The Coalition Strikes!!!

[captain morgan]

I'm not disagreeing. But those same aromatics vapourize during oil spills.

The difference in relative concentrations per volume of aromatics between crude and LNG's is enormous.

Oh, did you find photos of eutrophication off the Northern BC coast? Well nobody asked you, and if you had bothered to check first before going to your standard talking point whenever anyone mentions marine pollution, you might have found a document like this, from the same website that produced that model, you know, the model that prompted your bull $hit talking point:
http://www.livingoceans.org/files/PDF/energy/pollution_report.pdf

Go ahead, use the search function. Maybe even note that sewage talk occurs in the recommendations.

I see... So becuase there are some stock photos on google regarding the subject means that there is nothing hypocritical in legislating tanker traffic to protect the oceans and dumping even more sewage (and whatever else) into the very oceans that they are "protecting"?

Here's a question for you Mr. Science, how long has "science" known that dumping raw sewage into an aquatic environment was a bad idea?.. Is it still a topic up for debate and all it deserves are stock google photos and "sewage talk" or are those communities not interested in parting with the cash to actually protect the very resource that they piss and moan about?

I should have known the comment would be entirely lost on you.

 

[JLM]

Then it wouldn't be a democracy, would it? I think we should ban right wing bozos who spouting crap like that.

Your proposal doesn't sound too democratic either, Cliff- better go back to bed and sleep on it some more. :lol:

 

[CDNBear]

Why is it Colpy that in almost all your posts, the Liberals are at fault? You never mention the Conservative debt that your grand children, and their grand children will still be paying off fifty years from now. Lyin' Brian should be in jail. If not for the debt he left us in, then the bribe money he carried home in brown paper bags and never declared till it became public knowledge.

Holy crap juan, are you still clinging to that make believe Mulroney blunder? One which I already showed you, was partly caused by PET's ballooning Gov't and immigration policies?

The man gave us so many tangible things to bitch about, and you keep trying to pin PET's blunders on the chinman.

It's time to move on and find a new dead horse to beat dude.

Your proposal doesn't sound too democratic either, Cliff- better go back to bed and sleep on it some more. :lol:

That's the problem with the left JLM, democracy and free speech, is only good when it's working out in their favour.

 

[JLM]

Holy crap juan, are you still clinging to that make believe Mulroney blunder? One which I already showed you, was partly caused by PET's ballooning Gov't and immigration policies?

The man gave us so many tangible things to bitch about, and you keep trying to pin PET's blunders on the chinman.

It's time to move on and find a new dead horse to beat dude.

That's the problem with the left JLM, democracy and free speech, is only good when it's working out in their favour.

They're all like that, Bear- the reason why I don't kowtow to any political movement. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

The difference in relative concentrations per volume of aromatics between crude and LNG's is enormous.

I think you mean the relative concentration of aromatics per volume of fuel, but that's besides the point. It's not even close, there is far more aromatics in oil, and even more so in bitumen.

I see... So becuase there are some stock photos on google regarding the subject means that there is nothing hypocritical in legislating tanker traffic to protect the oceans and dumping even more sewage (and whatever else) into the very oceans that they are "protecting"?

No, it has nothing to do with stock photos. I posted a toy model from one of those groups campaigning against , and you asked about sewage, and then you inquired about the supposed hypocrisy that exists because there is also sewage entering those waters. I posted a link from that the same group, whose toy model I posted, which lead to your questions about sewage, which was in fact a report released by that group, which made specific note of the problems associated with raw sewage, and had recommendations. There's nothing hypocritical at all about that.

Shipping oil imposes a new risk. Why should anyone be silent about that?

Your sewage talk is a red herring. There either is, or is not a significant risk imposed by the plan to ship oil out of Kitimat, and whether or not sewage is entering the marine environment has no bearing whatsoever on that, Mr. Industry stooge.

 

[petros]

Leisure craft skippered my morons is a bigger threat than tankers but that doesn't mean an oil port is a good thing.

 

[Tonington]

Leisure craft skippered my morons is a bigger threat than tankers but that doesn't mean an oil port is a good thing.

How many moron boaters does it take to equal one Exxon Valdez?

 

[JLM]

How many moron boaters does it take to equal one Exxon Valdez?

Not very many if it's a big enough boat hauling the right (wrong) cargo. :lol:

 

[Tonington]

Not very many if it's a big enough boat hauling the right (wrong) cargo. :lol:

I doubt very many moron leisure boaters have much cargo besides beer.

 

[JLM]

I doubt very many moron leisure boaters have much cargo besides beer.

Those are the ones that kill people, no lives were lost in the Exon Valdez.

 

[Tonington]

Those are the ones that kill people, no lives were lost in the Exon Valdez.

No, but peoples livlihoods were lost or severely harmed. Over 30,000 fisherman for starters.

 

[JLM]

No, but peoples livlihoods were lost or severely harmed. Over 30,000 fisherman for starters.

I wasn't trying to trivialize it, it's just that human lives are not replaceable, everything else is, in time. (At least from the human standpoint)

 

[Tonington]

I wasn't trying to trivialize it, it's just that human lives are not replaceable, everything else is, in time. (At least from the human standpoint)

Of course you can't replace a lost daughter or son...this is a long way from what I originally asked of Petros though, and I don't think a few leisure boaters could come close to equaling the damage from one Exxon Valdez. If they're carrying anything dangerous on the scale of that disaster, then they aren't on pleasure craft...

 

[captain morgan]

Shipping oil imposes a new risk. Why should anyone be silent about that?

.. And raw sewage is a real boon to the aquatic environment, is it?.

