[SebC]

Originally Posted by driveway

This is something I feel often gets left out of debates on oil sands usage. The move, globally, is towards carbon-capture technologies and programs. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alberta could be a global leader in this industry. Given regulatory incentive I think Albertan companies could become the premier innovator and supplier of carbon capture technologies and systems globally.

I do think the regulatory incentive is required. It needs to be a good idea NOW for companies to develop and implement these technologies in order for us to be able to dominate the industry in the future.

It's why I don't think it actually matters if global warming/climate change is anthropogenic or not. The impetus to economic and technological development which will result from tackling carbon and other greenhouse-gas emissions will prove beneficial alone, regardless of their ecological impact.

That's silly. You want to direct your labour and capital towards things that are actually useful, such that you're either improving quality of life or building equipment and infrastructure that will fuel further economic growth. Paying people to move a pile of rocks back and forth (which is about what CO2 abatement would be, if global warming wasn't caused by humans) is stupid when you can pay them to do useful things instead.

As for regulating CO2 ahead of the curve, I don't think it's a good idea. We won't get that much advantage from being ahead because the intellectual property will be distributed by the companies that develop it. It would be a big competitive disadvantage now, for a tiny competitive advantage later. Not worth it, not even from an altruistic percentage (0.1% of global CO2 emissions).

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Forgive my ignorance for this, but why don't we have the refinery capacity locally in Canada? It seems like there are always so many problems pipelining to the US refineries and refineries seem to get hit or knocked out every couple of years when a hurricane hits in the gulf.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to have more refineries located in a wider number of locations in case of natural disasters? Is it because refineries so expensive that it's still cheaper to build a huge pipeline? Or is a problem if distribution and location?

Both? Refineries produce multiple products... to transport oil you need one pipeline. To transport refinery products you'd need several. Makes sense to put the refineries where the products will be used, and also on a coast where you have easy access to tankers. Then the fact that you don't need to build them where the oil is makes them alot less lucrative than extraction, which is why we don't really have them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryflamesgirl34

Isn't all our oil going to China now anyways?

Nope, need a new pipeline to get it there (Northern Gateway). That ones got issues with First Nations people and BCers who don't want tanker ships on the coast.