• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sask Economic Outlook

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #13
    Originally posted by bucket View Post
    I am not an advocate for nuclear but i won't rail against it either....fence sitting that debate....some have said one of the reasons of Lake Deifenbaker was a water source for power generation that included nuclear....

    I don't think it makes sense to mine uranium and send it all over the world when it could be used here and put back where it came from...on fairly safe ground/rock....

    ***ushima only had one fault and that was it wasn't built on high enough land... They censored that...

    The prairies seem like a safe place to build a plant from a ground stability and weather events...

    And Canada is world renowned for nuclear power plants....are we not?
    As long as you're willing to have the nuclear waste buried in your own backyard and not shipped off somewhere else, I am ok with it as well.

    Comment


      #14
      Originally posted by 15444 View Post
      As long as you're willing to have the nuclear waste buried in your own backyard and not shipped off somewhere else, I am ok with it as well.
      Dumb question....but couldn't it go back where it came from?

      Comment


        #15
        If we are staying in Canada and it looks like we are, then we are going to be partially landlocked by commie leftists. We will be lucky to get a corridor out of here. There wont be one to the west coast again, thats done. TMX will be last pipeline that way. Nothing thru Ont and Que for sure. So its US, Churchill or the odd chance of something off the NWT arctic coast.

        Make our own energy cooridor across the center of easter BC, AB, SK and MB to hudson bay. Make the thing a km wide and get owned by the provincial govts outright so no land claims can come back.

        Comment


          #16
          With global climate change and the artic warming faster than the rest of the world are you ready to put your money on a railroad built on muskeg and permafrost, Lets see who is first to step up,all you climate change deniers should feel it a safe investment??

          Comment


            #17
            Originally posted by Horse View Post
            With global climate change and the artic warming faster than the rest of the world are you ready to put your money on a railroad built on muskeg and permafrost, Lets see who is first to step up,all you climate change deniers should feel it a safe investment??
            Construction methods have improved since the 1800s. If they can build skysc****rs on slurry and sand they can put a track and pipeline through MB.

            Alaska has a pipeline through the arctic and they are building a highway to Tuktyuktuk. Can be done.

            And MB which is a have not province that finally turfed their socialists should be hungry for this opportunity.

            And Churchill make more economic sense than EE, gateway or even TMX. Its all downhill, friendlier area and having commodities offshore in the middle of the country gives them an option to go east or west.

            All it would take is some leadership and vision. Instead we have limp dick running the country.
            Last edited by jazz; Dec 9, 2019, 11:24.

            Comment


              #18
              Originally posted by Horse View Post
              With global climate change and the artic warming faster than the rest of the world are you ready to put your money on a railroad built on muskeg and permafrost, Lets see who is first to step up,all you climate change deniers should feel it a safe investment??
              Obama was all in on climate change. Yet he spent $15 million on some ocean front property. Climate change is U.N. scam

              Comment


                #19
                Originally posted by jazz View Post
                Construction methods have improved since the 1800s. If they can build skysc****rs on slurry and sand they can put a track and pipeline through MB.

                Alaska has a pipeline through the arctic and they are building a highway to Tuktyuktuk. Can be done.

                And MB which is a have not province that finally turfed their socialists should be hungry for this opportunity.

                And Churchill make more economic sense than EE, gateway or even TMX. Its all downhill, friendlier area and having commodities offshore in the middle of the country gives them an option to go east or west.

                All it would take is some leadership and vision. Instead we have limp dick running the country.
                Construction methods have indeed improved,but costs have increased substanchuly, Alaska is a mountian range so probably has a firm base ,could an industry like oil survive by only shipping oil 4 or5 mo of the year? What is the shipping season ??
                All it would take is leadership and MONEY, as for limp dick I dont think so as he seems able to f--k things up quite well.

                Comment


                  #20
                  Originally posted by bucket View Post
                  Dumb question....but couldn't it go back where it came from?
                  That’s a very good question.

                  Guess from unprocessed to processed the radiation levels blow out hence can’t be returned to soil that’s my assumption

                  Comment

                  • Reply to this Thread
                  • Return to Topic List
                  Working...