Oh, that's right, there's a blog or something going on about it. Who knows, they've been "thinking" about it for about a hundred years now, maybe in another 100 they might actually do something about it.

Your sewage talk is a red herring. There either is, or is not a significant risk imposed by the plan to ship oil out of Kitimat, and whether or not sewage is entering the marine environment has no bearing whatsoever on that, Mr. Industry stooge.

Do you understand the hypocritical component in this?.. Maybe it's time for you to go back to school and broaden your horizons a bit (maybe a lot)

 

[petros]

I doubt very many moron leisure boaters have much cargo besides beer.

Where can I buy a boat engine that runs on beer.
I've always said tequila was boat gas but I never knew you could run one on beer. Must be an east coast thing.

Beer is a major cause of CO2 and is bad.

The total Mt pa per year of Nitrogen fertilzer from the top 10 user is 41.3Mt pa.

Where does Nitrogen fertilizer come from?

In the USA in 2004, 317 billion cubic feet of natural gas were consumed in the industrial production of ammonia, less than 1.5% of total U.S. annual consumption of natural gas. [12] A 2002 report suggested that the production of ammonia consumes about 5% of global natural gas consumption, which is somewhat under 2% of world energy production.[13]

Natural gas is overwhelmingly used for the production of ammonia, but other energy sources, together with a hydrogen source, can be used for the production of nitrogen compounds suitable for fertilizers. The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia.[14] The increase in price of natural gases over the past decade, along with other factors such as increasing demand, have contributed to an increase in fertilizer price.[15]


Want the totals of potash and phosphates too?

Do you think that might have something to do with algae blooms and ocean pH?

 

[JLM]

There either is, or is not a significant risk imposed by the plan to ship oil out of Kitimat,[/B] and whether or not sewage is entering the marine environment has no bearing whatsoever on that, Mr. Industry stooge.

Of course there is a risk, but that doesn't necessarily mean you don't do it. You calculate the risk and then take steps to reduce the risk like using double hulled ships and perhaps a pilot ship if that's what it takes, the one given is you have to get the product to the markets. If it wasn't for people taking risks we'd still be living in Europe in a "flat earth society". :lol:

 

[WilliamAshley]

Yep, the Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition is on the move.........and Canada is in trouble. God forbid we ever elect these guys.....


Liberals, NDP, Bloc gang up on Alberta - Ezra Levant

We really do need a Harper majority next time.....I fear any other resolution will result in these guys taking power.

That would be an absolute disaster for this nation.

I find it really unfortunate people can't respect democracy just because it isn't voiced by the government, but instead by the legistlative organ of parliament.

When will people clue in a government ruling without consent of the people is tyrany.

If the Majority of parliament says something, that is as close to the will of the people that canada has.


On the contrary though, it would mean a requirement for more petrol using industries in Canada, for finished petrol products, or refined product. This actually is more lucrative than crude, and it would put Canada in direct competition with the US - also there is a ready demand for Cad product in the US.

Issue also is cad production isn't evnironmentally or even fully cost feasable yet.

True massive economic repercussions, but it would have a sobering effect, it would also mean more oil to europe perhaps through hudson.

It would actually equate more employment - if for instance industries that are importing are suplanted by Canadian industries.

PS there are sufficient pipelines between Canada and the US to service non oceanic export.

"Canada reigns as the United States' leading oil supplier, exporting some 707,316,000 barrels of oil per year (1,938,000 barrels per day) — a whopping 99 percent of its annual oil exports, according to the EIA."

 

[FiveParadox]

I find it really unfortunate people can't respect democracy just because it isn't voiced by the government, but instead by the legistlative organ of parliament.

When will people clue in a government ruling without consent of the people is tyrany.

If the Majority of parliament says something, that is as close to the will of the people that canada has.

Absolutely, WilliamAshley.

Let's remember who forms the Government of Canada--officially, it's the Queen, represented by the Governor General, acting on the advice of the elite Privy Council, the members of which are also appointed by the Governor General. That sounds incredibly undemocratic, doesn't it? It becomes democratic, though, because the privy counsellors who advise the Crown on executive functions (only the prime minister and ministers, nowadays) are responsible to the elected House of Commons. Th Government itself is unelected; Stephen Harper and his ministers were appointed by the Governor General to govern Canada, only because Stephen Harper was the most likely person to maintain the confidence of the elected House.

We must look at the executive-legislative relationship through this historical lens, to remember why it is indeed Parliament--consisting of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Commons--that is the supreme authority in the country.

 

[Tonington]

Of course there is a risk, but that doesn't necessarily mean you don't do it. You calculate the risk and then take steps to reduce the risk like using double hulled ships and perhaps a pilot ship if that's what it takes, the one given is you have to get the product to the markets. If it wasn't for people taking risks we'd still be living in Europe in a "flat earth society". :lol:

BP supposedly had calculated the risk of a catastrophic event like that Challenger Deep well kicking and causing an explosion. They said it was practically non-existent. You can put double hulls, use pilot ships, but what is the insurance for that catastrophic event that they say is so unlikely? The payout from Exxon Valdez was lowered by the courts, worked out to about $15,000 per fisherman. Some of those fishermen could make that much money in a very good day or in a below average week before the accident.

 

[JLM]

BP supposedly had calculated the risk of a catastrophic event like that Challenger Deep well kicking and causing an explosion. They said it was practically non-existent. You can put double hulls, use pilot ships, but what is the insurance for that catastrophic event that they say is so unlikely? The payout from Exxon Valdez was lowered by the courts, worked out to about $15,000 per fisherman. Some of those fishermen could make that much money in a very good day or in a below average week before the accident.

I guess that's what insurance companies are for- no insurance you don't proceed. :smile: