Energy East Causing Uproar

[Accountability Now]

Unfortunately, I need to link to an American source for that - it seem like the agencies in Canada aren't interested in knowing how bad dilbit is.

Hey Reefer....you might want to actually read the link you offered because if you did you would see the following blurb:

"While it's just one case study, the Enbridge oil spill can help us answer some of those questions. My NOAA colleague Robert Haddad and I recently presented a scientific paper on this case study at Environment Canada's Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program conference.

In addition, the Canadian government and oil pipeline industry researchers Witt O'Brien's, Polaris, and Western Canada Marine Response Corporation [PDF] and SL Ross [PDF] have been studying dilbit behavior as background research related to several proposed dilbit pipeline projects in the United States and Canada. Those experiments, along with the Enbridge spill case study, currently make up the state of the science on dilbit behavior and ecological impacts."

When you click on each of those links you will see technical reports on this very study from Environment Canada and Canadian Industry.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/6A2D63E5-4137-440B-8BB3-E38ECED9B02F/1633_Dilbit%20Technical%20Report_e_v2%20FINAL-s.pdf

http://www.transmountain.com/uploads/papers/1391734754-astudyoffateandbehaviourofdilutedbitumenoilsonmarinewater.pdf

Perhaps they're more involved than you think?

Edited January 28, 2016 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

That's OK...we're use to that around here. U.S. government agencies like the NOAA are very popular in Canada for many subjects

Yet in this case they are reporting on what they found at a Canadian conference. Lol

[waldo]

Talk about your all time fails. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! No wonder you were scurrying away in complete avoidance. Man that was priceless.

since you're determined to continue the thread derail, one I've suggested you stop (the reason I didn't engage you), you've left me no alternative but to showcase your displayed petulance and to burst your bubble, once again.

so, apparently, you kept needling me with the question... cause you had that grand googly find of yours just itching you to no end. Yes, I said 2: here's one... 2007 - you know, under the Harper Conservative watch/authority:

At the end of the day I think it's at the administration level, it factual, and we've done this before, Coderre said, referring to 2003 and 2007

and... in relation to the latest dump itself, where Harper Conservatives/Environment Canada had 'the file' in hand for a full 13 months and never raised a single concern with the City of Montreal/Coderre about their intent and year+ planning... and only finally raised a concern, in a grand bit of electioneering mid-campaign... quite literally just weeks before the planned discharge. The related hypocrisy of Harper Conservative Infrastructure Minister, 'Denis Lebel' is profiled here:

now please, again, try to keep your own thread on topic - carry on!

.

[waldo]

Elizabeth May is currently being interviewed on CBC regarding the provisional measures that the Liberal government is making to the pipeline approval process. She is pointing out that it was Harper's Conservatives that wrecked the previous process by putting the NEB in charge of environmental assessment (bill C-38). The results of the Trans Mountain assessment showed the NEB to be terminally biased when it came to environmental questioning. They ruled, for example that upstream and downstream environmental impacts would not be considered but that upstream and downstream economic impacts would be.

So, if the people who are getting all torn up over the fact that pipelines aren't being built want to blame someone, they can go (try to) find Harper.

just saw a replay and May absolutely nails it... it was that under-handed ploy of Harper's with C-38 that is at the crux of most of what is wrong with 'confidence at large' in regards these most recent proposals. Of course, let me make sure to highlight this was a part of yet another omnibus bill Harper tried to hide changes through; specifically, a presumptuous 400 page budget bill titled: Bill C-38: An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and Other Measures ..... "and Other Measures"!

.

[Topaz]

All of this could be a non-issue if the makers of the pipes made them thicker so they wouldn't spilt.

[ReeferMadness]

Hey Reefer....you might want to actually read the link you offered because if you did you would see the following blurb:

"While it's just one case study, the Enbridge oil spill can help us answer some of those questions. My NOAA colleague Robert Haddad and I recently presented a scientific paper on this case study at Environment Canada's Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program conference.

