69cat

Time to catch up on the latest info. So the story being defended is the water in the polar regions is warming more all the time and CO2 levels are at an all time high, and the natural outcome is to have less ice? Yet Greenland for example seems to have levelled off in its ice loss yet all rational says it should be loosing ice at its fast rate yet. I have lost count, is this the 4, 5 or 6th "hottest year ever recorded" in the last 10 years? http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html Here is something, when claimed - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. How does the warming ocean claim fit with the latest SSTA measurements? Here is a link right from NOAA http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.18.2016.gif To save some searching i will just point out that "the blob" has disappeared and El Nino is weakening. All i see is cold water around the Antartic but with a little data "adjustment" that can be fixed i bet. You bet i am a "denier". When ice melt rate slows down and ice forms during the hottest years ever with highest CO2 ever i tend to look for more plausible answers. Mainly that the "deniers" who claim we have not seen the hottest year for about 19 years now probably have it right. But no doubt there will be many that will say the cooling oceans and resulting impacts in polar regions contrary to IPCC predictions will all see this as sure signs to beleive the end is nigh. Ride that fear mongering band wagon to the bitter end and pay all your taxes.

I would think the low income earner would jump on that bandwagon first, is not NIRP another way to make socialism work? The low income people can be paid to borrow money, buy a house, car, what ever crap they desire. The wealthy who have invested in themselves and worked hard, made lifestyle adjustments as needed moved to pursue opportunities and were fiscally responsible get the benefit of paying money to keep their savings. No doubt people felt "hard done by" will blame the wealthy once again for their own lot in life. I have been a saver all my life, put my self through tech school that way, bought my car that way, invested in business that way. But now someone with no ability to manage their life at all will be able to live the life they always wanted the government to give them.

I know what you say msj, it is hard to see both sides of the same coin at the same moment. I dont intend to purposely speak negatively but when one looks at the basic fact that negative interest rates are becoming the norm and talk of more negative rates and not less (this is open talk, not fear mongering doomsdayers saying more NIRP is coming) then it is hard to be optomistic and say everything is ok so go spend your money. An economy runs on people earning a dollar for their efforts and spending it where they desire. When an entity wants more spending they offer credit, when they want more spending yet they offer cheap credit, when they want more spending yet they pay you to take credit. At some point in this escalation it should be possible to step back and see some degree of concern. Though i expect there will be many who celebrate that they are being paid to borrow money.

From a forum post mar 14, 2015 "Based on current export pricing (as given to us by US/CAD governments) for 13.5% spring wheat at the export market -- Portland is $8.10US/bu ($10.25CAD/bu); Vancouver is $8.81CAD/bu. ############################################## www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/bl_gr110.txt Current Saskatchewan elevator Bid is $6.00CAD. (From USDA report) current Montana Bid is $6.10US. or $7.72CAD." I dont know anyone who would have sold at $150/tonne in 2014. I guess for a politically biased article you could find the lowest price for feed grain and make a bar chart with it. Most guys were $240/tonne plus. Notice a few years are omitted in that bar chart? No probably dont. And lets not forget the money the CWB pocketed when we sold grain for $4/bu and they sold it into the market at $10/bu and more. Those numbers were easy to track back in the day by asking what our buy-back price was after we were forced to sell to the CWB to get it back to sell in some other fashion. Sure, the CWB was all for the farmer and not a government run cash machine. Liberals like to think that way. Thank god for the Harper government, a government with the balls needed to do what is necessary.

Yeah, what a surprise. Best prices ever for our wheat in recent years, able to sell to who we want, when we want, how much we want and get paid upon delivery. And our grain remains higher priced right now than the US grain. You have to dig pretty deep and far to find an example of that under the CWB. But sure, bring back the CWB and keep the free market too. If they are so damn good at maximizing profit through the premium grain we produce for those that sell to the CWB then they will get all the sales. Get out there and lobby for the CWB. You and the other 50 "farmers" that are calling for it. Might be able to dig up another 500 more "farmers" in the western provinces to support it. May find some who are actively farming too. They are out there. Probably the same people that dont grow peas, lentils, mustard, canola, flax etc, you know, those grains that generate a much better ROI than wheat ever did under the CWB, because it was just to hard to market their own grain so they grew wheat, wheat, wheat, wheat...... Funny how people beleive everything they read. Explain how it cost us $6.5B. Note that farmers were selling grain into the US and making a profit where as the CWB made that illegal. Were they somehow loosing money by having this market access? Oh yeah, and when US wheat is higher price than Canadian wheat and every urbanite tells us we are getting ripped off by the grain companies, i dont know, maybe we will grow more of something other than wheat. That free market concept. Which is the concept why wheat grown in recent years has increased noticeably.

Government needs the memo first. Expecting that low or negative interest rates combined with deficit spending will ride through the lull till the next rise is all based on consumption inceasing in the future. Problem is that the consumer has already consumed all it can in the immediate time frame and stole from the future too. But governments will still increase spending and continue increasing the welfare state spending thus hiding the true realities of supply/demand. More consumers will mean more government revenue till they have no job to support it and neither the government handouts to do so also. A good old fashioned war will always fix that supply/demand problem as it has numerous times in the past. Does supply/demand in regards to population remain a capitalistic concept? Or is it more of a universal law that capitalism simply follows?

There is no limit that the taxpayer is willing to spend to meet the goals necessary it seems. Yes, we may very well need double wall pipe along the entire stretch just to make sure the taxpayer can sleep at night. Reading about the project in Manitoba to build Bipole 3 would indicate Manitoba residents take their protection of trees quite seriously. If taxpayers demand double or tripple wall pipe then i expect our government will ensure it is done so with the necessary contribution of tax payer money to see it done. That is how we increase GDP, just make everything more expensive. And if you dont then the answer must be that you are simply being owned by big business. Personally i am fine with a single wall pipe and beleive that monitoring will keep improving as years go by. But it seems the taxpayer is an endless source of wealth and many things these days are packaged as having the financial cost irrelevant to the greater good.

http://www.truckspeaker.com/index_files/canadianmilchcow.html 100 years later and still the same. I once saw a similar cartoon as in the link that included the maritimes at the back end shovelling the crap away to make a more inclusive picture. And it should be noted that westerners should not be considered as having sole right to claim alienation as there are rural people in Ontario that make claims of alienation also. As do other regions of Canada. So "western" alienation is not the correct term but does the needed job of redirection.

So what is it this time Waldo, a cite referencing NASA has confirmed ice is reforming and cant yet explain why that does not fit what was expected. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’” Not a good indication that the science is settled when the scientists need to find an explanation for the opposite occurring. If the science is settled then statements like this from NASA would never have a situation occur that requires such statements. As i understand it then, you do not have a position on whether global temps will rise or fall over the next 5 or 10 year periods or whether polar regions will continue to build ice. Not confident in the science i see.

Dont over look what cheap credit has done this time around, many stocks have been overvalued as a result. Companies have borrowed extensively to pay dividends or buy back shares. Look up stocks like LinkedIn, Kinder Morgan, and Amazon. But generally most stocks are worth looking into to see some things that are of concern. Will the cheap credit allow the typical investor to feed money into the markets and thus continue the over valuation trend or will major companies fold due to borrowing too much cheap credit? Pension funds have been shredded the last year. Funds that were short 25% of their obligations a year ago are going to be much farther off now. I would like to see a long bear market too but there are a lot of investments that were counting on steady growth to have a fighting chance of meeting obligations. Each cycle is different but i am concerned with corporations simply running out of money and disappearing. When investors start running then that happens. There are other places to invest then over valued stocks. A recession right now will see more money running then more money going in. S&P needs to drop a ways yet before stocks become a bargain. Too much cheap credit has distorted valuations. Regarding GDP, as i understand it, government spending counts towards GDP. This is not a sustainable way to meet growth targets.

That cbc article switches its criteria. First says 37% of oil and gas extraction then says 40 to 50% energy sector is foreign owned. I have no issue at all with shareholders being from outside Canada. I would expect Ontario would not turn away a manufacturing operation if it was 100% foreign owned. But that is how it goes. Canada needs massive entities with enough financial power in order to see a greater chance of Canadian ownership establishing dominant roles but they will still have some degree of foreign shareholder component to it. But we tend to have a hatred for large entities and prefer to see them taxed or otherwise restricted. This can be argued as acceptable during boom times as small companies have opportunities to start up and grow but in the bust periods it is typically the very large entities that survive and so continue to employ and pay taxes.

By the way Waldo, provide what you beleive the planets temperature and polar regions will do over the next 5 years and 10 years. A link that best supports your viewpoints will be of interest.

What are you looking for Waldo, documentation that projections are for more polar ice melting or documentation that the polar regions are forming more ice than even 1979? Here is some literature from IPCC on the former http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593 Google is your friend for more cites on the claims that AGW will lead to continued melting of the polar regions. So i would consider the IPCC as part of the crowd supporting AGW hypothesis and those that reference IPCC data, models and studies in the goal to limit CO2 emissions. So what is your take on projections for more polar ice melting but the ice instead is reforming? As for the muzzling, i would say it comes from such things as a movement to jail any scientist or politician who provides a dissenting opinion of AGW, i have even read such opinions here on MLW. I would also say it would include the omission in government and media to pursue issues that may contest the AGW viewpoint. Science is about contending viewpoints and presenting new theories UNLESS it is in regards to human caused global warming - in such a case the science is settled, there is no denying it, any who do are deniers and should be ignored and discredited. Does this public opinion on denying the basic truths of how good science works create an atmosphere where contending views are supressed/muzzled. Guess you dont hear this kind of talk do you? So your position is that global warming was to cause continued melting of the ice caps but now that is not true, you accept any explaination for the exact opposite? If i propose that if i hold a metal ball in my hand and have convinced you it will shoot up to the sky when released, but instead falls to the ground, you will beleive my explaination? Yes, i expect you would. No, i do not accept any explaination for the exact opposite occuring to what the settled science has stated would happen. I shift my focus in areas that have studies that continue to fit the trend that is being presently observed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648?via%3Dihub http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689150

The US is laughing at all the Canadians complaining about environmental impacts of oil. It has been a heck of good media snow job to convince the world how bad the "tar" sands are. Let the Canadians take themselves out as a major supplier on the world market. Oh well, we have a bunch of suckers here so it is to be expected. Oil will come back in time, but likely not to peak levels we have seen for many years. Enough to stay steady, employ base levels of people and pay taxes. Without a pipeline we will simply be limited by what the US will buy and so ultimately dictating to Canada what we can produce. We can all hope that we will eventually get a pipeline built but it wont be till people figure out that employment does not come from the government. Until then there will be many Canadians running around and cheering the fact the boom is finally over. Never realizing oil is a commodity and is in demand when the economy is booming, a bust in oil means there will be a lot of people in this country looking to build a pipeline simply to have some work - whether or not a drop of oil ever flows through it.

Ok - 1e=, i understand this talk is all a hypothesis, just like AGW however the temperature rise and melting of the polar ice caps is not progressing as the AGW crowd has modeled and in fact the opposite is true for about 10 years now. As per the link in post 260 i was looking at planet alignments and found Saturn and Jupiter to be on opposite sides of the sun during minimum temperature periods at 1852, 1911, 1969 and projected at 2031. These planets are in direct alignment on same side of sun during peak warm periods of 1881, 1942 and 2000. I did not look further back in time but there seems more of a link to earths temperatures to planetary influence than C02 levels. Since the upcoming solar cycle is expected to be very short i think one is better to beleive the earth will cool rather than warm as AGW claims. Interesting reading i have found is that volcanic and earthquake activity is expected to increase soon as per a few authors. Whether this is due to oceans transitioning from warm to cool phase or gravity from planets/sun depends on whose research is read. Though for the sake of talking strictly hypothesis then it could be said they both may be related. Interesting to hear you have also read about variations in length of day and how this may affect the oceans, and also volcanic and earthquake activity. My guess is there are greater forces at work than the AGW crowd likes to claim. Given what we know of planet motion, solar cycles and temperature cycles in the earths record i will put more faith in what the muzzled scientists have to say than the heavily government funded (likely agenda driven) AGW scientists have to say. I expect the next couple years to prove me right or wrong.

Interesting note is that the Saskatchewan Poundmaker reservation is suing the feds (so Harper legacy) for not drilling and pumping enough oil from their land. Wonder if it will come out that they oppssed the development or were begging to be raped of their resources all these years. Oil will be low for many years. Cash in while you can. New Brunswick maybe looking at bankruptcy soon, guess they should have diversified more. The econony will cool down in Alberta, less taxes will be collected, less revenue for government, more taxes for individuals to support the ever increasing government spending demanded by the same taxpayers. People living in Alberta during the boom will move back to their home provinces and put more burden on the employment situation. Ontario we can hope will assume its position as economic driver of Canada but i doubt it, we are already going down the road of a major recession and the small tick up in manufacturing going to US destinations will dry up. Ontario has a big environmental mess to clean up itself. People talk of oil sands but when looking at the other areas considered environmental disasters you only have to look to southern Ontario and Lake Ontario. But we can hope manufacturing their rises to its desired level.... and the resulting pollution. I dont think a pipeline will be needed anywhere for many years, not till the next boom cycle. Till then people will need to come up with their own ways to earn a paycheque. If the coming recession is as big as expected everyone will wish they had some work in the oil sector. As for Obama, he made a gesture for keeping the global warming crowd happy. The wheels have pretty much fallen off the bus of that taxation scheme so it is just the governments all too eager to steal billions of dollars from the taxpayers (NDP and Liberals here in Canada) to keep lying to their citizens. The earth is cooling and will bottom out around 2035 in the cooling trend completing another 60 year cycle. Antartica having the most ice ever recorded as does ice reforming in the Arctic doesnt match the AGW religions cornerstone of the polar regions being the areas hit hardest by warming temps.

I dont see an issue with using double wall pipe in areas deemed highly sensitive. My position is that a pipe break on the prairies means maybe 5 to 10 acres of soil being excavated, about the same area dug up and removed to supply the sand and gravel needed for a highway of 10 miles or so. So single wall pipe is still ok for most areas. The problem with water is oil spreads out more. Still dont consider it an irreversible ecological disaster to clean up an oil spill, i expect that to clean up abandoned areas of cities to restore their natural state is going to prove much more expensive than a pipeline break. But so much easier to attack oil and keep people distracted from realities. Technology for checking pipe integrity is always improving also and includes more than just x-ray.

I am actually ok with building roads, and through wet lands too. While others freak out about dredging a river to clean up an oil spill i look at the millions of tons of earth moved yearly to build the things we admire while changing the landscape permanently - well for a few centuries until new generations determine we need to restore rivers to their original condition where our major cities presently reside. So yes, i dont like oil spills but i accept that the next generation will never know the Kalamazoo river was restored but it will definitely know where other landscape has been "developed". Both of these being the result of progress but one having much longer environmental implications. Yeah Waldo, i agree that bitumen is not at a state where it can be shipped without condensate and that is my point. Synthetic crude can be. Dont ask me why we dont do things that way already, i have no knowledge on that aspect. Condensate is what concerns me. But i have not seen information on whether Energy East would carry diluted bitumen or synthetic or other lighter crude. The propaganda to date is simply all oil is bad so no need to talk such details. But i look it and say we take bitumen out of the sand (clean up), send down a pipeline, take it out of pipeline, mix it with sand and gravel and dump it on the ground. Water washes over it, sometimes daily, and then into fresh water ways. A spill occurs and that same bitumen mixes with sand and gravel where it is under water 24/7 and the world has ended. We dig, modify, reshape our environment daily including fresh water rivers, lakes and wetlands. We have the capability to restore a spill so that future generations will never recognize it. They will probably drive a highway right to the spill site. I keep things in perspective. The pipeline controller that day for the Kalamazoo spill was a complete moron. But while others fly into a rage about the clean up i pictures how many acres elsewhere were permanently destroyed that day in the name of progress to reshape our environment.

Why not indeed build nuclear here in Sask. I am in Regina and ask the same thing. The obviuos answer being "its just bad". The paper attached in this AGW denial petition has a good argument for nuclear in the last few pages. Once AGW is finally admitted to be a hoax to grab tax payer money and fossil fuels start being used with no limitations i expect nuclear to gain support again. http://petitionproject.org

-1=e, I was wondering if you were interested in revisiting this thread, specifically i was wondering if you have some thoughts and research on strong El Nino events being typically followed by strong La Nina. To get back to your question i was wondering about a statement in the study you had linked that stated lowering the suns input factor to the model by a factor of 10 had no appreciable impact on earth cooling. But that question rolls into what i post below. I have stated that i have observed evidence on my farm of 60 year climate cycles and have been learning more on this. You have read of things like the AMO, NAO and PDO so am asking if you would review this link and tell me if you think it possible the IPCC climate models do not allow for variability in the suns output as i think they should. Basically because the global warming alarmists deny the sun varies at all. http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2413/global-cooling-forecast-basics-astrometeorology The author demonstrates a 60 year cycle based on planetary motion. Same as the moon creates tidal changes in a predictable manner, so does the other bodies in our solar system influence the sun and oceans. The prediction is for a solar minimum in 2030 as many already know will occur, and we are already entering a phase of the earth cooling and that will bottom around 2035 to complete the 60 year cycle. I have read mathematical models that predict the upcoming solar minimum without the person linking to planetary motion - just a formula that matched solar cycles for the last few centuries. So when both math and an explanation of planetary movement come to the same result then i take note. So one of the points in the above link is we will see rapid cooling in the next few years. And it seems to me a strong El Nino when lead to a strong La Nina which drives rapid cooling. Thermodynamics would make that true. Wondering if you would take the time to read the link and have any thoughts on how the oceans may change to a rapid cooling phase.

Cannuk hits on the most likely solution of Energy East and that is to ship synthetic crude and would be done without a return line for condensate. I understand now Waldos position on diluted bitumen. The concern apparently that bitumen (not dilbit) will sink. Dilbit does not sink, it is when the dilutent seperates from bitumen that the bitumen sinks. I have always been instructed to be wary of the condensate around refineries and pipeline sites and so thought Waldo was focusing on the dilutent as a cause of concern when shipping heavy crude. Guess not, the concern is bitumen apparently. So if Alberta shipped synthetic crude not requiring condensate (that being my concern) and also not shipping bitumen (the concerns of others) then our government should be further along with its social license (propaganda). Interesting that if we mix bitumen with sand and gravel and dump it on the ground then this is something we should demand our government to spend billions of dollars on. And covering thousands of acres with raised clay bases, stripped right of ways, sand and gravel dug from the earth destroying more acres upon acres, building right through wet land areas, and topping with heavy crude with an impact that last centuries is all very good things. Building a pipeline that can be farmed over the next year is bad. Yes, Canada does seem to be a sucker nation.

The reason i ignore your response is i do not follow where you are getting your information from. Enbridge pipelines on the prairies does run a mixture to aid in the transport of heavy crude but it is not referred to as dilbit, it is known as condensate. And condensate is not known to sink to the bottom of a river or lake as it is quite the opposite so we are talking about completely different things apparently. Also the "lab only" pipeline coating you speak of has been in use by Enbridge for two years already that i know of. But if you insist on a response to your statement then there it is. It is called Drag Reducing Agent described as a white tacky fluid and at the sites i was at this week the flows are about 60 lbs an hour when pipeline flow is around 2400 cubic meters per hour. It is used on the condensate line and the heavy crude line. So again, we must be talking different types of "pipelines" as it seems what you say is not possible is actually in use as a common item. What you claim as dilbit may be true but my beleif is that Energy East would use similar methods that Enbridge would use. However condensate flows with the heavy crude to destination and is returned back to its originating location via a seperate pipeline. If Energy East is a single pipeline then this would imply a different method of operation not requiring condensate perhaps simply a lighter crude that does already flow through Enbridge pipes without addition of mixtures.

Ok, so if i inderstand the issue it is dilbit that is the problem, also known as naptha, also known as a primary component of jet fuel. So is the end goal to stop the transport of jet fuel via pipeline because the risk is far too great. Unrefined bitumen is a problem but refined bitumen dumped on the ground is ok? Is that correct? And destroying the environment to put down a 4 lane highway built with bitumen is ok in the name of progress but destroying the environment that will be reused after the pipe is in the ground is not ok in the name of progress. Trying to get a handle on the hot buttons as it seems one form of progress is good and another is bad. A pipeline failure damages an ecosystem for what, 10 years to be very loose where as city development damages an ecosystem for centuries but still goes ahead. I am trying to get a handle on the rational of Denis Coderre and why he hasnt been able to defend his position. Also a pipeline that starts within 2 years i will certainly consider a done deal. That means all the regulations and approvals are in place and the project is considered to meet all requirements. After that it is just a matter of time. Regarding the Kalamazoo spill, no it wasnt mentioned. Was it mentioned that Tuesday evening around 5 pm that Enbridge shut down line 1 (this is from Gretna, Mb to its origin in northern Alberta) because a farmer noticed the ground settled around a road side valve and thought he smelled something? Line was down within minutes of the call and did not wait for an Enbridge rep to check it out. Cuts my day short on site when i cant test motors because the line was shut down while i am working in the electrical room. And by the way, there was no issue with the line as the issue was the frozen ground dug up in November around a valve had thawed and settled.

The rationale is that US environmental policies must automatically apply to Canada and thus Canada should not build pipelines? And sending a raw product (bitumen) is not nearly as bad as sending a mixed product (dilbit)? And then what about when a pipeline sends LNG, diesel, jet fuel, or condensate through the same pipe through 3 provinces during one week, is that OK because they are not blended? And regarding the possibility of a pipeline spill and the environmental impact. Does someone want to calculate how many millions of barrels of bitumen are spread on the ground in Canada intentionally per year? I do not know what the environmental cleanup cost will be to restore a city like Montreal to its natural habitat in the future but you can bet there will be enough crude on and in the ground to make any Canadian pipeline spill look trivial.

So is bitumen dangerous or toxic for the environment? It is sure being made to sound that way. We dig it out of the ground where it has lain and polluted that area for thousands of years and then go dump it on the ground all over Canada in thousands upon thousands of tons a year, along side water ways, fresh water, where ever. In fact, the closer one is to an urban environment the more and more tons we dump on the ground. And lets not forget that our urban centres destroy more of the environment yearly then oil sands development does but there seems no end to that. Cant grow trees and grass in a parking lot, nor is there a diverse wildlife population in a city. And as for Canadas petro dollar, oil was around 7% of gdp in 2014 and expected to be about 3 to 4% this year or next. I do not beleive any government has put all of Canadas eggs in one basket but certainly people like to beleive that. The reality is that if a pipeline is built in the next two years it will have nothing to do with changes in environmental standards. The only change will be how the propaganda is shifted. And that is ultimately what the goal is, after years of saying how bad oil is the new government needs time to reverse the propaganda machine and make it sound like a resource industry including oil is good for Canada. Then we will have our 'social license'. To date i have not heard a specific example where our environmental standards are questionable for pipelines. Just sat through an Enbridge environmental video, there is certainly an extensive degree of third party approvals required but i guess there will always be those who say that if any development is done then most definitely people must have been bought off. It is impossible for a government to establish rules and a private company be held accountable. I cleaned up an oil spill a few years ago. I must be meeting the wrong people because no one presented themselves as someone i could give some money to and make the issue go away. How does it work to become part of the elite who does not follow rules?