canuckistani Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, chon derry said: I gave you a comparative and your retort was the drake passage? you gave no comparative whatsoever, mate. Comparative analysis is based on a COMPARISON. Not absolutes. 1 minute ago, chon derry said: and now its the sea of Okhotsk ?nice deflections There is nothing 'deflection' about showing oil and gas super-tankers going around their business in nearly similar ecosystems, with one being worse in weather pattern terms. Sea of Okhotsk is a direct comparative to the BC-Alaskan coastline oil transportation route. 1 minute ago, chon derry said: .but I guess thats all you have since you know nothing about the risks associated in our back yard , ya thats right nimbism, and your lack of knowledge of our back yard. The risk is negligible, since the Russians are transporting oil and gas over a sea thats WORSE than our coastline in the same parameters - winter storms, visibility issues and cold temperatures- for twenty years, with zero incidents. Its an open and shut case that anti-pipeline nonsense here is based on nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Do you understand the meaning of the term ' comparative analysis' ?!? Sea of Okhotsk is worse. It has oil terminal. It passes through island chain. No incidents for 20 years with lower safety standards. Can't run away from those facts, bud. ironic that the link I provided was about a ship en route to Russia..https://www.wavepointconsulting.ca/canadian-coast-guard-gets-line-pacific-coast-marine-traffic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, chon derry said: ironic that the link I provided was about a ship en route to Russia..https://www.wavepointconsulting.ca/canadian-coast-guard-gets-line-pacific-coast-marine-traffic/ Nice try. But unfortunately, no dice. Sea of Okhotsk is *not* on the Russian sector route for Trans-pacific routes originating in Canada. Nowhere in your article is the Russian comparative to super-tanker traffic is presented or even considered. Nor do they present any actual data or analysis of the Russian side of the Pacific. Ergo, irrelevant to COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RISK. There are two ways to look at risk analysis : a) Theoretical analysis b) Practical comparison/simulation, when comparison is unvailable. Our issue with SAFETY of oil transport are as follows: a) Clearance of Narrow body of water b) Climatological factors. c) Canadian infrastructural readyness to prevent or contain the (extremely unlikely) disaster. Narrow body comparison: Two case-points - i) the Sakhalin -Kuril islands transit route passing the Kuril Chain ii) Strait of Hormuz: narrow, long and shallow strait that handles 5-10x the tanker traffic BC coastline will *ever* see. Both check out as safe and incident free. Climatological Factors: Russia has been exporting oil and gas, via super-tankers, from the Sakhalin plants, since late 90s/early 2000s. It either takes the Sakhalin-Kuril Island route or the inner, Sakhalin to Sea of Japan route (most cases). This sea is known for its rough waters as well ( newsflash: rough waters ALL OVER the North Pacific, is a thing). Worse, its also has more fog problem than the N.American side of the Pacific. It also happens to form gigantic ice-floes an sometimes vast phases of freezing over. Again, checks out for ~ 20 year of tanker traffic without incident. Sorry bud, but anti-pipeline 'disaster concerns' are pretty much fear-mongering. There is no actual data, no actual comparative that checks out. None, nada, zip. Yes, we have some scientists saying 'unsafe' as their opinion. Sure. Science people are not immune to speaking nonsense for publicity/large sums of money either. But they don't present any data, they dont engage in comparative analysis- just 'opinion'. Rest of us 'science folks' who are not swept up in hysteria but search for numbers , data and analysis of the postulations, are not impressed. Its just that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) @canuckistani you missed the whole point of the link I provided it clearly proved how a nautical incident IS Possible and how ill equipped Canada is at responding to it you keep wanting to talk about Russia or the drake passage , but once again I understand why , because you dont know anything about BC'S coastline. but carry on. Edited January 21, 2019 by chon derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Just now, chon derry said: i'm not even going to bother reading this Yep. Thats how dogmatic people react to data and analysis. We science folks encounter that all the bloody time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 11 hours ago, canuckistani said: . Real ACTUAL risk = negligible. The end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_2018 Real actual risk = possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Mackcanuck said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_2018 Real actual risk = possible So it would appear you have concerns about the ocean but not reducing emissions. At least that's what your posting history indicates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: So it would appear you have concerns about the ocean but not reducing emissions. At least that's what your posting history indicates. If you're this concerned about emissions, maybe we should stop selling oil? its pretty funny to have a pro-oil person argue emissions don't you think 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: If you're this concerned about emissions, maybe we should stop selling oil? its pretty funny to have a pro-oil person argue emissions don't you think Talk about emissions is funny coming from a crowd that has always cited developing countries like India and China as reasons not to care about regulating emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: If you're this concerned about emissions, maybe we should stop selling oil? its pretty funny to have a pro-oil person argue emissions don't you think If a so called environmentalist(drinking American kool aid) is so concerned about the environment why has he got no clue about emissions? Why do these same people not attack mining in BC? Could it be they don't know what they're saying? Btw Alberta oil extraction is the safest and most environment friendly in the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Toews said: Talk about emissions is funny coming from a crowd that has always cited developing countries like India and China as reasons not to care about regulating emissions. Talking emmisions with a few in this thread is pointless as they have no idea what they're talking about. But pipeline bad. Haha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Talking emmisions with a few in this thread is pointless as they have no idea what they're talking about. But pipeline bad. Haha Looks like we are both finding this thread entertaining. I can't stop laughing at the hypocrisy coming out of Alberta. But yeah, hopefully this shiz finally gets built and we can start printing money while making sure adequate measures are in place to manage any situation. Edited January 21, 2019 by Toews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: So it would appear you have concerns about the ocean but not reducing emissions. At least that's what your posting history indicates. It would appear that you are in error, I have concerns with both as most people do Edited January 21, 2019 by Mackcanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: It would appear that you are in error, I have concerns with both as most people do But you are calling for more rail.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Talk about moving the goal posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) dp Edited January 21, 2019 by Mackcanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: But you are calling for more rail.. I was calling for canapux to be shipped out of Vancouver, Kitimat and Rupert, in cargo ships as oil Super tankers are banned out of Rupert and Kitimat ports not sure rail even gets to Kitimat. CN invented and owns Canapux, So I am sure they would know how to transport them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Mackcanuck said: I was calling for canapux to be shipped out of Vancouver, Kitimat and Rupert, in cargo ships as oil Super tankers are banned out of Rupert and Kitimat ports not sure rail even gets to Kitimat. CN invented and owns Canapux, So I am sure they would know how to transport them How do they get to those locations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: How do they get to those locations? Ask CN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: If a so called environmentalist(drinking American kool aid) is so concerned about the environment why has he got no clue about emissions? Why do these same people not attack mining in BC? Could it be they don't know what they're saying? Btw Alberta oil extraction is the safest and most environment friendly in the world. I just find it funny that you'd use that in an argument. Its interesting to me to see the resistance from AB's on the puck tech. Its clearly a good compromise, so why keep pushing pipelines so strongly? I'd like to see an independent review proving that AB oil is the most environmentally friendly. I agree on safety and also ethically tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts