Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

So show us of these oil spills on the seas 'all the time'. The ones on land are tiny fraction of the amount of oil we spill as a civilization re-fuelling our cars. ( every time you are at a pump, thats 1-3 drops of gas lost from the nozzle. Times 6 billion cars times 1 refuel per 2 weeks = what quantity again ?). 

That assumes that we find every single damn puck in the middle of an ocean when the container goes kaput. Or that the container ITSELF doesn't sink based on what it is strapped to and how it went overboard ( you DO realize that objects capable of floating can still be sunk based on angle of incidence, yes?) 

The new 'possibility' is laughable in its scope and its risk analysis. The in-the-box thinking on this issue is fine, because its one of the best boxes we have ever come up with and it works for everywhere in the world that doesn't pay attention to science illiterates to drive an agenda. 

If people were stuck in the box as you are, the oil sands never would have been developed. It needed innovation and risk to get going, like all new ideas. You're stuck in a model that wont get you what you want, more Canadian oil moved both within Canada and for export. Its your thinking thats limiting the market. 

[canuckistani]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

If people were stuck in the box as you are, the oil sands never would have been developed. It needed innovation and risk to get going, like all new ideas. You're stuck in a model that wont get you what you want, more Canadian oil moved both within Canada and for export. Its your thinking thats limiting the market. 

false analogy. Oil sands were developed due to material DEMAND of the commodity. 

What you are proposing, is an inferior option - in scale and in security- than what exists. First rule of engineering is 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. Oil transport, by any objective benchmark in industrial process, is one of the least broken systems known to species homo sapiens. We don't need to fix it, to satisfy a bunch of science illiterates who have a non-scientific and irrational expectation of the process. 
It will get us what we want, when we stop deferring to morons on the issue and giving them a platform. Its just that simple. 

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

amount of oil we spill as a civilization re-fuelling our cars. ( every time you are at a pump, thats 1-3 drops of gas lost from the nozzle.

gas spill does not equal oil spill in regards to environmental damage. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

false analogy. Oil sands were developed due to material DEMAND of the commodity. 

What you are proposing, is an inferior option - in scale and in security- than what exists. First rule of engineering is 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. Oil transport, by any objective benchmark in industrial process, is one of the least broken systems known to species homo sapiens. We don't need to fix it, to satisfy a bunch of science illiterates who have a non-scientific and irrational expectation of the process. 
It will get us what we want, when we stop deferring to morons on the issue and giving them a platform. Its just that simple. 

there's life outside the box, try it sometime. 

 

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

false analogy. Oil sands were developed due to material DEMAND of the commodity. 

What you are proposing, is an inferior option - in scale and in security- than what exists. First rule of engineering is 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. Oil transport, by any objective benchmark in industrial process, is one of the least broken systems known to species homo sapiens. We don't need to fix it, to satisfy a bunch of science illiterates who have a non-scientific and irrational expectation of the process. 
It will get us what we want, when we stop deferring to morons on the issue and giving them a platform. Its just that simple. 

This logic would keep researchers from continuing to search for a cure for cancer, as "Hey we already do OK, compared to 50 years ago".

[canuckistani]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

there's life outside the box, try it sometime. 

 

 

Sure. But as i said, first rule of engineering, across ALL engineering discipline : if it aint broke, dont fix it. Oil transit is not broken by any objective measure, so fixing it should not be the goal over telling idiots who know jack #hit about the issue to STFU and defer to science. I'd much rather follow the secondary path. 

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

Sure. But as i said, first rule of engineering, across ALL engineering discipline : if it aint broke, dont fix it. Oil transit is not broken by any objective measure, so fixing it should not be the goal over telling idiots who know jack #hit about the issue to STFU and defer to science. I'd much rather follow the secondary path. 

