Canada BS Thread

I thought the graphic was quite interesting. Hopefully when the economy gets a bit better the Alberta government will start listening to water storage suggestions. We need better storage to get us through droughts if Alberta's billion dollar potato industry and multibillion dollar irrigation districts are expected to continue to pump out record high productivity for our latitude.

 

You really, really funny.

 

Actually it is sort of funny. A conservative government who sides with ground squirrel huggers instead of securing the South Saskatchewan basins water for the next 100 years.

Who'd of thunk it?

 

I've watched the Nova program on Netflix. It's interesting stuff.

The most interesting fact I've ever heard is the misconception with CO2. Lots of people think if we just cut down our emissions things will heal. Most researchers think that the environment is more like a bath tub without a drain rather than one with a drain. When we add CO2 to the environment, even if it's less CO2 per year than the past, we are still adding CO2. Even more scary is the fact that things like the Oceans and Organic Matter which can hold CO2 out of the atmosphere are actually pretty close to their maximum holding capacity already.

The story is we will have to deal with a warmer world. Period, unless we want to change the way we all live right now and most people don't seem interested in that. Look at how little money goes into Fusion research as an energy source considering the potential benefits to leveling off CO2 emissions. The world is going to get wild, everyone get ready.

 

Albertans going to the polls May 5

http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/alberta-election-called-for-may-5-1.3022952

 

Fair enough. Time for the whiners to have a chance to change things if they want too.

 

http://critical-angle.net/2015/04/01/emissions-history-and-the-great-acceleration/

 

Toxic bunker fuel spill in Vancouver Harbour

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-spill-washes-up-beach-in-kitsilano-1.3026227

 

Speculating a leak on board, and they pumped out their bilge.

 

BC Premier , Vancouver Mayor blast Federal government over response time and effort in Vancouver Harbour bunker fuel spill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...sted-by-b-c-premier-vancouver-mayor-1.3028245

 

How bad is it?
Like Exxon Valdez bad? Or like my driveway after an oil change?

 

I do have to say, a six hour response time is pretty slow, but it's not extremely bad. Sounds like they need to work on contingency planning a bit.

 

So BC wants to bring back the provincial spill reaction teams? They existed a long LONG time ago in Alberta, but for the odd spill that happens and the fact that for the odd spill that happens they had at least 24 hours to get to a spill they were never cost effective. I think BC's premier is just deflecting any blame the Environment Canada unnecessarily.

BTW I just wrote the NAFTA pesticide applicators course and we learned about whose responsible for it is for toxic spills. At the end of the day it's up to the company who owns the ship to come up with a sufficient emergency response plan. All Environment Canada does is give it the once over and make suggestions. Usually companies have enough lawyers to figure out how to comply on the cheap with any rules the feds put in and still pass their ERP.

 

3000 litres IIRC

It's literally 3000' from Vancouver

Yes , BC suggests that if the Coast Guard can't respond in a timely manner then perhaps the Province should take over spill response

This spill itself isn't really what people are worried about , smallish spill of bunker oil which floats and is cleaned up fairly easily , in calm waters , no rain and close to a response station

What it does do though , is magnify people's fears of what is to come if the twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline goes through , or even worse , the Northern Gateway , because then the spill would most likely be very large , bitumen , rough waters , far from response stations

 

So force Environment Canada to tighten the regulations on ERP plans. If companies want to ship oil they should be responsible for doing it safely and proactively preparing for spills.

 

Good point. Are pipeline spills as prevalent as cargo ship or railroad spills? We are dealing with Bakken crude coming from North Dakota by rail, many localities are developing contingencies to deal withdrawal dreailments in populated areas.

 

Uh , you mean get the same federal government that slashed budgets in the Coast Gaurd , and essentially eliminated enviornmental assesments of pipelines to tighten Environment Canada regs on shipping oil ?

That seems likely

 

Whether or not pipeline or rail spills are more or less likely than oil tanker shipping spills is kind of irrelevant if all transport of oil from this point west would have to be by ship

 

How about a solution OZ lol.

If enough people understood and pursued tighter spill prevention and reaction plans than there would be less of a problem. It's as simple as that.

 

Yes , it's one of BC's 5 demands that need to be met for the Province to sign off on either pipeline , and supposedly " World leading spill response " is what the Feds have touted that is in place

So , having had this occur in essentially the best conditions and location that there is on offer on the BC coast as far as a clean up goes , it definitely begs the question , if this is the World Leading spill response we can count on , what happens if a ship runs aground in Douglas Channel carrying heavy bitumen on the way to China , or dillution chemicals on the trip back ? or what if a ship goes down in the Gulf Islands National Park area ?