Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

BC Hypocrisy with Alberta Explained


Rob_Zepp

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Okay. Since you want to dismiss Robb’s opinion as a jet setting non west coaster, as a 18 year west coaster myself, I consider your type to be fear mongering, anti scientific, anti trade tools of the real estate industry who are against the best interests of most bc residents. 

Fine.

Edited by riffraff
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

It’s not a valid scientific concern and is pure fearmongering. 

Yah right... smoking when it started was not a scientific concern....  HOW Did that turn out for us......    LOL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know.  I'm fine with BC not getting any % revenue from the pipeline as long as AB and Canada pays for any oil spills clean up (land and ocean) and lost revenue due to the cleanup (ie. Tourism, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Yah right... smoking when it started was not a scientific concern....  HOW Did that turn out for us......    LOL 

False analogy. Shipping dillbit is safe because oil shipping in our waters is safe. People ship oil in worse waters with no disaster. For all of its shipping existence. That is a fact. When something is tried and tested and one of the safest things to do, going what’s gonna happen if it blows up is called fearmongering. Just like against nuclear power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, riffraff said:

“Oil spills are not a scientific concern”

 

-Canuckistani

They are not, because it is one of the safest things we do in the world. That’s a fact. People ship oils through worse climate and hydrological conditions than the bc coast and it’s been operating at 100% success rate since gps weather monitoring tech and fog penitrating radar became available in the early 90s.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, riffraff said:

@canuckistani

 

116000 tonnes of oil were lost at sea to the environment in 2018

 Please post the data per yearly, in similar conditions to BC and what the sustainable rate of petrochemical loss to the oceans are, ecologically. The world does not lose 0.75 million barrels of crude per annum via shipping of oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

 Please post the data per yearly, in similar conditions to BC and what the sustainable rate of petrochemical loss to the oceans are, ecologically. The world does not lose 0.75 million barrels of crude per annum via shipping of oil.

Please tell me it’s 100% safe and not a scientific threat again.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

Learn to read. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s still one of the most safest industrial practice known to mankind and the numbers quoted are insignificant.

It went from “the” safest to “one of the safest” in matter of one post....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Please tell me it’s 100% safe and not a scientific threat again.

Red herring. It’s not 100% safe, nothing is, its not required to be 100% safe. To demand 100% safety of any industry is to be anti industry. Maybe we should ban your industry for not being 100% safe. Fearmongering in display won’t get you far for l9nger. Bc is waking up to your types being tools to our real estate industry.

Edited by canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

Red herring. It’s nit 100% safe, nothing is, its not required to be 100% safe. To demand 100% safety of any industry is to be anti industry. Maybe we should ban your industry for not being 100% safe. Fearmongering in display won’t get you far for l9nger. Bc is waking up to your types being tools to our real estate industry.

 

9 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

They are not, because it is one of the safest things we do in the world. That’s a fact. People ship oils through worse climate and hydrological conditions than the bc coast and it’s been operating at 100% success rate since gps weather monitoring tech and fog penitrating radar became available in the early 90s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, riffraff said:Half hour later and oil spills are not a scientific threat is still easily one of if not the best statements made in cdc and possibly the internet of all time.

Its not a scientifically valid concern because it’s ONE OF THE SAFEST INDUSTRIES KNOWN TO MANKIND WITH OONE OF THE GREATEST SUCCESS RATES KNOWN.Those are the facts, fearmongerer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

Its not a scientifically valid concern because it’s ONE OF THE SAFEST INDUSTRIES KNOWN TO MANKIND WITH OONE OF THE GREATEST SUCCESS RATES KNOWN.Those are the facts, fearmongerer. 

So I shouldn’t be concerned?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...