 

 

in·no·va·tion

Dictionary result for innovation

/ˌinəˈvāSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. the action or process of innovating.

   synonyms:

   change, alteration, revolution, upheaval, transformation, metamorphosis, reorganization, restructuring, rearrangement, recasting, remodelling, renovation, restyling, variation;More

   • a new method, idea, product, etc.

     plural noun: innovations

     "technological innovations designed to save energy"

[canuckistani]

Just now, gurn said:

This logic would keep researchers from continuing to search for a cure for cancer, as "Hey we already do OK, compared to 50 years ago".

No, it wouldn't, because cancer research is still seeking the end result goal. The end result goal of oil transit is already one of the safest system known to man. You are trying to equate finding a cure to re-inventing the wheel. 

 

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

gas spill does not equal oil spill in regards to environmental damage. 

pound for pound it does not. But when you spill a million liter of gasoline, its toxic effects far outweigh that of once in a lifetime tar spill. Again, looks do not equate to biochemistry of the impact of a chemical, mate. Just because animals are not walking around coated in black slick, doesn't necessarily make it 'better'. 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

 

in·no·va·tion

Dictionary result for innovation

/ˌinəˈvāSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. the action or process of innovating.

   synonyms:

   change, alteration, revolution, upheaval, transformation, metamorphosis, reorganization, restructuring, rearrangement, recasting, remodelling, renovation, restyling, variation;More

   • a new method, idea, product, etc.

     plural noun: innovations

     "technological innovations designed to save energy"

Yep. Except no-one has innovated the wheel in 10,000 years. Maybe if you whined enough about requiring innovation in a static field like the wheel, you can convince us scientists to try and re-invent the wheel. Your whining about oil transport is on the same benchmark, mate. We can and we do work on incremental safety developments in transportation of a toxic fluid. re-invention of the wheel is not required, especially when the proposed re-invention leads to MORE spills in the oceans, something we are trying to avoid as priority #1. 

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

No, it wouldn't, because cancer research is still seeking the end result goal. The end result goal of oil transit is already one of the safest system known to man. You are trying to equate finding a cure to re-inventing the wheel. 

 

pound for pound it does not. But when you spill a million liter of gasoline, its toxic effects far outweigh that of once in a lifetime tar spill. Again, looks do not equate to biochemistry of the impact of a chemical, mate. Just because animals are not walking around coated in black slick, doesn't necessarily make it 'better'. 

I am not your mate, please desist from calling me that, ok?

And  kindly drop the "idiot" label as well.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

I am not your mate, please desist from calling me that, ok?

And  kindly drop the "idiot" label as well.

idiot is as idiot does. Commenting on scientific analysis while not having much of a science background is the easiest way to become an idiot. 

 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Yep. Except no-one has innovated the wheel in 10,000 years. Maybe if you whined enough about requiring innovation in a static field like the wheel, you can convince us scientists to try and re-invent the wheel. Your whining about oil transport is on the same benchmark, mate. We can and we do work on incremental safety developments in transportation of a toxic fluid. re-invention of the wheel is not required, especially when the proposed re-invention leads to MORE spills in the oceans, something we are trying to avoid as priority #1. 

"whining" "morons" - you seem to think this kind of language is going to get you somewhere. You seem to forget that AB needs partners to get more of their product moving. Again, you are stuck in a box, thinking like yours is the problem. 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

"whining" "morons" - you seem to think this kind of language is going to get you somewhere. You seem to forget that AB needs partners to get more of their product moving. Again, you are stuck in a box, thinking like yours is the problem. 

1. It will get us somewhere as soon as enough of us sciency ones lose patience with the illiterate whining morons - a scenario that is fast approaching.

2. Alberta has more than 50% of BC agreeing with them already. 

3. The box is not the problem. As i said, see the wheel example. Some things don't need to be innovated because it works just fine and a bunch of illiterates started whining about it all of a sudden. Not how science works, mate. 

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

"whining" "morons" - you seem to think this kind of language is going to get you somewhere. You seem to forget that AB needs partners to get more of their product moving. Again, you are stuck in a box, thinking like yours is the problem. 

Do we? I seem to recall JT buying the pipeline and saying vigorously it will get built. Just because you're a die hard JT fan doesn't mean you bave to take jabs at BC.

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

1. It will get us somewhere as soon as enough of us sciency ones lose patience with the illiterate whining morons - a scenario that is fast approaching.

2. Alberta has more than 50% of BC agreeing with them already. 

3. The box is not the problem. As i said, see the wheel example. Some things don't need to be innovated because it works just fine and a bunch of illiterates started whining about it all of a sudden. Not how science works, mate. 

the wheel example is ridiculous. Wheels are being improved all the time. 

 

Yes your in-the-box thinking is the problem, its barring you from seeing possibilities and all you can come up with is arrogant sounding things like calling people "morons". 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Do we? I seem to recall JT buying the pipeline and saying vigorously it will get built. Just because you're a die hard JT fan doesn't mean you bave to take jabs at BC.

You know thats not an accurate statement with the discussions we've had.

 

Yes you do need partners. At the moment you have the feds onside for the twinning, but they aren't the only ones involved. And that project does nothing for shipping more oil east. 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the wheel example is ridiculous. Wheels are being improved all the time. 

Yes,incrementally, within the same parameters of a circular device. Just like how oil shipping is ALSO being improved all the time within the parameter of shipping a toxic fluid. 

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Yes your in-the-box thinking is the problem, its barring you from seeing possibilities and all you can come up with is arrogant sounding things like calling people "morons". 

No, it isn't. The problem is a bunch of idiots who don't know anything about it thinking their opinion matters. 

The possibilities of canapux are laughable when scaled up, resulting in far greater spill rate. That it theoretically can be cleaned up is irrelevant, because finding each and every floating puck in the middle of the ocean, especially in winter with ice floes, is near impossible. So no, canapux is NOT safer. its less safe because of the transportational modalities involved ( container ships). 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Yes,incrementally, within the same parameters of a circular device. Just like how oil shipping is ALSO being improved all the time within the parameter of shipping a toxic fluid. 

No, it isn't. The problem is a bunch of idiots who don't know anything about it thinking their opinion matters. 

The possibilities of canapux are laughable when scaled up, resulting in far greater spill rate. That it theoretically can be cleaned up is irrelevant, because finding each and every floating puck in the middle of the ocean, especially in winter with ice floes, is near impossible. So no, canapux is NOT safer. its less safe because of the transportational modalities involved ( container ships). 

you're just spewing your opinion, you have no studies or evidence to back this statement up. Show me the study.

 

Those "idiots" that you think don't matter have the right to vote. Those "idiots" are in effect your business partners if you want to move more oil. But sure, keep up with the insults, it hasn't worked since Harper but keep it up 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you're just spewing your opinion, you have no studies or evidence to back this statement up. Show me the study.

You would like to see a study on the lost container rate of a container ship ? Because thats how the pucks are getting on the sea mate - they definitely are not going inside the cargo hold of an oil tanker designed to carry fluids. 

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Those "idiots" that you think don't matter have the right to vote. Those "idiots" are in effect your business partners if you want to move more oil. But sure, keep up with the insults, it hasn't worked since Harper but keep it up 

And that is why its the NEB who decides what project to undertake and not a referendum. I'd rather tell the idiots they are idiots and educating them, rather than re-inventing the wheel because idiots think it needs re-invention out of some irrational nonsense beleifs they have. 

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

You would like to see a study on the lost container rate of a container ship ? Because thats how the pucks are getting on the sea mate - they definitely are not going inside the cargo hold of an oil tanker designed to carry fluids. 

And that is why its the NEB who decides what project to undertake and not a referendum. I'd rather tell the idiots they are idiots and educating them, rather than re-inventing the wheel because idiots think it needs re-invention out of some irrational nonsense beleifs they have. 

does Forsberg have the other 1/2 of your amulet?