Sour grapes buddy
Yeah - great alternative for those in Lac Megantic
Last edited:
Who is Harper really working for.
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
Sour grapes buddy
Yeah - great alternative for those in Lac Megantic
CM, If Lockheed Martin and Honeywell Aerospace were Canadian firms, they would be barred from the US market after LAAS and the border would be closed to their executives, A la Sherritt Gordon.
Your beloved S H could redeem his image by providing accelerated new venture tax write off for the aggrieved shareholders.
LAAS will bite him in 2015.
You really should do some research.
No one here on these boards; knew of, knows of, or cares about LAAS.
Sorry you lost some money on the venture - serious on that... But, LAAS will not make the radar on the next election in any way, shape or form.
People often associate risk with the ease of ability required to recall an incident. So, for example, after a serial killer is arrested, people's ideas of risk from serial killers goes through the roof. Becasue it is easily recalled. This is a well known psychological phenomenon.
The relative risk of rail and piepline oil transport has been well studied. In terms of realtive probability of an accident road is the likeliest, followed by rail, then pipeline. In terms of amount spilled, pipelines, then rail then road. Overall, road spills the highest amount of oil per billion barrels shipped and pipelines spill the highest in volume total.
Pipelines, in my opinion, are the best way to move oil, but the environment matters too. You have to consider it. Whihc is the part part the Conservatvies don't seem to get.
You got creditable studies to support this?
Or are you just talking otta your ***??
Some subjects really are 'Kapu' for you...
LAAS will be on the radar because the same "American Partners' used the Slick Peety agency in an attempt to unload 400 million dollar plastic airplanes on Canadians. You Ain't seen ammo yet, Mr. TorrieGlorrie..
However, SINCE YOU CHALLENGED, start the LAAS thread and I'll post a full synopsis. C'mom CM, double dog dare you:lol:
(And remember , fly the Friendly skies of Boeing, where to plane don't melt when the Afterburner kicks in...)
There's no shortage of studies and staistics adn they are readily found on Google.
Here's one:
Oil Spills By Mode Of Transport - Business Insider
There's more factors invovled in developing a sound energy policy. One si safety: Pipelines don't tend to traverse populated areas as much as railways do. Railways often carry other dangerous goods that can react in a spill. Train derailments are more likely to invovle explosion or fire. And it costs a lot more energy and moeny to move things by train.
Leak detection on trains is far better--operators tend to know fairly quickly when something has gone wrong. Leak detection for pipelines is abysmal--a primary reason why spills from pipelines tend to be larger.
Not sure either, but unless you can come up with better statistics, I'm sticking with those. I checked Environment Canada--they used to have a summary of spill events in Canada. But that's disappeared.
Apart from the spill issue, the oil sands themselves are hardly sustainable from a long term view. Harper and those he shills for may be experts at spinning or ignoring the science on climate change, but that doesn't make it go away.
One of the roadblocks he's running into in trying to get to Keystone XL rammed through is he can't control the message in the US and people there are rightfully protecting their long term interests. Large areas of North America are likely going to become much less habitable in coming decades, it's a scam to claim that we can still engage in carbon intensive activity like the oil sands and still conserve a lot of the benefit we currently enjoy from what has been a relatively benign environment. Extremes like we saw with the flooding in Calgary and Toronto are likely to become much more common as well as water scarcity and habitat change that will make some areas virtually uninhabitable.
Harper may be thinking what's best for next fiscal quarter or more likely what's going to get him elected again in 2015, but he has almost complete blinders on regarding significant changes that are already underway. It borders on the criminal to focus on such a narrow interest, we need to be looking seriously at how to move off of all fossil fuels eventually, starting with coal and unconventional oil, which are the dirtiest. It doesn't matter what the short-term economics say if the mid to long term indicate looming catastrophe, both on an economic and environmental scale.
Harper is a second generation Oil man, we really need someone who isn't stuck in that past to lead us into the future, not stampede us over a cliff which is what I think Harper and his people are doing. You don't go to the effort of taking almost complete control of the political structure of a nation while stifling free expression of information without a reason, and I think we see it here with Harper showing what his real agenda is all about. Protect the oil interests at all cost in Canada, even if that means the end of much of what makes this nation so amazing.
One of the roadblocks he's running into in trying to get to Keystone XL rammed through is he can't control the message in the US and people there are rightfully protecting their long term interests. Large areas of North America are likely going to become much less habitable in coming decades, it's a scam to claim that we can still engage in carbon intensive activity like the oil sands and still conserve a lot of the benefit we currently enjoy from what has been a relatively benign environment. Extremes like we saw with the flooding in Calgary and Toronto are likely to become much more common as well as water scarcity and habitat change that will make some areas virtually uninhabitable.
Harper may be thinking what's best for next fiscal quarter or more likely what's going to get him elected again in 2015, but he has almost complete blinders on regarding significant changes that are already underway. It borders on the criminal to focus on such a narrow interest, we need to be looking seriously at how to move off of all fossil fuels eventually, starting with coal and unconventional oil, which are the dirtiest. It doesn't matter what the short-term economics say if the mid to long term indicate looming catastrophe, both on an economic and environmental scale.
Harper is a second generation Oil man, we really need someone who isn't stuck in that past to lead us into the future, not stampede us over a cliff which is what I think Harper and his people are doing. You don't go to the effort of taking almost complete control of the political structure of a nation while stifling free expression of information without a reason, and I think we see it here with Harper showing what his real agenda is all about. Protect the oil interests at all cost in Canada, even if that means the end of much of what makes this nation so amazing.
The relative risk of rail and piepline oil transport has been well studied. In terms of realtive probability of an accident road is the likeliest, followed by rail, then pipeline. In terms of amount spilled, pipelines, then rail then road. Overall, road spills the highest amount of oil per billion barrels shipped and pipelines spill the highest in volume total.
I included your stats here as they are an excellent representation of the lack of relativity in this discussion... The info lacks any relativity in terms of the total amount(s) of oil transported (spills and non spills) over that time.
A definitive statement will an*lyze the total volume of oil transported and compare that against the total volume spilled.
In the above chart, I see that pipelines spill 255 times more volume as train, but I do not know if they each transported equal volumes to begin with.
If your comments on safety are founded on this kind of logic and accompanying data sets, you will do well to rethink your position
P/Ls are the safest way to transport oil.
Lac Magentic might act as a reminder for you on this
Hoping for a Miracle, CM...
Asked by the moderator why Obama was still sitting on the decision, Harper said "it's just politics."
His candour appeared to surprise the business leaders who could be heard laughing in the crowd, albeit briefly.
Harper went on to say that "bad politics make bad policy."
"I believe that in strong, advanced countries and economies like ours bad policies ultimately get reversed," Harper said, adding that there is no "plan B."
And if you have any other stats I'd be happy to look at them. I stand by my statement that pipelines spill more than rail car spills, though rail car spills are more frequent. There's a lot of other evidence that is easily accessible that you can look at.
The review was statistical in nature. Calling up a single sample is not necessarily indicative of the behaviour of a large series over time.
Reagrdless, I'm not sure I need a reminder. As I've pointed out, I believe that pipe transport is the way to go.
It must just kill you every time that you are forced to sit down and look for fault with Harper where there is none.
Thanks for the laughs H!
the Captain Morgan doesn't do Stats, Zipperfish. the Captain gives " Directives' to us plebes.
Tory executive in training program..
BTW: Sorry , board, about the Nevada Who-err ranch joke . Mea Culpa..
Last edited:
Plastic Aircraft by Revell $19.95
advanced plastic airplane by Mackay
120 million and counting
Gawd, I hate mark ups, CM
advanced plastic airplane by Mackay
Gawd, I hate mark ups, CM
Naw, just want Wholesale. Wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
hey,I'D STILL VOTE FOR YOU , cm:lol: