HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6761  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 1:25 AM
Hackslack Hackslack is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 646
Despite Alberta's warnings, oil majors are falling in love with carbon capture again

http://calgaryherald.com/commodities...9-fdd7e46e6070

Right now, CCS facilities around the world capture 29 million tonnes of CO2 per year – and projects in both Alberta and Saskatchewan make a large contribution to that total.

With $745 million in funding from Alberta and $120 million from Ottawa, Shell Canada Ltd. built the Quest CCS project at a bitumen upgrader near Edmonton, which reduces the upgraders emissions by 35 per cent and has the capacity to sequester 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of 250,000 cars, at an estimated cost of $1.35 billion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6762  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 4:21 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 18,499
The National covers the diversification of Hamilton's economy:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1185232451670

Trudeau offers reassurance to steelworkers, but do they need it?
The National

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is presenting himself as Canada's 'Man of Steel' offering his reassurance to Hamilton steelworkers that the federal government has prioritized their interests. But there's no indication they should even be concerned. With a booming economy and rock-bottom employment rates, the city's economy is less dependent on steel than you might think
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6763  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 4:38 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Foreign influence in public decision making should be limited.

(...)

It's a conversation we probably need to have at a national level.
I'd make some exceptions to that rule whenever global pollution or global peace are concerned, though. Both these problems transcend borders.

As a citizen of this planet, it's not true I don't have the right to say anything against, say, an environmentally disastrous new project planned somewhere in China. I can be vocal about it in my own circles, getting people to learn about it and maybe consider joining my cause, maybe even get the government here on board, which can then voice its displeasure to China or even threaten to introduce steep tariffs on the cheap throwaway crap this new planned Chinese factory would be churning out and sending our way.

That sort of movement can have a non-negligible influence in the end. (Just witness the impact they're having on this pipeline project...)

Having said that, maybe we're in agreement - you said foreign influence should be "limited", not eliminated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6764  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 5:22 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Government bureaucrats attempting to carve out exceptions is fraught with problems. I present as exhibit A:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prev...nada-1.2717774
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6765  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 5:57 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Also, I don't see how it's automatically some sort of conspiracy if an environmentalist California-based NGO happens to devote resources to fighting polluting projects in various countries. Pollution knows no borders.
And it's particularly strange how one side gets tarnished with this "international money funding protests" brush when last I checked Kinder Morgan was a US company.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6766  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 5:58 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Despite Alberta's warnings, oil majors are falling in love with carbon capture again

http://calgaryherald.com/commodities...9-fdd7e46e6070

Right now, CCS facilities around the world capture 29 million tonnes of CO2 per year – and projects in both Alberta and Saskatchewan make a large contribution to that total.

With $745 million in funding from Alberta and $120 million from Ottawa, Shell Canada Ltd. built the Quest CCS project at a bitumen upgrader near Edmonton, which reduces the upgraders emissions by 35 per cent and has the capacity to sequester 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of 250,000 cars, at an estimated cost of $1.35 billion.
Not sure what the NDP could be moaning about except maybe they didn't realize carbon capture could make evil coal viable to large scale wind and solar? Wind power and solar power are not economic for large scale use because they are intermittent power sources and not dispatchable (read California duck power curve article). If governments keep ratcheting up the carbon tax and/or low carbon power subsidies then carbon capture will become more viable, especially in areas where the CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...ys-duck-curve/
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. - M.Tyson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6767  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 6:08 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
Not sure what the NDP could be moaning about except maybe they didn't realize carbon capture could make evil coal viable to large scale wind and solar? Wind power and solar power are not economic for large scale use because they are intermittent power sources and not dispatchable (read California duck power curve article). If governments keep ratcheting up the carbon tax and/or low carbon power subsidies then carbon capture will become more viable, especially in areas where the CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...ys-duck-curve/
Isn't this where things like Tesla's Powerpack system could help?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6768  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 6:15 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
And it's particularly strange how one side gets tarnished with this "international money funding protests" brush when last I checked Kinder Morgan was a US company.
Kinder Morgan has a well defined Federal audit process to go through before it can invest any resources here. That's what the NEB is for.

For the record, Kinder Morgan also paid for TV commercials. I think that is highly inappropriate and should probably be illegal.

"But Kinder Morgan is American" is classic whataboutism. If foreign influence is a problem, we should rectify the ways these avenues are undermining our domestic policies - that applies to pipeline companies (for and against), likewise with politically active NGOs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6769  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 7:03 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
"But Kinder Morgan is American" is classic whataboutism. If foreign influence is a problem, we should rectify the ways these avenues are undermining our domestic policies - that applies to pipeline companies (for and against), likewise with politically active NGOs.
So, you think it would be, for example, completely out of bounds for any NGO based anywhere that isn't North Korea to do the slightest effort towards helping avoid a nuclear arms race over there?

As I've been saying in the Donald Trump thread for a year and a half already, if someone brings up a valid reason why one shouldn't endorse Hillary with their vote, that reason's just as valid whether or not that someone happens to be Russian. I guess that boils down to someone123's point, made on the last page, about "foreign influence". If they've got good arguments, then that's that, foreign or not. It's almost a pure ad hominem otherwise - you don't like the potential impact of unfettered tar sands exploitation on the planet, okay, you're in Vancouver, fine, you have the right to your opinion, you're in Seattle? Shut up!

If KM wants to run ads... I'm fine with that.

We had TransCanada ads here for a while (last year and before) trying to hammer home that Energy East would be the best thing to happen to us since sliced bread. Fair game, I never ever dreamed of complaining about those ads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6770  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 7:10 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
As I've already said - politics isn't all about arguments - it's about resources and organisation.

You keep focusing on pipelines, but what about foreign companies throwing money, resources, personnel, and strength behind defeating hydro projects in Quebec on environmental grounds? No problem with that?

Comparing Canada to North Korea to try to prove your point is absurd. Canada is a transparent free democracy. I don't have a problem with people going online and discussing these things. Knowledge, discussion, and free exchange of ideas are the great equaliser in today's world, and having an open transparent internet, as Canada has, is an invaluable tool in that.

What I do have a problem with is foreign companies organising, sponsoring "get out the vote" campaigns, and funding organisations who are bragging about being able to influence local elections using foreign capital. These kinds of activities can produce follow on lopsided downstream effects which warp and potentially harm domestic public policy - again on the back of foreign resources.

This isn't about arguments - it's about political strength, organisation, resources, and money being used to undermine domestic policies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6771  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 7:39 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
As I've already said - politics isn't all about arguments - it's about resources and organisation.

You keep focusing on pipelines, but what about foreign companies throwing money, resources, personnel, and strength behind defeating hydro projects in Quebec on environmental grounds? No problem with that?
Of course I have no problem with that, I'd be hypocritical if I wanted to shut them up.

Some good actually came out of it already FYI - the mostly "foreign-funded" opponents to Northern Pass managed to convince people here in the Townships to demand the line be buried in the nicest areas (something originally Hydro-Qc didn't intend to bother with, because they thought they could get away with it).

Again, I don't care where you're from, I care about your ideas and arguments. All the money in the world and the wrong cause, you won't get anywhere; right cause and little money, you might win in a landslide. Money isn't the be-all end-all in politics. Especially nowadays. We've seen many examples of parties or people with big war chests bite the dust versus newbie opponents.


Quote:
Comparing Canada to North Korea to try to prove your point is absurd.
It was a genuine question to try to gauge where you wanted to draw your own personal line for interfering in other countries' affairs.



Quote:
What I do have a problem with is foreign companies organising, sponsoring "get out the vote" campaigns, and funding organisations who are bragging about being able to influence local elections using foreign capital. These kinds of activities can produce follow on lopsided downstream effects which warp and potentially harm domestic public policy - again on the back of foreign resources.

This isn't about arguments - it's about political strength, organisation, resources, and money being used to undermine domestic policies.
It's a continuum from "opposing a project" (completely legitimate) to "taking a political stand" (more debatable), though.

See the example I gave earlier of a proposed landfill right next to the Châteauguay River in Upstate New York right on the border. That river immediately flows into Quebec and in the St. Lawrence.

Let's say there's a race in Franklin County NY between two people, Candidate A whose main platform is promising to kill the landfill expansion project and Candidate B whose single issue is that he guarantees he'll make the landfill expansion happen if elected.

You wouldn't be okay with people from the Châteauguay River valley in Quebec (for example, that organization I linked to earlier, "Coalition Against the Westville Landfill Site Expansion", a Quebec-based NGO - and just to be sure you're aware, FYI, Westville is in New York State) helping Candidate A...?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6772  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 7:51 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
You wouldn't be okay with people from the Châteauguay River valley in Quebec (for example, that organization I linked to earlier, "Coalition Against the Westville Landfill Site Expansion", a Quebec-based NGO - and just to be sure you're aware, FYI, Westville is in New York State) helping Candidate A...?
Yes, I would have a problem with this? I'm not sure how any rational person wouldn't? A foreign country using resources to influence domestic elections, seems on it's face, violating the spirit of democracy. The decision should rest on the Westville township residents (or whoever has jurisdiction over that vote).

You give indigenous groups against Hydro power in Quebec (or pipelines in BC) 2 trillion dollars to fight it, that certainly will warp what happens next regarding battles over public policy.

While money is not the be all and end all in political influence, I hardly think politics is a place where more money should be allowed to flow freely without restriction. It is certainly not the deciding variable, but it is certainly a confounding variable, and more thought around the ways in which it is being used to influence our decision making wouldn't hurt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6773  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 7:56 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
The decision should rest on the Westville township residents (or whoever has jurisdiction over that vote).
I kinda disagree that the St. Lawrence is theirs to pollute, though.

If the impacts of what they do affect people beyond their borders, I don't see why it shouldn't go both ways - you affect us, fair game for us to try to affect you.

The border is as permeable to our NGO's money as it is to your pollution bound the opposite direction.

BTW, seeing as many of us aren't from Victoria BC, does your logic mean that all the Albertans who have been panning that city for releasing raw sewage in the ocean should completely shut up? After all, the Salish Sea isn't yours or mine, we have nothing to say if the local people "democratically" decide to turn it into toxic sludge because it's more convenient for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6774  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 8:05 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
BTW, using the Victoria example, doesn't it feel really weird that you'd let "a Canadian" from Newfoundland donate $20 to a "Let's Stop Victoria From Continuing to Dump Sewage Into The Ocean" organization, while you'd want to block "a foreigner" from Port Angeles, WA from doing the same thing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6775  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 8:07 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
You seem to be falsely equating money with free speech. I don't have a problem with anybody in any capacity making any comment online about anything whatsoever.

If Alberta was funding a grassroots efforts in Victoria, BC to influence their election to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, then yes, that is probably something Victoria, BC residents might want to take a look at.

I will say the demarcation between foreign as it relates to other countries and foreign as it relates to sub-entities within a Federal umbrella entity seem to be two different category of problems. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with BC funding anti-pipeline activities in Alberta. That is Canada sourced resources funding a Canada borne problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6776  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 8:13 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
There is some interesting recent history regarding controversial domestic-to-domestic influence in California recently, with their Prop 8 vote being funded by Utah-based LDS organisations. Unfortunately, this is one case where more money was correlated with a victory :

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-di...tion-8/209748/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122463078466356397

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...sition_8_(2008)

Quote:
By election day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters.[47][48] The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively,[49] from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest.
Not an issue that should be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6777  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 8:23 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I will say the demarcation between foreign as it relates to other countries and foreign as it relates to sub-entities within a Federal umbrella entity seem to be two different category of problems. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with BC funding anti-pipeline activities in Alberta. That is Canada sourced resources funding a Canada borne problem.
Seems weird to draw the line at "foreign". Seems to be geography would be the main factor. It's more logical for someone in Elgin, Quebec to oppose the Westville, NY landfill (up to and including financially) than it would be for someone in San Diego.

Similarly, given that I'm thousands of kms away, I feel more out of place speaking out about people dumping sewage in the Strait of Juan de Fuca than someone from Washington State with a house sitting right on that body of water would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6778  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 9:08 PM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
So, you think it would be, for example, completely out of bounds for any NGO based anywhere that isn't North Korea to do the slightest effort towards helping avoid a nuclear arms race over there?

As I've been saying in the Donald Trump thread for a year and a half already, if someone brings up a valid reason why one shouldn't endorse Hillary with their vote, that reason's just as valid whether or not that someone happens to be Russian. I guess that boils down to someone123's point, made on the last page, about "foreign influence". If they've got good arguments, then that's that, foreign or not. It's almost a pure ad hominem otherwise - you don't like the potential impact of unfettered tar sands exploitation on the planet, okay, you're in Vancouver, fine, you have the right to your opinion, you're in Seattle? Shut up!

If KM wants to run ads... I'm fine with that.

We had TransCanada ads here for a while (last year and before) trying to hammer home that Energy East would be the best thing to happen to us since sliced bread. Fair game, I never ever dreamed of complaining about those ads.
I don't think there's easy bright lines to draw here, but I think it's prudent for countries to be cautious about the activities of foreign NGOs and charities. A number of countries are facing similar issues in respect of foreign NGOs and charities.

Obviously, many of them are doing great things to help in a myriad of ways. But others have been found propagating or engaging in controversial political, religious or social ideas or activities. I tend to fall on the side of being free and open -- sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that. But that said, I think there should be monitoring and careful, evidence-based intervention if such foreign NGOs and charities are found to harbor nefarious motivations and/or harm the country in which they operate.

It's not always just about the ideas and the merits of such ideas. If you look at, for example, Russian interference in the US presidential elections through the IRA, I think there are legitimate concerns there. In some sense, yes, anyone is free to propagate ideas such as, for example, nativism. And it is up to the domestic electorate to evaluate that idea and accept or reject it. But in another sense, the foreign agents are not participating in these discussions in good faith -- their intent is to propagate destabilizing ideas for their own gain, and their methods are also of concern.

Ultimately, I question the ability of the electorate or citizenry in general to be able to withstand an onslaught of, for example, Russian IRA cyber activities, and use their critical thinking skills to soberly evaluate the ideas they propagate.

This is also why we're seeing, for example, YouTube and other websites now disclose the source of certain information -- e.g., if you watch CBC videos, YouTube will tell you that this is from the Government of Canada. Yes, in some sense, who cares? Evaluate the ideas propagated by CBC by the merits of such ideas. But in another sense, I think motivation can matter. This is also why, for example, climate scientists (and others) are often required to disclose conflicts of interest -- such as being funded by oil and gas companies.

Last edited by saffronleaf; Mar 14, 2018 at 9:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6779  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 9:27 PM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Seems weird to draw the line at "foreign". Seems to be geography would be the main factor. It's more logical for someone in Elgin, Quebec to oppose the Westville, NY landfill (up to and including financially) than it would be for someone in San Diego.

Similarly, given that I'm thousands of kms away, I feel more out of place speaking out about people dumping sewage in the Strait of Juan de Fuca than someone from Washington State with a house sitting right on that body of water would.
I think you grasp the situation better than you let on. It's not purely a free speech issue. Of course, anyone can generally comment on anything.

But the concerns are more related to the methods used to influence policy and the motivations of the parties involved. Such as Russian interference in the US presidential elections.

Foreign / domestic is not a bright line divider, but that element can contribute to concerns about undue influence and nefarious motivations. In addition, there may be constitutional restraints in being able to address domestic actors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6780  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 9:31 PM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
As I've already said - politics isn't all about arguments - it's about resources and organisation.

This isn't about arguments - it's about political strength, organisation, resources, and money being used to undermine domestic policies.
Bingo.

This is why people are concerned about things like the Citizens United decision in the US, which purportedly allows corporations, which have enormous resources, money and organizational advantages, to influence elections.

It's also why people are concerned about Russian interference in the elections.

The ideas are fine. O&G company wants to use protection under Citizens United to support fracking? Fracking is a fine topic to discuss. But when you have Exxon behind it, the resources at play make it impossible to have other voices heard. Russia wants to encourage nativism? Nativism and immigration and all that are fine topics to discuss. But when the IRA is manipulating social media...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.