CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »

Funkdreamer: Jul 15, 2005; It'll be a blast

Our proud viking heritage

# ? Sep 4, 2016 01:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 09:44

B33rChiller: Aug 18, 2011

never happy posted:

This is what NP currently has running up front. They couldn't go bankrupt soon enough, but at least with trash like this it won't be long

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-environmental-crowd-knows-no-compromise

poo poo, I read that article and thought Ezra Levant was now writing for the NP. Didn't realise who wrote it until clicking on the link.
Faaaah Q Rex Murphy.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 02:20

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle31696750/

quote:

Trouble in Canada's Motor City: The future of GM's Oshawa plant hangs in the balance

To understand how vital General Motors of Canada Ltd. has been to life in Oshawa for almost a century, consider the 1977 Grade 12 students of R.S. McLaughlin Collegiate Institute.

John Henry, a member of that class, recalls that most of the men among the more than 200 Grade 12 students that year left school before graduation and went to work at General Motors or at one of the myriad of nearby auto plants that fed the giant.

�If you were a young person in Oshawa right up to about 1980, you could have left and gotten a job in any one of the feeder plants or General Motors itself,� says Mr. Henry, now the mayor of Oshawa.

The high school itself was named after Sam McLaughlin, the man whose family�s carriage business provided the foundation for what became the largest auto assembly complex in North America.

Mr. Henry took a different path than his fellow students, even though his father was a foreman in the materials handling department at GM.

Mr. Henry�s two brothers followed in their father�s footsteps and are still employed at the GM plant. But this is not their father�s General Motors.

The future of one remaining car plant with its two assembly lines is in grave doubt as company management and the union that represents workers face off in talks on a new contract.

The union, Unifor, insists it will not sign a new contract until the auto maker makes a commitment to produce new vehicles that will replace the cars scheduled to go out of production later this decade. GM Canada has countered that no decision about replacement vehicles can be made until after a new contract is signed.

At stake are 2,460 direct hourly paid jobs on the two assembly lines in Oshawa, plus thousands more jobs at supplier plants in the city, the surrounding region and across the country; about $1-billion in annual tax revenues for all three levels of government; and the future of manufacturing in what was once the Motor City of Canada.

GM Canada would not comment for this article, citing a policy of remaining silent publicly once contract negotiations are under way.

But a senior company executive who asked to not be named said GM expects to be producing some vehicles in Oshawa until at least 2019.

�So, from our perspective, we have some time in terms of discussions and decisions with respect to the future of Oshawa,� the executive said. �It�s important that we stay in the game. There are no predetermined outcomes here. We�re going through the economics.�

The city and the company are intertwined. The Junior A hockey club Oshawa Generals are named after the company that was for decades the largest employer in the city. The team plays home games at the General Motors Centre.

�You�d be hard-pressed to find someone� whose life hasn�t been affected by GM, Mr. Henry says.

Ceasing production in the hometown of its Canadian operations may reduce GM�s costs and improve the capacity utilization of its North American assembly operations. However, the auto maker risks damage to its brand if it shuts down after taxpayers in Canada contributed $10.8-billion to a bailout that saved the company in 2009, even though it has met the commitments it made in return for that money.

None of this was even remotely in view when Sam McLaughlin sold his fledgling auto-making business to General Motors in 1918.

By the time GM Canada hit its production peak in 2003, it was cranking out 940,000 vehicles annually from two car-assembly plants and one pickup-truck factory in a giant complex that stretched 1.5 kilometres from almost the edge of Highway 401 south to a few blocks from the shore of Lake Ontario.

The Silverado and Sierra pickup trucks, Buick LaCrosse and Regal, Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo, and Pontiac Grand Prix cars that rolled off the lines represented 37 per cent of auto production in Canada. There were more than 11,000 jobs at the three plants.

By last year, production in Oshawa had plunged to 222,000 vehicles, which accounted for just 10 per cent of all Canadian vehicle output. The three remaining vehicles to be produced after 2017 when the consolidated line shuts down will be the Chevrolet Impala, Cadillac XTS and Buick Regal.

In addition to the production jobs, there are 750 GM Canada head office employees in Oshawa and another 300 engineering and technical employees at its engineering centre in the city. Another 1,100 people work at the GM Onstar call centre.

Those jobs are not at risk, the GM executive says.

Although GM does not dominate Oshawa the way it once did and the city has diversified with new port facilities and growth in health-care jobs, a permanent closing of the assembly plant would be a blow that would ripple throughout Ontario and the country, Mr. Henry says.

�It will hurt us as a municipality if something happened to General Motors, but it will affect every community where an employee lives,� he says in an interview in his office at Oshawa City Hall. �The car is that shiny apple, but that�s not the story. The story is the parts suppliers, the retirees and most of all the thing that everybody tends to [forget] is the taxes collected, because it funds everything.�

Taxes paid by GM to Oshawa, Durham Region and local boards of education amount to more than $12-million annually.

A study done for Unifor by the Milton, Ont.-based Centre for Spatial Economics puts the macroeconomic impact bluntly:

�The closure of the Oshawa facility would constitute an important negative shock to the Canadian economy.�

The decline in vehicle production since the peak hit in 2003 � including the shutting of the truck plant in 2009 � has already had a negative effect.

Lear Corp., which makes seats for the three remaining passenger cars assembled at the GM plant, has cut its work force to about 300 employees at a single factory about two kilometres away in Whitby, Ont. At peak production, 800 Lear workers at two plants made seats for GM vehicles in Oshawa, says Scott Bateman, chair of the Lear unit of Unifor�s Local 222.

If GM shuts Oshawa, the 300 Lear jobs are almost certain to disappear, too, because seat-making plants are usually dedicated to a single assembly facility and located close to that plant for just-in-time delivery as one of the last components to be installed in vehicles.

Mr. Bateman notes that the relentless drive by auto makers to slash their costs has cascaded down the line to Lear and other parts suppliers.

Workers are paid $28 an hour, but have not had a raise in 10 years, he says. They have surrendered two weeks of vacation, so the maximum is now four weeks after 20 years, compared with six weeks previously.

The labour agreement between Lear and Unifor has been extended for six months until the future of GM�s assembly lines becomes more clear.

�We understand the landscape,� Mr. Bateman says. �We�re not in a position where we think we need a raise. We want to maintain what we have.�

Eric Berentschot knows what it�s like to lose one of these well-paying manufacturing jobs that provide a solid middle-class lifestyle in Oshawa and the other Ontario cities where the auto industry is the largest employer.

Mr. Berentschot, 48, went to work at Lear in 1998. The job gave him a big pay raise from his previous job in the predelivery inspection department of a local car dealership.

�When I started and I jumped up in pay from the dealership, I thought wow, I hit the jackpot,� he recalls. �Better wages, pension, benefits, great holidays. So when the big crisis came, it was a big shock. Nobody saw it coming.�

He was laid off by Lear in 2008 during the depths of the recession. It took him a year to find another job, which paid $14 an hour, about half what he was making at Lear.

His wife kept her job as a receptionist at a physiotherapy clinic and they had accumulated savings from his 10 years at Lear so they were able to hang on to their house.

Late in 2010, he was recalled by Lear. He�s now an area relief worker, filling in when people are missing on the assembly line.

The years since then, however, have been much leaner than his early years at Lear with weeks of layoffs annually as GM trimmed production amid up-and-down sales of the remaining vehicles assembled in Oshawa.

He has advice for his fellow employees in the auto sector who have not lived through a downturn and could be facing the permanent loss of their jobs.

Save money now, learn how to live on a tight budget and do without vacations, he says over a coffee at a Tim Hortons about five minutes away from the Lear plant.

Companies and businesses well beyond the auto sector will be affected, says Brandon Junkin, a partner in boat dealership Lakeview Marine in Port Perry, Ont., about a 30-minute drive north of Oshawa.

His business actually thrived through the recession, when laid-off GM workers and managers spent some of their severance money buying boats.

Sales to GM workers and retirees have fallen to as little as 5 per cent of Lakeview�s sales, Mr. Junkin says, compared with about 25 per cent in 2008 and 2009 when the dealership was just getting established.

The impact of a GM closing, however, would come on the maintenance and service side of the business. Laid-off workers will cut back on service because they won�t use their boats as much, he predicts.

Mr. Henry�s loyalty to Oshawa and GM is displayed with his white 2011 Chevrolet Equinox, a crossover utility vehicle that comes off what GM calls the consolidated line in the Oshawa plant.

�I will drive a car that is made in Oshawa,� he says.

Left unsaid is what he will drive if GM is not making cars in Oshawa.

get hosed oshawa white trash

# ? Sep 4, 2016 03:04

St. Dogbert: Mar 17, 2011

McGavin posted:

Edmontonians show their true colours. It's white.

There's talk of a similar group being formed in Hamilton.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 05:09

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/alberta-ndp-changes-campaign-rules-with-cunning-new-spending-strategy/article31700341/

quote:

Having occupied the moral high ground while pushing the PCs into penury, the NDP is now proposing rules that will undercut the other parties� chances in the next campaign. Using the ironically titled Legislative Committee on Ethics and Accountability, on which it holds a majority of seats, the NDP is proposing to introduce campaign rebates of 50 per cent of the money spent by parties and candidates, as now exist in federal politics. This seems neutral on its face; but to qualify for a rebate, a party will have to get at least 10 per cent of the popular vote, whereas the federal threshold is only 2 per cent. The 10 per cent criterion will almost surely prevent the NDP�s rivals on the left � the Liberals, the Alberta Party, and the Greens (should they attempt to re-enter provincial politics) from qualifying, while allowing both Wildrose and the PCs to count on a rebate. This is crucial to the NDP plan, because they can only win with the support of an undivided left against a divided right.

Additionally, the NDP also wants to introduce campaign spending limits, which also exist federally. Its first proposed limit was $1.6-million, about what it spent in 2015, although that has now been raised to $2.1-million. With weak grassroots fundraising, the PCs may have trouble raising this much, but Wildrose has raised more in the past and can probably do it again. Another masterstroke: keep both right-wing parties financially able to compete, but put a limit on the one that now has greater fundraising capacity.

Seeing what the NDP is doing does not reveal the whole picture; you also have to look at what they are not doing. They are not setting any limits on government advertising, which they have already undertaken on a grand scale under the heading of communicating government policy to voters. And they are not going to prevent organizations, i.e., labour unions, from loaning workers to political parties during campaigns.

Most significantly, they�re not setting limits on third-party advertising, which the unions have used so effectively in Ontario to keep the Liberals in power and the PCs out. The Alberta NDP is a government of, by, and for the unions. Most cabinet ministers are connected to public service unions as members, employees, or contractors. In spite of Alberta�s dire financial predicament, the government is avoiding any belt-tightening for the public service. It�s not hard to predict whom the unions will support in the next election, and the government is leaving them the perfect opening to use their financial muscle.

raaaaarr notley crue the most virtuous and ethical of leftists in this country

they should get sarah hoffman to jump out of a cake and

oh lol

# ? Sep 4, 2016 05:13

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

never happy posted:

This is what NP currently has running up front. They couldn't go bankrupt soon enough, but at least with trash like this it won't be long

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-environmental-crowd-knows-no-compromise

Rex is correct. The world is currently consuming 95 million barrels a day of oil, and this is only predicted to increase through 2050. There's no good reason to oppose Canadian oil.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 05:32

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Haha

# ? Sep 4, 2016 05:40

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

You can type 'haha' as much as you want, but for the foreseeable future, the world will continue to need oil, and some of that needed oil is heavy oil, which has roughly the same emissions profile whether it's from the oil sands, California, Mexico, or Venezuela. Better it's from Canada than somewhere else.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 05:47

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

oil is in limited supply therefore we need to burn all of it instead of using this as an impetus to get ourselves off of it

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:14

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

BattleMaster posted:

oil is in limited supply therefore we need to burn all of it instead of using this as an impetus to get ourselves off of it

Canada alone has 174 billion 1P reserves. It's laughable to suggest that oil supplies are limited.

Even if the planet decided tomorrow to get off oil entirely, there would still be a 50-100 year transition period in which oil (including heavy oil) would still be needed. What advantage would there be in cutting ourselves out of that market?

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:25

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

Canada alone has 174 billion 1P reserves. It's laughable to suggest that oil supplies are limited.

Even if the planet decided tomorrow to get off oil entirely, there would still be a 50-100 year transition period in which oil (including heavy oil) would still be needed. What advantage would there be in cutting ourselves out of that market?

Do you not understand what "limited" means?

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:29

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

You can type 'haha' as much as you want, but for the foreseeable future, the world will continue to need oil, and some of that needed oil is heavy oil, which has roughly the same emissions profile whether it's from the oil sands, California, Mexico, or Venezuela. Better it's from Canada than somewhere else.

The oil boom sucked money out of more productive sectors of the economy and encouraged Alberta to remain dependent on an unsustainable source of revenue. It made manufacturing less competitive and diverted investment money into one of the least productive sectors of an economy that is already renowned for it's low R&D and generally crappy productivity. Even if we ignore the environmental implications of continuing to export oil it was a terrible economic strategy of doubling down on natural resource bubbles.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:29

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

CLAM DOWN posted:

Do you not understand what "limited" means?

At current production rates, based on current proven resources, Canada can sustain production for 158.9 years. We have 1.2 trillion 3P reserves, which will be unlockable as technology advances. What about that means "limited" to you?

Helsing posted:

The oil boom sucked money out of more productive sectors of the economy and encouraged Alberta to remain dependent on an unsustainable source of revenue. It made manufacturing less competitive and diverted investment money into one of the least productive sectors of an economy that is already renowned for it's low R&D and generally crappy productivity. Even if we ignore the environmental implications of continuing to export oil it was a terrible economic strategy of doubling down on natural resource bubbles.

Our country and our provinces can concentrate on more than one thing at once.

E: furthermore, StatsCan has manufacturing growing from 568.2B in 2011 to 609.5B in 2015 (CANSIM, table 304-0014).

Fluffy Chainsaw fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 4, 2016

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:41

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

At current production rates, based on current proven resources, Canada can sustain production for 158.9 years. We have 1.2 trillion 3P reserves, which will be unlockable as technology advances. What about that means "limited" to you?

That's literally the definition of limited. It will run out one day. It's not unlimited. Are you a simpleton?

Production rates won't stay the same either.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:43

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

He's a member of the cf of course he's a loving simpleton

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:49

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

CLAM DOWN posted:

That's literally the definition of limited. It will run out one day. It's not unlimited. Are you a simpleton?

Production rates won't stay the same either.

In 1858 (158 years ago), ships travelled by sail and electrification wasn't yet a thing. There's no chance that 158 years from now, oil will be the predominant fuel for transportation. Oil is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.

namaste faggots posted:

He's a member of the cf of course he's a loving simpleton

Semper fi, namaste

# ? Sep 4, 2016 06:51

Whiskey Sours: Jan 25, 2014; Weather proof.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

In 1858 (158 years ago), ships travelled by sail

Fossil fuel powered steamships were crossing the Atlantic in 1827.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:04

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

Whiskey Sours posted:

Fossil fuel powered steamships were crossing the Atlantic in 1827.

If you're talking about the SS Great Western, or similar, it was still equipped with sails, and is properly classified as steam-assisted. The age of coal was from 1871 onwards.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:12

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

At current production rates, based on current proven resources, Canada can sustain production for 158.9 years. We have 1.2 trillion 3P reserves, which will be unlockable as technology advances. What about that means "limited" to you?

Our country and our provinces can concentrate on more than one thing at once.

There is a finite pool of investment, and the investments that are made come with opportunity costs. In the last decade money that previously might have gone to higher productivity sectors like manufacturing ended up going into the oil patch. The oil patch has really lovely productivity rates and this has also contributed to our terrible productivity growth over the last decade or two. The result, along with other crap like our oversized housing industry, are a long term drag on the economy.

quote:

E: furthermore, StatsCan has manufacturing growing from 568.2B in 2011 to 609.5B in 2015 (CANSIM, table 304-0014).

Manufacturing's share of GDP has been declining. I don't have the exact stats at my finger tips right now but the start of the oil boom coincides with a general decline in manufacturing exports.

Basically we've turned into a country that tries to pay the rest of the world for high technology digging poo poo out of the ground. It's a relationship that no serious country voluntarily places itself in except as a route to a higher level of development. That was actually the attitude of successive Canadian governments up till about 2000, which is why it was generally a priority over the last fifty years to steer the economy away from relying too much on raw resource extraction.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

In 1858 (158 years ago), ships travelled by sail and electrification wasn't yet a thing. There's no chance that 158 years from now, oil will be the predominant fuel for transportation. Oil is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.

Technological growth and innovation isn't that linear. Most of the technology we use today was developed in a few rapid bursts, such as the events of the 'Second Industrial Revolution' in the late 19th century which gave us all the technologies you're alluding to here. There's no guarantee we'll have another burst like that and in fact there are some reasons to think we won't.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:16

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

McGavin posted:

Edmontonians show their true colours. It's white.

I wonder how the reaction to this would be different if it were Muslims setting up street patrols to harass those they felt are inferior

A Typical Goon fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Sep 4, 2016

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:19

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

Helsing posted:

There is a finite pool of investment, and the investments that are made come with opportunity costs. In the last decade money that previously might have gone to higher productivity sectors like manufacturing ended up going into the oil patch. The oil patch has really lovely productivity rates and this has also contributed to our terrible productivity growth over the last decade or two. The result, along with other crap like our oversized housing industry, are a long term drag on the economy.

There's a tremendous amount of money in the oil value chain. The tools and equipment used in oil production aren't just spontaneously generated, they're designed and created, and since the oil sands is indigenous to Canada, most of them are manufactured domestically. Canadian manufacturing has effectively paralleled that of the United States - it's not a function of the oil production, it's a function of economies like China taking over.

(E:
US:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.MANF.ZS?locations=US
Canada:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.MANF.ZS?locations=CA
)

Helsing posted:

Manufacturing's share of GDP has been declining. I don't have the exact stats at my finger tips right now but the start of the oil boom coincides with a general decline in manufacturing exports.

GDP in manufacturing grew across all provinces from 2010-2014 (with the exception of newfoundland). Following the 2008 economic collapse, the oil boom started in 2009 and ran until about Sept 2014.

https://ic.gc.ca/app/scr/sbms/sbb/cis/gdp.html?code=31-33

Helsing posted:

Technological growth and innovation isn't that linear. Most of the technology we use today was developed in a few rapid bursts, such as the events of the 'Second Industrial Revolution' in the late 19th century which gave us all the technologies you're alluding to here. There's no guarantee we'll have another burst like that and in fact there are some reasons to think we won't.

Certainly there is. There's already a huge shift toward electric cars. Electric vehicle fleets are probably not more than 10-15 years off, and I would wager that we'd see 80-90% market saturation by 2050-2060. The primary use of oil (not withstanding plastics and other derivative products and the rare peaker plant) is transportation fuels, and once this shift has occurred, the resource will be close to worthless. Why shouldn't we try to extract value from it while it's worth something?

