Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 9860 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #870 on: April 22, 2018, 08:33:18 pm »
Cough, cough.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #871 on: April 22, 2018, 09:37:14 pm »
Everyone needs some occasional mocking.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #872 on: April 22, 2018, 11:57:11 pm »
c'mon, for western whining & alienation sake, as is your typical way (earlier), you made all these bullshyte statements about the NEP...

The primary source of bullshyte here is you and your utterly false claims.

predicated upon your big-time failure in confusing gas versus oil pipelines!  ;D How does one take you serious after that bonehead play... that you still haven't acknowledged!  ;D

I mistook the 1953 pipeline with the 1957 pipeline?  Ok. I can acknowledge that itty-bitty error.  Will you acknowledge the king-sized error you've made in this thread?

Try to recover - start by providing the cite I asked you for earlier...

I'll provide a cite for that when you provide a cite for your claim that the NEP's ambitious goals would be paid for by Petro Canada profits.

You want a cite? National Energy Policy, Marc Lalonde, 1980. 

Tell you what you do:

 1)  use your googly prowess to find the document in the government archives.

 2) download the document.

 3) read the fuckin' document.

 4)  if you can't find the punitive measures I referred to for yourself, give me a shout and I will help you out.

for good measure add another to cover this latest reply's worth of... revisionism you're spinning, hey!

I have the NEP right in front of me.  I've been perusing it this weekend.  The only talk of new pipelines in this document is in regard to expanding pipelines in Canada is in regard to extending the natural gas pipeline to the Maritimes, and building a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.   

There was no intention of expanding oil pipeline capacity.

That's because the NEP was designed with the belief that Western Canadian production of conventional oil would drop within the near future, and that synthetic crude production from the oil sands would not be sufficient to replace the lost production of conventional oil.

This is explicitly stated in the NEP itself.

There was no intention of increasing oil pipeline capacity, because their projections indicated that Western Canada oil production would FALL, not RISE.

Talk of promoting Canadian energy self-sufficiency is primarily in reference to transitioning away from oil to natural gas and other energy sources.  There was no talk at all of expanding Canadian oil exports-- indeed it was hoped that Canadian oil exports would be reduced or eliminated.

And most germane to this discussion, there was no talk of increasing oil pipeline capacity out of Western Canada, because it was anticipated that Western Canadian oil production would decline.


Your claim that the NEP had any provisions that would address the current pipelines dilemma is utterly false.

Your claim that if the NEP had just been allowed to continue, all the necessary infrastructure that's needed today could have been built back then is utterly false.

The ideas you have been peddling in regard to the NEP having had the answers to these issues are fantasy, wishful thinking, and total revisionism.

You'd have been about as accurate if you'd claimed that the NEP contained the keys to unlocking nuclear fission and perpetual motion, or that we'd all be driving hovercars if the NEP had just been allowed to continue.  The claims you've made here are total make-believe.


So before you get to crowing and patting yourself on the back for catching my error in regard to the 1953 pipeline vs the 1957 pipeline, spend a moment to consider what a colossal ass you've made of yourself by having your claims regarding the NEP contradicted by the stuff that's actually written in the document you've been breathlessly promoting.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #873 on: April 23, 2018, 06:20:46 am »
I mistook the 1953 pipeline with the 1957 pipeline?  Ok. I can acknowledge that itty-bitty error.

oh my! Considering your emphasis was on Montreal... that pipeline extension didn't happen until 1976... notwithstanding your false statement intended to cast further your misplaced western alienation stating "{the province of} Quebec refused" the pipeline to Montreal! What about that false statement? Since you brought up and emphasized Conservative PM Diefenbaker, how is it you can't acknowledge my corrections to your nonsense in terms of the Diefenbaker government denying the build of that actual direct Edmonton to Montreal pipeline. How is it you can't manage to acknowledge my correcting you in terms of the Diefenbaker National Oil Policy of 1961 that established a 5+ decade result where Western Canadian oil producers have never had meaningful access to domestic markets... and why the majority of Canada's population is still subject to, "the vagaries of international oil geopolitics and continental energy economics". All you can manage to muster is a lame-assed suggestion you made a, "itty-bitty" error!

of course you're all about ignoring the realities of what Conservative PM Diefenbaker's 'National Oil Policy' started... and Conservative PM Mulroney finished with FTA/NAFTA. You know: formalized a pattern whereby Western Canada exported oil to the US and Central/Eastern Canada imported overseas oil... integrating Western Canada into the continental oil market while dominated by American ownership..... cemented the loss of Canadian sovereignty while substantially weakening Canadian control of our own energy resources... effectively, Canadian oil and gas became North American oil and gas with little to no Canadian control of our own resources.

such disingenuous bluster and feigned indignation against the NEP... you're quite the apologist for U.S. multi-nationals, hey! I'm shocked you're completely ignoring what the FTA-to-NAFTA's proportionality clause did to set the table... the so-called "hard fought U.S. win for BigOil" (effectively in response to NEP and what it could have meant for Canadian ownership/control, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, etc..), that established the status-quo over the last many decades... that allowed the petro multi-nationals to export as much Canadian oil and natural gas to the U.S. as possible. Geezaz, Canada can't even limit the level of exports to the U.S. without first doing the same domestically! Notwithstanding that clause allowing petro multi-national corporations the power to sue governments over laws threatening their profits! Where's your western alienation against the status-quo established by past Conservative federal governments? Where's your western alienation against U.S. petro multi-national corporations? Oh wait... that's right... you're actually an apologist for BigOil - you actually championed that U.S. self-serving investment! Where's your western alienation against the loss of Canadian/Alberta control of resources... against the mice-nut royalties Alberta is forced to accept in the face of brazillions of profits heading south to the U.S.?