In addition, the Canadian government and oil pipeline industry researchers Witt O'Brien's, Polaris, and Western Canada Marine Response Corporation [PDF] and SL Ross [PDF] have been studying dilbit behavior as background research related to several proposed dilbit pipeline projects in the United States and Canada. Those experiments, along with the Enbridge spill case study, currently make up the state of the science on dilbit behavior and ecological impacts."

When you click on each of those links you will see technical reports on this very study from Environment Canada and Canadian Industry.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/6A2D63E5-4137-440B-8BB3-E38ECED9B02F/1633_Dilbit%20Technical%20Report_e_v2%20FINAL-s.pdf

http://www.transmountain.com/uploads/papers/1391734754-astudyoffateandbehaviourofdilutedbitumenoilsonmarinewater.pdf

Perhaps they're more involved than you think?

The Trans Mountain studies were bought and paid for by the oil company. They showed that dilbit can be cleaned up - providing the waters are clear of sediment and the weather is calm. The Environment Canada study was in the same time period (well after the Kalamazoo River spill) and says roughly the same.

As the Enbridge oil spill, well, are you really contending that Enbridge dumped dilbit into the Kalamzoo River so that it could study the effects of dilbit dumped into a waterway?

[ReeferMadness]

All of this could be a non-issue if the makers of the pipes made them thicker so they wouldn't spilt.

No. All of this will be a non-issue when we finally move on and leave fossil fuels behind as an unfortunate chapter of human history. That will happen, it's just a question of when. There is a lot of money to be made so there are powerful people expending a lot of effort to ensure that it takes as long as possible.

[Accountability Now]

since you're determined to continue the thread derail, one I've suggested you stop (the reason I didn't engage you), you've left me no alternative but to showcase your displayed petulance and to burst your bubble, once again.

Do you mean the one that you suggested belongs in another thread to which I agreed only to have you belly ache and moan on this same topic a number of times, including the two non-factual claims that these similar dumps happened during the Harper administration? Like I said, you don't even listen to yourself....why should I listen to you?

so, apparently, you kept needling me with the question... cause you had that grand googly find of yours just itching you to no end. Yes, I said 2: here's one... 2007 - you know, under the Harper Conservative watch/authority:

Yes...the grand googly is something that would have saved your bacon on this one but instead your bluster shines through like many times before. Lets read your quote shall we?

At the end of the day I think it's at the administration level, it factual, and we've done this before, Coderre said, referring to 2003 and 2007

You see that highlighted RED word.....REFERRING? That is what this said reporter believes Coderre means when he says before. This is much like the crappy assumptions you've made about inferring that I would criticize Coderre for Energy East. However, lets see what Coderre ACTUALLY said in a quoted sentence:

Coderre also had strong words for the NDP, which has also come out against the city's plan.

"We also did a waste dump in 2003 and 2005. You know who was the environment minister at the time? Thomas Mulcair," Coderre said.

Mulcair was Quebec's environment minister with the provincial Liberal party from 2003 to 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/denis-coderre-raw-sewage-st-lawrence-federal-1.3272048

So he ACTUALLY says the dumps were in 2003 and 2005....not implied, not guessed, not referring to.......STATED AS IN FACT. Of course what the other reporter was confused by was the fact that Thomas Mulclair was the environment minister from 2003-2007 which was an important period as he was there to approve two of the three discharges.

oh waldo....you really look the part now!!! Like I said, you might want to brush up those googly skills before you continue your unwarranted bashing of Harper. The funny thing is that I never even brought up Trudeau when I commented about Coderre's planned dump. You responded with ferociousness to initiate a Harper take down but in the end you fell flat on your ass.

Of course, lets not overlook the most important thing....you said Harper did it TWICE. Even if one would be so stupid to not confirm their facts, then I could understand the mistake of saying it happened once under Harper, however you did not. Tough break pal....all these are on your Liberal Party!

and... in relation to the latest dump itself, where Harper Conservatives/Environment Canada had 'the file' in hand for a full 13 months and never raised a single concern with the City of Montreal/Coderre about their intent and year+ planning... and only finally raised a concern, in a grand bit of electioneering mid-campaign... quite literally just weeks before the planned discharge. The related hypocrisy of Harper Conservative Infrastructure Minister, 'Denis Lebel' is profiled here:

Who cares....the Liberal Party and specifically Catherine McKenna, the Environment Minister, approved it. End of story.

now please, again, try to keep your own thread on topic - carry on!

You wish hey? Haven't found a big enough rock to hide under yet????

[Accountability Now]

The Trans Mountain studies were bought and paid for by the oil company. They showed that dilbit can be cleaned up - providing the waters are clear of sediment and the weather is calm. The Environment Canada study was in the same time period (well after the Kalamazoo River spill) and says roughly the same.

So was the Environment Canada report bought and paid for by the oil company since it says the exact same?

As the Enbridge oil spill, well, are you really contending that Enbridge dumped dilbit into the Kalamzoo River so that it could study the effects of dilbit dumped into a waterway?

Huh? I simply pointed out that contrary to your whining and snivelling about 'no Canadian content, that in fact the very link you supplied from the NOAA was actually about a CANADIAN CONFERENCE which produced TWO Canadian reports on the very subject and were accessible in your link. Again, this certainly draws into question your comprehension or so called knowledge on the topic if you can't even read the very links that you claim are supporting your case. BTW....your straw man claim in your question above is very waldo-esque.....you may want to reconsider a debating strategy as you can see its not working out well for him.

[ReeferMadness]

So was the Environment Canada report bought and paid for by the oil company since it says the exact same?

No but it did reference the report that was bought and paid for by the oil company.

Both reports say that dilbit will sink when sediment in the water sticks to it. Enbridge had to dredge the Kalamazoo River. In a larger body of water, there is simply no way to clean up the spill. The sediment can sometimes become dislodged causing the tarballs to refloat at a later date.

Huh? I simply pointed out that contrary to your whining and snivelling about 'no Canadian content, that in fact the very link you supplied from the NOAA was actually about a CANADIAN CONFERENCE which produced TWO Canadian reports on the very subject and were accessible in your link. Again, this certainly draws into question your comprehension or so called knowledge on the topic if you can't even read the very links that you claim are supporting your case. BTW....your straw man claim in your question above is very waldo-esque.....you may want to reconsider a debating strategy as you can see its not working out well for him.

Thank you for your concern about my comprehension. Your post said (in part) the following:

Those experiments, along with the Enbridge spill case study, currently make up the state of the science on dilbit behavior and ecological impacts.

And that's what I responded to.

[waldo]

oh waldo....you really look the part now!!! You responded with ferociousness to initiate a Harper take down but in the end you fell flat on your ass.

Of course, lets not overlook the most important thing....you said Harper did it TWICE.

Tough break pal....all these are on your Liberal Party!

You wish hey? Haven't found a big enough rock to hide under yet????

more... more derailing of your thread? It's amazing just how far you will twist/turn... it's heeelarious to read you attempt to interpret that a journalist "got confused" over Mulcair's 2007 date as Quebec's provincial Environment Minister... while not mentioning Mulcair anywhere within the article! To see your dance with the word 'referring'... to imply Coderre never actually said '2007'. Here... chew on these 3 quotes (from 4 separate journalists) from 3 separate articles, one already provided to you - enjoy:

--- "At the end of the day I think it's at the administration level, it factual, and we've done this before," Coderre said, referring to 2003 and 2007, when Montreal was allowed to make similar sewage dumps.

--- There is no other option but to shut down 30 kilometres of the sewage collector pipe and divert one-third of the city’s waste water into the river over a week, as was done in 2003 and 2007 with the approval of Environment Canada, the city says.

--- “In 2003, we did the same. In 2007, we did the same, and Environment Canada said yes to that,” Coderre said. “What’s going on? It’s exact same thing.”

and yes, the other is the latest... where Harper Conservatives/Environment Canada never raised any concerns until Harper Conservatives thought they could get some election campaign mileage out of it and just weeks before the planned release, jumped forward in a grand case of electioneering. But I already detailed all this for you including the uber-hypocrisy specifics surrounding Harper Conservative Infrastructure Minister, 'Denis Lebel'.

now, again, please stop derailing your own thread - carry on!

.

[waldo]

Both reports say that dilbit will sink when sediment in the water sticks to it. Enbridge had to dredge the Kalamazoo River. In a larger body of water, there is simply no way to clean up the spill. The sediment can sometimes become dislodged causing the tarballs to refloat at a later date.

it seems the guy figures he has 'no accountability'... he's more interested in showcasing presumed googly prowess than actually discussing problems and concerns with dilbit itself! As you say, yes, most certainly, the EC study/report simply confirms conventional understanding on dilbit:

The major results of the studies were:

- Like conventional crude oil, both diluted bitumen products floated on saltwater (free of sediment), even after evaporation and exposure to light and mixing with water;

- When fine sediments were suspended in the saltwater, high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with the diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as floating tarballs

.

.

As the Enbridge oil spill, well, are you really contending that Enbridge dumped dilbit into the Kalamzoo River so that it could study the effects of dilbit dumped into a waterway?

no kidding; a lil' ole "practice spill" just to test real-world conditions! Oh wait... why, that's an inland river water-way. Alternatively, with all that coastal ocean wave action does that mean a tanker spill would have dilbit sink to the ocean floor? Oh my... that would sure be quite the recovery/clean-up event!

.

[Accountability Now]

To see your dance with the word 'referring'... to imply Coderre never actually said '2007'. Here... chew on these 3 quotes (from 4 separate journalists) from 3 separate articles, one already provided to you - enjoy

I have already given you two CBC articles, one of which outlined not only the time of year but also the amount of sludge discharged in each. Now...here is a CTV article that backs this up:

In 2003 Montreal dumped nearly 18 billion litres of sewage into the river, and in 2005 another 770 million litres of wastewater went into the St. Lawrence.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-just-one-of-many-cities-dumping-sewage-in-st-lawrence-1.2652710

And of course lets not forget the most precious source, the one that you chose to completely gloss over, which of course was the information taking directly from your LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA website. Lets have another look...shall we:

But here’s the rub: Thomas Mulcair authorised similar discharges on two separate occasions when he was Environment Minister in Quebec in 2003 and 2005. The first time, 7.6 billion litres of raw sewage was dumped directly into the St. Lawrence River, and 770 million litres the second time.

https://www.liberal.ca/mulcair-contradicts-himself-once-again-this-time-on-wastewater-in-montreal/

Both the years and amounts line up with the CBC and CTV article. The LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA would not propagate lies now...would they?

[Accountability Now]

Both reports say that dilbit will sink when sediment in the water sticks to it. Enbridge had to dredge the Kalamazoo River. In a larger body of water, there is simply no way to clean up the spill. The sediment can sometimes become dislodged causing the tarballs to refloat at a later date.

I guess it depends on what larger body of water they will be crossing. The St. Lawrence varies in depth and goes depending on where you are. I'm not sure what the most recent crossings are but if in Montreal or Quebec then the water depth is around 8-10m and is frequently dredged to maintain the canal's ability to transport ships.

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/appl7en/technicalslseaway.html

Here's a good one from Environment Canada breaking out the sections:

https://www.ec.gc.ca/stl/default.asp?lang=En&n=59C4915D-1

Thank you for your concern about my comprehension. Your post said (in part) the following:

Lets look at that quote again....

Those experiments, along with the Enbridge spill case study, currently make up the state of the science on dilbit behavior and ecological impacts.

So them using the few studies so far and taking data/information from the one case study they have now makes you believe they dumped it on purpose? Really? I can't even begin to tell you how illogical that is to even assume that. I mean...seriously...tin foil hat illogical.

Isn't it a good thing there is only one case study to look at? Wouldn't it even be better for Enbridge if there were NO case studies....ie no spills? But yet you think they deliberately did this?

Well....I only responded to your rant simply to correct you on the fact that Canadian groups have done studies and that the link you provided contained said studies. So if you want to now escalate this up to conspiracy style, tin foil hat arguments then please continue that conversation with yourself and others crazy enough to believe you.

[waldo]

And of course lets not forget the most precious source, the one that you chose to completely gloss over, which of course was the information taking directly from your LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA website. Lets have another look...shall we:

The LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA would not propagate lies now...would they?

and now you're doubling-down? I've provided 3 separate mainstream articles (from 4 distinct journalists) that confirm the 2007 Montreal wastewater discharge... inclusive of a direct quote from Denis Coderre to that end. You can shuck and jive, knee-slap, high-five yourself and go all HAHAHAHAHAHAHA while presuming to slag poor lil' waldo. At the end of the day you've got nothing to show that the 2007 reference is incorrect... did I mention that direct quote from Denis Coderre?

now... you are so flummoxed after trying to take on the big dog, you've desperately sought out the Liberal Party website and a 2015 election campaign article highlighting the contradictions of NDP leader Mulcair concerning Montreal wastewater discharges he authorized... in 2003 and 2005. Apparently, you believe this to be some 'silver-bullet' that's finally saved you from all the prior embarrassment you've had to endure over this exchange! Here's the thing... and I don't do this with any enthusiasm or zeal as I know you're already hurtin'... you see, Mulcair ended his tenure as the Quebec Environment Minister on Feb 27, 2006. --- Mulcair quits in a huff (Feb 28,2006)

since you postured to suggest the accuracy of the Liberal website article, surely you wouldn't expect that article to criticize Mulcair for a wastewater discharge in 2007, one he couldn't have been in a position to authorize given he was no longer the Environment Minister at that point, having resigned from the Quebec government on Feb 27, 2006... surely, yes?

and again, in the interests of continuing to try to have you stay on thread topic, please stop derailing your own thread!

.

[ReeferMadness]

I guess it depends on what larger body of water they will be crossing. The St. Lawrence varies in depth and goes depending on where you are. I'm not sure what the most recent crossings are but if in Montreal or Quebec then the water depth is around 8-10m and is frequently dredged to maintain the canal's ability to transport ships.

The available maps aren't very detailed but looking at this, it appears they're proposing to build the new section of the pipeline right up the St Lawrence valley. Can you blame Quebec for being a wee bit nervous about that? This pipeline is intended to carry 1.1 million barrels per day of Alberta's finest sludge, diluted with carcinogenic, mutagenic, biotoxic solvents. That equates to about 1.6 million gallons per hour. The Kalamazoo River spill was about 1 million gallons (less than an hour's worth of this pipeline's capacity). It has been over 6 years and Enbridge has spent over $1 billion and it still isn't cleaned up. Do the math.

So them using the few studies so far and taking data/information from the one case study they have now makes you believe they dumped it on purpose? Really? I can't even begin to tell you how illogical that is to even assume that. I mean...seriously...tin foil hat illogical.

Really? That's called sarcasm. You included it in your 'proof' that Canadians were doing due diligence in studying dilbit and I called you on it.

Isn't it a good thing there is only one case study to look at? Wouldn't it even be better for Enbridge if there were NO case studies....ie no spills? But yet you think they deliberately did this?

What I really think is that it might have been cool if someone had thought to figure this out before they started to send this sludge through the pipeline. But the oil industry chose not to know and the energy cheerleaders regulators were more concerned with ensuring that the oil companies made their quarterly profits than ensuring that they could clean up their messes. And governments in Ottawa and Alberta were too busy bullying environmentalists and landowners to worry about it.

[Accountability Now]

At the end of the day you've got nothing to show that the 2007 reference is incorrect... did I mention that direct quote from Denis Coderre?

That's the beauty of this....you have nothing to show that 2005 is incorrect either. You were the one that came barking down the hall with your TWO Harper events even though I never even came close to tying Trudeau into this one. YOU were the one to not once but twice broadcast your fallacy out as if it were some sort of shining moment for lil' waldo, with the whole time not knowing that you were full of crap. It wasn't until I asked you to verify your facts that you became church mouse quiet about the subject, scurrying away from the scene as quick as you could. You again scurried when I asked you again. You realized you finally have to face the heat when I called you out directly on it.