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:30

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

I mean who cares about having a sustainable diversified economy or climate change, there's money to be made here for rich international businesses that will destroy the environment while giving nothing back to the Canadian taxpayer. Drill baby, drill!

# ? Sep 4, 2016 07:58

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

A Typical Goon posted:

I mean who cares about having a sustainable diversified economy or climate change, there's money to be made here for rich international businesses that will destroy the environment while giving nothing back to the Canadian taxpayer. Drill baby, drill!

Mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction accounts for 7.58% of Canadian GDP as of June 2016. This is on par with finance, construction, health care, and public administration, and well behind real estate (CANSIM, table 379-0031).

A Typical Goon posted:

I mean who cares about having a sustainable diversified economy or climate change, there's money to be made here for rich international businesses that will destroy the environment while giving nothing back to the Canadian taxpayer. Drill baby, drill!

The emissions profile of Canadian oil sands is equivalent to roughly 45% of the crude slate used in the United States. Put another way, there is a negligible difference between Canadian oil sands and any other heavy crude.

A Typical Goon posted:

I mean who cares about having a sustainable diversified economy or climate change, there's money to be made here for rich international businesses that will destroy the environment while giving nothing back to the Canadian taxpayer. Drill baby, drill!

Oil and gas (not counting other extractives) contributed $18 billion in 2014 to federal and provincial coffers, according to the Montreal Economic Institute.

A Typical Goon posted:

I mean who cares about having a sustainable diversified economy or climate change, there's money to be made here for rich international businesses that will destroy the environment while giving nothing back to the Canadian taxpayer. Drill baby, drill!

Yes

# ? Sep 4, 2016 08:17

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

Who cares if we're destroying the environment, the Americans do it a lot worse, just think of the 18B we made, I mean that could like 90% of the budget of the glorious Canadian Forces for a full year!

Either fully nationalize the Oil and Gas industry or GTFO. The amount of damage we're doing to the environment to line the pockets of rich Halliburton CEO's is absurd. Why does Canada not have an equivalent to Gazprom or Saudi Aramco?

I wouldn't expect a Harper supporting proud CF member to understand things like this, especially one that agrees with the campaign slogan of Sarah Palin - noted idiot

# ? Sep 4, 2016 08:31

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

We need to invest in oil in order to fund our shift to a carbon neutral economy

# ? Sep 4, 2016 08:35

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

A Typical Goon posted:

Who cares if we're destroying the environment, the Americans do it a lot worse, just think of the 18B we made, I mean that could like 90% of the budget of the glorious Canadian Forces for a full year!

Either fully nationalize the Oil and Gas industry or GTFO. The amount of damage we're doing to the environment to line the pockets of rich Halliburton CEO's is absurd. Why does Canada not have an equivalent to Gazprom or Saudi Aramco?

I wouldn't expect a Harper supporting proud CF member to understand things like this, especially one that agrees with the campaign slogan of Sarah Palin - noted idiot

Emissions from Canadian oil and gas extraction contributes roughly one tenth of one percent of global emissions. The entirety of those emissions is less annually than America's top three coal power plants, out of more than 340. Put another way, our oil and gas sector emits less over the course of a year than China does in 55 hours.

Like it or not, the world needs petroleum, heavy oil included. If we stop producing oil, the world will not magically consume 92.2 million barrels a day instead of 95, another source will step up to fill the gap.

You don't have to like oil, but the world will continue to produce and consume it for decades to come. I would rather than we benefit from our resources than another country take our place.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 08:41

Kindest Forums User: Mar 25, 2008; Let me tell you about my opinion about Bernie Sanders and why Donald Trump is his true successor.

You cannot vote Hillary Clinton because she is worse than Trump.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

There's a tremendous amount of money in the oil value chain. The tools and equipment used in oil production aren't just spontaneously generated, they're designed and created, and since the oil sands is indigenous to Canada, most of them are manufactured domestically. Canadian manufacturing has effectively paralleled that of the United States - it's not a function of the oil production, it's a function of economies like China taking over.

haha no there isn't. especially not to canada. sure we fabricate a lot of the basic equipment but a lot of the more technical stuff is from the States. Rigs, Completions technology, mining equipment, facilities. lot of it is coming from the States. And why wouldn't it? The states already has the established infrastructure for this, and there is very little barrier to import into Canada, as well as little incentive to develop in Canada. Companies like Shlumberger and Haliburton make a lot of money off our oil fields. And that's just talking about "value added" R&D companies. Do you know what a production company needs to start making money? Do you know the sort of R&D requirements a foreign company requires to exploit our resources? Zero dollars. All a company needs to do is pay contractors (which could also be foreign owned, or their own) to start drilling and make bank.
And now consider what R&D has come out of O&G. what does it actually do for Canadians? This is highly specialized information, and it rarely applies outside of O&G. Sure it's good other mining activities, but now we're just back to the same problem of having tech pegged to resource extraction. On top of that the tech is heavily protected and rarely shared. O&G is highly competitive and the last thing you want to do is giving out any trade secrets
And even the existing tech isn't nearly as elaborate as you might think. Try walking in some shop designing well and completions equipment and you'll get a good idea. It can be abysmal at times. The most basic of manufacturing equipment. Nothing compared to major engineering firms. it can literally be just a couple of engineers and some grunts hand grinding poo poo.

At best O&G provides Canadians with a short and medium term influx of cash, but after political squandering and environmental reclamation, that money starts to evaporate very quickly. And that's not even considering climate change.

O&G is garbage. You're garbage. Get your head out of your rear end.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 11:37

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Ikantski posted:

We need to invest in oil in order to fund our shift to a carbon neutral economy

Realistically, what other industry could fund it? FIRE? BC LNG? Vancouver's popping tech sector? Softwood?

# ? Sep 4, 2016 11:49

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

Realistically, what other industry could fund it? FIRE? BC LNG? Vancouver's popping tech sector? Softwood?

Selling condos to the Chinese.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 12:28

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

Arivia posted:

Selling condos to the Chinese.

Hey, we're in with Alibaba now, so maybe we can make some money off of that!

# ? Sep 4, 2016 13:29

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

BattleMaster posted:

I was under the impression that the intended refurbishment was only going to extend the plant's life into the 2020s and then it was going to be decommissioned. Something about how the maintenance on the steam generators was spotty in its life and they don't want to replace them when they finally give out.

I'll take your word for it! I've found conflicting reports about the status of Pickering. I really wish they were replacing it.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 14:10

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Subjunctive posted:

Realistically, what other industry could fund it? FIRE? BC LNG? Vancouver's popping tech sector? Softwood?

Someone's gotta pay for the wind farms surrounding Ikantski's rural hovel.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 14:26

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

You can type 'haha' as much as you want, but for the foreseeable future, the world will continue to need oil, and some of that needed oil is heavy oil, which has roughly the same emissions profile whether it's from the oil sands, California, Mexico, or Venezuela. Better it's from Canada than somewhere else.

Yeah and SOMEBODY's going to sell those weapons to the Saudis IT MIGHT AS WELL BE US RIGHT GUYS???

This is a terrible loving argument but it comes up every time we discuss Canada doing something bad.

"Hey, we don't live in a perfect world therefore let's roll around in the poo poo with everybody else instead of ever trying to improve anything. haha whoops I guess fifty years passed and nothing changed because everybody was too busy rolling around in poo poo to actually get anything done, our bad"

# ? Sep 4, 2016 14:28

mik: Oct 16, 2003; oh

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

Oil is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.

I think you'll find that oil is, for all intensive purposes, limited.

:cool:

# ? Sep 4, 2016 14:31

Kindest Forums User: Mar 25, 2008; Let me tell you about my opinion about Bernie Sanders and why Donald Trump is his true successor.

You cannot vote Hillary Clinton because she is worse than Trump.