I see you're so loud & proud in your support of Alberta's multi-decades long inability to get product to a Canadian national level... so loud and proud of the entrenched policy result that has seen Canada importing foreign oil over those same multi-decades... so loud and proud of your misplaced/misdirected western alienation... so loud and proud that you're unable to cite your revisionism!  ;D
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #874 on: April 23, 2018, 09:19:16 am »
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves. Them damn Amuricans.

kinmy is spot on.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 09:24:23 am by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #875 on: April 23, 2018, 09:38:43 am »
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves. Them damn Amuricans.

kinmy is spot on.

does your western alienation need stroking? I'm shocked... yet another BigOil apologist!
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #876 on: April 23, 2018, 09:46:32 am »
does your western alienation need stroking? I'm shocked... yet another BigOil apologist!

I don’t feel alienated in spite of having been called a “blue eyed Arab” by you lot.


Still waiting for that special tax on the American controlled auto industry to subsidize the purchas of a foreign car. I want a new Audi
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #877 on: April 23, 2018, 11:36:34 am »
Well if Eastern Canada actually wanted to use Alberta oil, I’m sure they could have found a way and actually invested in it themselves.

We would except we are freezing in the dark here.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #878 on: April 24, 2018, 09:27:05 am »
I see you're so loud & proud in your support of Alberta's multi-decades long inability to get product to a Canadian national level... so loud and proud of the entrenched policy result that has seen Canada importing foreign oil over those same multi-decades... so loud and proud of your misplaced/misdirected western alienation... so loud and proud that you're unable to cite your revisionism!  ;D

I like that you've completely ignored most of my post, where your claims regarding all the new oil pipelines that the NEP was going to build were demonstrated to be categorically false, and decided instead to go on an unhinged rant to distract from your epic failure.  That's classic waldo.  Have we hit Peak waldo, or can things get even more waldoish?

Until such time as you acknowledge that your claim regarding the NEP bringing new pipelines is pure fiction, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #879 on: April 24, 2018, 09:51:17 am »
I like that you've completely ignored most of my post, where your claims regarding all the new oil pipelines that the NEP was going to build were demonstrated to be categorically false, and decided instead to go on an unhinged rant to distract from your epic failure.  That's classic waldo.  Have we hit Peak waldo, or can things get even more waldoish?

Until such time as you acknowledge that your claim regarding the NEP bringing new pipelines is pure fiction, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

your post... your posts... are full of ****! full of statements you've failed to provide linked substantiation for... your "go-fetch" routine is simply you refusing to support your claims. Put up linked citation to support your statements/claims... not one big go-fetch catch all - sure you can! Make a statement - back that particular statement/claim with a linked citation speaking directly to that bit of "classic kimmy/ish". Point in fact: I didn't distract from anything - rather, I'm emphasizing your continued unsubstantiated puffery (aka misplaced/misdirected "western alienation"). You're so desperate to deflect from your mega-stream of errors, you've resorted to your standard strawman plays. Speaking about classic kimmy - peak kimmy (yet)?... even more kimmyish?  ;D
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 10:35:49 am by waldo »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #880 on: April 24, 2018, 09:58:37 am »
Methinks waldo is losing it. :(
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Peter F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #881 on: April 24, 2018, 10:11:07 am »
your post... your posts... are full of ****! Put up a linked citation to support your statements/claims - sure you can! I didn't distract from anything - other than your continued unsubstantiated puffery (aka misplaced/misdirected "western alienation"). You're so desperate to deflect from your mega-stream of errors, you've resorted to your standard strawman plays. Speaking about classic kimmy - peak kimmy (yet)?... even more kimmyish?  ;D
Peter F follows Thread! World pisses self

Quote
want a cite? National Energy Policy, Marc Lalonde, 1980. 

Tell you what you do:

 1)  use your googly prowess to find the document in the government archives.

 2) download the document.

 3) read the fuckin' document.

 4)  if you can't find the punitive measures I referred to for yourself, give me a shout and I will help you out.

"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #882 on: April 24, 2018, 10:13:24 am »
Methinks waldo is losing it. :(

losing what? Please step-in for the lack of kimmy linked substantiation... while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here - or here... waiting, waiting, waiting..... 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 10:39:16 am by waldo »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #883 on: April 24, 2018, 10:19:24 am »
If we only had a moderator to get us back to the topic of the BC Liberals, Christie Clark in handcuffs, and the deplorable state of Vancouver housing.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #884 on: April 24, 2018, 10:40:05 am »
losing what? Please step-in for the lack of kimmy linked substantiation... while you're doing that, don't hesitate to challenge anything I've stated in regards to the historical references and causal ties I state here - waiting, waiting, waiting.....

Well waldo, why is it that you are the only one who isn't required to provide cites to back up your bafflegab? I went back 12 pages on this topic and the only one you have provided was sources of Canadian oil imports.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC