm drains every couple years.

I am not, stop saying that FFS.

I am not, stop saying that FFS.

The pejorative you. There are burned hydrocarbons that come out of your tailpipe and settle that are washed away with rainwater. Other people have leaks. By driving you are contributing to it, and while you may be responsible with the use of your vehicle, others are not… it's irrelevant though, because it all adds up to one tanker every couple of years getting pumped straight into the ocean in all it's unfiltered goodness.

I'll try again.

Currently the common fight is against tankers running through the Queen Charlottes, yes?

Tankers have a very high success rate as a method of transporting oil. Very few rupture catastrophically, and while that would be disastrous, it's unlikely.

On the other hand, you're currently dumping a tanker full of oil willingly into your storm drains every couple years. It seems to me that your fight is misplaced, and perhaps you should focus on cleaning up the damage that is happening rather than focus on a highly regulated industry that is constantly bettering itself.

One of the links I provided showed how much oil is runoff vs oil spills from tankers and
such into our oceans.

My problem with the new pipeline going into Kitimat (and really the old ones too) isn't
worry from a tanker spill as I think with two 5,000hp tractor tugs as escorts, double
hulls, GPS, AIS and modern Radar units a tanker going on the rocks is acceptable. What
they haven't figured out and what is really a problem is the pipeline itself. Pipelines
have a propensity for leaking, and are susceptible to earthquake damage and other environmental
effects.

And, all of that for very little return for BC. A handful of jobs, very little going into
the provincial coffers, and a huge liability.

I had someone tell me they didn't want tankers in BC…look at any AIS website and you'll
see just how many come down the JDF and head right for the Vancouver area every day.

I am not, stop saying that FFS.

Sorry my friend, it is all of "us".
http://oceanlink.info/ocean_matters/oil.html
It's not just oil dripping from your engine, it's the wheel bearing grease, the petrol
product from your tires breaking down, the spillage from the oil recycling, repair shops,
and the industry as a whole.

Currently, you treat your storm drain water. You're "upgrading" to direct dumps in the Frasier river. Albertans and oil companies are the bad guys, while your own city council is moving away from a clean system in favor or openly dumping waste into your rivers and oceans. You folks make no sense to me politically.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/licandinsp/inspections/environment/faqs.htm#stormdrains1

The point you're trying to make here is dead wrong. Trust me, I've been on municipal sewer design teams for over ten years.

Separating sewers avoids the waste of energy and resources that would be otherwise spent treating water that doesn't need treating, ie storm runoff.

Kn.

I have a problem with the selling of a resource with privatized profits and then socialized losses.

take a look at what norway has done with its oil wealth.

Once a dollar amount to volume royality is negotiated for the pipelines flow through our province you can bet construction starts ASAP.

Selling bitumen to China (a dictatorship which people conveniently forget) at a heavily reduced rate. Pumping the stuff through land that belongs to people who don't want a pipeline. Tankering it out through a stunning ecosystem that would be irreparably damaged if/when a spill occurs. Little or no benefit but all the risk for BC.

It'll be a tragic failure of corruption and greed if Harper and his fools push this thing through.