He has a point in some respects. We'll all be dead before we finally get to that last drop

# ? Sep 4, 2016 14:43

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

If life was a table top game your logic would be perfect, fluffy. Unfortunately the table is on fire and we're chained to our chairs.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 15:02

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

never happy posted:

haha no there isn't. especially not to canada. sure we fabricate a lot of the basic equipment but a lot of the more technical stuff is from the States. Rigs, Completions technology, mining equipment, facilities. lot of it is coming from the States. And why wouldn't it? The states already has the established infrastructure for this, and there is very little barrier to import into Canada, as well as little incentive to develop in Canada. Companies like Shlumberger and Haliburton make a lot of money off our oil fields. And that's just talking about "value added" R&D companies. Do you know what a production company needs to start making money? Do you know the sort of R&D requirements a foreign company requires to exploit our resources? Zero dollars. All a company needs to do is pay contractors (which could also be foreign owned, or their own) to start drilling and make bank.
And now consider what R&D has come out of O&G. what does it actually do for Canadians? This is highly specialized information, and it rarely applies outside of O&G. Sure it's good other mining activities, but now we're just back to the same problem of having tech pegged to resource extraction. On top of that the tech is heavily protected and rarely shared. O&G is highly competitive and the last thing you want to do is giving out any trade secrets
And even the existing tech isn't nearly as elaborate as you might think. Try walking in some shop designing well and completions equipment and you'll get a good idea. It can be abysmal at times. The most basic of manufacturing equipment. Nothing compared to major engineering firms. it can literally be just a couple of engineers and some grunts hand grinding poo poo.

At best O&G provides Canadians with a short and medium term influx of cash, but after political squandering and environmental reclamation, that money starts to evaporate very quickly. And that's not even considering climate change.

O&G is garbage. You're garbage. Get your head out of your rear end.

According to the CME, Canadian manufacturers received 27%, or $4.8B in capital spending on equipment and a further $1.2B in manufacturing related to maintenance and repair.

According to CANSIM Table 379-0030, we manufactured ~$4.53B in auto parts. StatsCan doesn't tell us where those parts were designed, but I think it's safe to bet that they didn't get designed here.

All this to say, the oil and gas industry is roughly analagous to the automotive sector.

With respect to trade secrets and tech, you're flat wrong. COSIA, the oil sands innovation alliance, is responsible for sharing more than 800 environmental technologies valued at more than $1.3B.

Imperial's Kearl mine, which produces bitumen with an emissions profile effectively the same as a conventional barrel of crude, is based off of a concept developed at our very own NRC and refined in Calgary.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 15:27

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

vyelkin posted:

Yeah and SOMEBODY's going to sell those weapons to the Saudis IT MIGHT AS WELL BE US RIGHT GUYS???

This is a terrible loving argument but it comes up every time we discuss Canada doing something bad.

"Hey, we don't live in a perfect world therefore let's roll around in the poo poo with everybody else instead of ever trying to improve anything. haha whoops I guess fifty years passed and nothing changed because everybody was too busy rolling around in poo poo to actually get anything done, our bad"

The production of energy resources, especially the only resource capable of fueling the world's transportation needs at our current moment in time is not a bad thing.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 15:37

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

i see swagger has cleaned up his posting trail and is refraining from posting about men's shoes, suits, stats for people who can't do math, being a fat lard rear end and masturbating in his tactical cf diapers

# ? Sep 4, 2016 15:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 09:44

Fluffy Chainsaw: Jul 6, 2016; I'm likely a pissant middle manager who pisses off IT with worthless requests. There is no content within my posts other than a garbage act akin to a know-it-all, which likely is how I behave in real life. It's really hard for me to comprehend how much I am hated by everyone.

namaste faggots posted:

i see swagger has cleaned up his posting trail and is refraining from posting about men's shoes, suits, stats for people who can't do math, being a fat lard rear end and masturbating in his tactical cf diapers

I'm actually your son, I'm posting from inside the ~~house~~ condo.

# ? Sep 4, 2016 15:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »