Mar 12, 2013 at 18:02:29
“"Why are you so over the top with anger and hostility"
Because people like you who know NOTHING are villianizing Canada and Alberta for the oil sands BEYOND ALL RATIONAL DEGREE.
It's a bandwagon of lies used by others to avoid their own garbage.”
idyl on Mar 12, 2013 at 20:09:52
“Nobody is villanizing Canada. If they want to sell oil to foreign markets, let them build a pipeline to their own coast (and not through the US). We're happy to keep producing oil and gas on our own soil, and keep making a profit and creating jobs as a consequence.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 22:13:26
“Again...that was the context of the comment you responded to.
Original poster....eminent domian by the chinese contention.
I reply "Trancanada is not owned by the Chinese" (what you're missing is Transcanada enacted some legal action to build on land they were granted permission to build on).
Your reply? "Oh yeah? " and you point to Chinese investment in the tar sands which has no relation, at least no more relation than we could draw to Kevin bacon.
The rest of your jibberish is just a child's need for attention, a need to be part of something even though they can't directly engage the point because they know full well I'm right.”
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 23:50:57
“Thank you for finally admitting you have been misquoting my comments all along.
Now I'll ask you to refrain from stupid playground tactics and trolling for reactions from me. If you have substantive information to provide, please do so. Otherwise, you're barking up the wrong tree.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 21:17:52
“"1 US supporting a pipeline through our nation to a corporation from Canada."
Transcanada is just a transport company. The US refineries and oil sands producers are the big customer.
"US supporting oil that increases carbon emissions more than double of traditional fossil fuels "
No it's not double. Not even close.
"A pipeline is a permanent structure and a permanent commitment to the carbon excessive production method it supports. "
Nope. It could just as easily transport water instead.”
Purfact on Mar 12, 2013 at 00:55:33
“See comment/reply to Jebus,and yes we could use water or rail and not create this commitment/liability for this process/product and commit to creating infrastructures for renewable alternatives. As you have stated we are scraping the bottom of the barrel already.”
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 21:44:44
“Transport water ... you're funny. Your misinformation campaign isn't working. You're inspiring most of us to get busy … and do whatever we can to shut this thing down.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 21:08:46
“There was a license needed in Montana by a Canadian company who needed a huge piece of equip. that they bought brought up from there to the oil sands. Some roads and bridges needed to be closed down.
They got 100's of emails and formal complaints complaining about the pending road closures before they happened trying to get injunctions etc. Only 37% of them came from with the US, the rest came from Saudi Arabia.
maybe it's time to consider reality instead of just being so scared of considering something someone else might call you a conservative over.
Mar 11, 2013 at 20:52:37
“No. You're operating on the bluff that you know anything about what you're talking about. You don't.
You just finished LYING about nexen being "the largest tar sands producer"...because you don't know what you're talking about. The contention was that Transcanada and Keystone have nothing to do with China and so that's why the original poster was wrong when he claimed the chinese did.
That Chinese invested in the tar sands doesn't mean ANYTHING. Lots of people have invested in the tar sands. Your argument is childish.
Not to mention that the transport has already been spoken for by American companies
BTW, The biggest company directly pumping oil through this will be Valero, owned by Texas.
You've lost. Period.”
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 21:35:18
“What is wrong with you?
I never said Nexen is the "largest tar sands producer." Putting something in quotes and falsely attributing them to another user doesn't doesn't win an argument (it ruins your credibility).
You are incredibly combative and thin skinned about this stuff. Do you wish to talk about any of these issues or just run around with your head chopped off making ridiculous and untrue statements. Your choice.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:58:28
“"The environmental damage is not confined to the areas that can be mined, but includes the entire 142,000 km2 and nearby areas. "
" The full extent of the Athabasca bitumen deposit is now heavily roaded, criss-crossed with seismic cuts, and covered with infrastructure necessary to support mining operations, including powerline rights-of-way. "
Environemntal groups are constantly purposely trying to give the idea that the oil sands project is a strip mine the size of England when in fact 90% of the area is completely untouched....no not with roads criss-crossing and so forth - untouched.
You simply cannot handle the fact your heroes lied to you. Get used to it, heroes do that all the time. ”
Cognocit on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:11:33
“I live there and know exactly what I am talking about. Further, I conduct research with the Alberta government on wildlife within the region and have for the past 25 years. You clearly don't know what you are talking about or are just being dishonest.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:55:59
I never said China had ownership over Keystone"
I'm going to take you by the hand and lead you through this conversation so that there can be no mistake just what a fool you've been:
1st post: "It is disturbing that a Chinese owned Canada company is using "eminent domain" to acquire land from US land owners to build the pipe line. "
Context is the Keystone pipeline.
My response: "Transcanada is not owned by the Chinese. "
Your first response:
"Really?" and then you give a link that in no way counters what I just said and follow it up with a non-sequentir:"They sound pretty heavily invested in oil sands pipelines to me? "
Which is meaningless.
"Yes really. Learn to read. That China is investing along in the tar sands has no bearing on the fact that transcanada is not owned by them."
Throughout this entire baloney you haven't once made a point, countered any of mine or been able to read or stay within context.
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:01:00
“Are you serious. You're not even quoting me (but another user). You will not be missed.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:51:10
“"I never said China had ownership over Keystone"""
And yet that's the exact context of the original post I repiled to on this thread and you chimed in on.
"Yes … get some help. You're living in with your head in the sand if you think China isn't heavily invested in the oil sands."
You're the one who needs help since i NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER siad that the Chinese aren't invested in the oil sands....not once. In fact I outright state they are heavily invested in the oil sands like 6 times now.
The problem here sir is that you seem to think that investment in the oil sands = 'has a significant say in the Keystone" which it doesn;'t.”
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:04:57
“You seem to be operating under some delusion that companies operating in the oil sands won't benefit from Keystone. I don't know where you get such a silly and nonsensical notion.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:42:30
“If it was all about the Earth you wouldn't be protesting this pipeline like it was the Vietnam war and instead you'd be protesting your own coal plants which are 50 times as GHG intensive and the entire oil sands.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:41:33
“says the guy giving us a fox news link.
".“Rising production of liquid fuels in the United States accounts for 60 percent of the fall in U.S. oil imports since 2006 and nearly 100 percent since 2010,”"
This actually has nothign to do with what I said. What they're talking about is no more dependence on FINISHED oil products. This has nothign to do with an entire sector of their economy which is based on importing CRUDE, refining it and then selling it for a profit.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:38:58
“What we make of it is that China is investing billion into the oil sands and it STILL has nothing to do with Keystone.
Are you under the impression that merely investing in companies that have NOTHING to do wtih Transcanada or Keystone or the Texan companies wishing to have the oil transported means that somehow China owns the keystone?
You're beyond help and you're wrong and you know it.”
idyl on Mar 11, 2013 at 18:48:02
“Please check the conversation. You like seeing things that aren't there.
I never said China had ownership over Keystone. Let me repeat that (for the reading impaired). I NEVER said China had ownership over Keystone. This doesn't mean they won't benefit from it, as they are benefiting from many of their investments in oil sands projects and companies.
Yes … get some help. You're living in with your head in the sand if you think China isn't heavily invested in the oil sands. You appear to have an internet connection. I recommend you use it.”
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:31:24
“"OMG ... China has nothing to do with Keystone? "
Yes.> China has nothign to do with the Keystone.
"You're actually going to sit here with a straight face and say China is not investing heavily in oil sands companies and projects? "
omg. Are you 6? Seriously. Investing in the oil sands doesn't remotely equal investing in or having anything to do with the Keystone.
"Chinese oil and gas companies own 17% of Calgary-based MEG Energy Corp., 60% in MacKay River and Dover oil sands projects, 9 percent stake in Syncrude, 45% stake in projected owned by Penn West Energy Trust, and 35% working interest in Nexen's Long lake oil sands project (which they acquired in a bankruptcy).
Omg. How small do you think the oil sands are silly boy?
And yet Canadian companies still produce 57% of the oil sands:
Mar 11, 2013 at 18:27:17
“"The oil sands have devastated areas the size of small countries."
This claim is generally caused by confusion of what's what. The Athabasca bitumen deposit is indeed huge, about 142 thousand square kilometres, or 60% as big as the UK, which isn't a particularly big country in the first place. But of this area, only a small fraction can be extracted economically with current technology, amounting to about 24 thousand square kilometres. The rest is either too deep to mine or too shallow or too thin to use in-situ methods on.
Of that remaining area, only about 20% can be extracted with open pit mining and the rest by in-situ technologies like SAGD. That means the potential mining area is about 4,800 kilometres. The area that actually has been mined is ---715 square kilometres---, about the size of Singapore, and about 10% of this is at some stage of reclamation. That's still a big number, but keep in mind that the Canadian boreal forest is **3.2 million** square kilometres in total.”
Cognocit on Mar 11, 2013 at 18:55:47
“I think you unintentionally have added to the confusion with your explanation. The environmental damage is not confined to the areas that can be mined, but includes the entire 142,000 km2 and nearby areas. The full extent of the Athabasca bitumen deposit is now heavily roaded, criss-crossed with seismic cuts, and covered with infrastructure necessary to support mining operations, including powerline rights-of-way. In addition, an area much larger than the Athabasca region is being contaminated by transport of toxic pollutants via water and air. We can expect considerable additional disturbance over the next 20 years.
Reclamation of altered mine sites is occurring but that will not result in restoration of the original unspoiled environment - certainly an improvement but still a serious and worrisome ecological transformation from the undisturbed norm.”