So now...your ONLY argument is that you are saying I can't prove that 2007 is incorrect! LMFAO. You are the one that made the claim and YOU can't prove it is correct. So not only was your blowhard claim that Harper had TWO events under his belt shown to be incorrect, you now are also struggling to prove that the one which you thought was correct was an actual event. I gave you an option to retract your claim but nope....you pressed on in your HDS style trying to prove something that in the beginning wasn't even an issue....well an issue for anyone other than you that is.

since you postured to suggest the accuracy of the Liberal website article, surely you wouldn't expect that article to criticize Mulcair for a wastewater discharge in 2007, one he couldn't have been in a position to authorize given he was no longer the Environment Minister at that point, having resigned from the Quebec government on Feb 27, 2006... surely, yes?

OR....how about they didn't criticize about a 2007 discharge.....wait for it....wait for it......because there wasn't one???? LOL. Is this seriously all that you have now? This is right up there with your other failed 'assumption' and 'interpretations'.

Again....the Liberal site DOES say it happened in 2003 and 2005....not implied or interpreted....in straight bold print. So you can decide. Is the Liberal website wrong which would indicate that they used incorrect facts in an attempt to bash Mulclair in an election issue....OR is it right and your blowhard claim has ZERO legs to stand on? Well...which is it?

the big dog,

Yup the big dog...all bark....no bite. You seen lil waldo, I didn't bring this fight to you....you brought it to yourself. The reality is that I couldn't care less if 2007 turns out to be the correct one because I wasn't the one shouting about TWO previous Harper events. All that barking, running up and down the living room, trying to have someone notice you.....all for not!!

But again...I have to ask.....what is it with your HDS? Can you not have a common sense, logical conversation without resorting to Harper? Probably not I'm guessing only because a logical conversation would be one where you actually take a position on something and listen to what other people say. But you're not hear to converse, you are here to preach/bark....like the 'big dog' you are!

[Accountability Now]

The available maps aren't very detailed but looking at this, it appears they're proposing to build the new section of the pipeline right up the St Lawrence valley. Can you blame Quebec for being a wee bit nervous about that?

Looking at your map alone, the line rights close to the St. Lawrence from Montreal up to Levis....all spots that have manageable dredging locations SHOULD a spill occur. Having said that I agree that having a spill in that spot with the flow rates we are talking is not a good situation and therefore the river locations should be minimized.

So...maybe we should take a closer look. I don't know if this is accurate, however this map comes from an anti Energy East site, so I can't see you having any issue with it. When you look at the route from a zoomed out position, yes it appears it runs right next to the river. However when you zoom in, most points on the line are 2km or more from the river except where it crosses. I'm quite sure that dilbit isn't that mobile on dry land....so wouldn't you think that would be far enough?

With all this said, would you prefer tankers to haul dilbit directly on the St. Lawrence or a pipeline to transport it mostly kilometers away from the river. I know you don't want oil either way....but the reality is the tankers are happening now....so this becomes an either-or decision.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/first-oil-sands-bitumen-tanker-arrives-in-sorel-tracy-port-1.2774225

Really? That's called sarcasm. You included it in your 'proof' that Canadians were doing due diligence in studying dilbit and I called you on it.

Called me on what? Canadians did do a study....and their results were broadcasted at a Canadian conference. Your're only retort at this point is that the oil companies (who were Canadian) biased. That I can can believe and agreed to not use their paper but that still left the paper from Environment Canada....which is the official environmental agency from.....CANADA....which would most likely make them CANADIAN.....which would certainly dispute your claim that no Canadians were studying this.

Now...in an attempt to deflect from your obvious mistake, you are now claiming that the paper was not genuine because oil companies paid for it. Please show me proof in that paper or elsewhere that the results of that study were influenced due to the funding by said oil companies.

[waldo]

That's the beauty of this....you have nothing to show that 2005 is incorrect either.

So now...your ONLY argument is that you are saying I can't prove that 2007 is incorrect! LMFAO. You are the one that made the claim and YOU can't prove it is correct. So not only was your blowhard claim that Harper had TWO events under his belt shown to be incorrect, you now are also struggling to prove that the one which you thought was correct was an actual event. I gave you an option to retract your claim but nope....you pressed on in your HDS style trying to prove something that in the beginning wasn't even an issue....well an issue for anyone other than you that is.

never said a thing about 2005; never questioned it... it's irrelevant to anything I've stated, and its your latest strawman to cover your big-time fails throughout this off-topic exchange. Your intent is to suggest 2003/2005 were the only discharge events. You refuse to accept the 3 separate mainstream articles (4 distinct journalists) that confirm the 2007 discharge event... inclusive of the direct quote from Denis Coderre to that end. Your continued shuck-n-jive act doesn't allow you to dismiss these simply based on your want to ignore them... and that you got caught with your pants down.

gee, imagine that - you aren't mentioning your big time fail concerning the "silver bullet" you laid down concerning Mulcair... and expecting him to be held responsible and accountable for approving a 2007 discharge when he quit his Quebec Environment Minister position in Feb, 2006! That was classic gold! You outdid yourself with that one!

and yes, I mentioned the 2 events (the 2007 discharge and the latest that Harper Conservatives had given their approval towards... until just weeks prior to the event as nothing more than an election campaign ploy) in relation to Harper given the suggestion of hypocrisy being put forward concerning the actual thread topic... along the lines of "how could the Liberal government supposedly be so concerned about Montreal area environment (re: pipeline focus) when they approved past wastewater discharges into the St. Lawrence". At that point, that was you seizing the opportunity to weigh in - that was you.

you continue to purposely derail this thread - your thread. I continue to ask you to stay on topic.

.

[waldo]

I don't know if this is accurate

one would think that rather than you attempting to play out yet another googly pursuit from a 3rd party, looking at TransCanada's own filed risk assessments (vis-a-vis route location), might actually be relevant and telling - just sayin, hey! And, of course, any related "intervenor" challenges to that filed risk assessment (vis-a-vis route location). Carry on.

.

[Accountability Now]

Your intent is to suggest 2003/2005 were the only discharge events.

Ok....lets play this silly buggars game of yours. Let's say there were four events which allows all the reported dates by the newspapers to be true (two in 2003 and one in 2005 and one in 2007). That would mean that three events happened under the Liberal watch and one under the Conservative watch. And to play even further.....lets say that the most recent one was the result of the Conservatives (even though McKenna signed off on it), then that would be two aside.

So....how does it make sense to initiate a blasting claim against Harper for this issue when the Libs did equally (more is probably correct) damage than the Conservatives. Why would you go out of your way to bring Harper into a question about the City of Montreal when it has so little to do with their government and in particular a Conservative government.

Your blowhard, all bark no bite has only bite you in the ass! But I guess you're used to this by now....what does this make it 10-0 for ol' AN. But who's keeping score!

[Accountability Now]

one would think that rather than you attempting to play out yet another googly pursuit from a 3rd party, looking at TransCanada's own filed risk assessments (vis-a-vis route location), might actually be relevant and telling - just sayin, hey! And, of course, any related "intervenor" challenges to that filed risk assessment (vis-a-vis route location). Carry on.

.

If the person I am having this conversation wishes to look at this information and is able to show me that the map I provided is not correct and that the proximities are in fact significantly closer then they are more than welcome to do so. Unlike you I would have no problem accepting 'factual' information when presented it.

[waldo]

Ok....lets play this silly buggars game of yours.

no - the waldo is keeping you accountable! The reference point I made was to the recent past decade government of Harper Conservatives relative to today... 2 related Montreal are wastewater discharge events. If you feel the need to extend back further into the governance of Chretien or Martin, that is certainly your prerogative. What you label a "blasting claim' was nothing more than what I just described in the prior post - a response to the suggested hypocrisy of the Liberal government concerning pipelines and Montreal given wastewater discharges associated with prior 2003/2005 events. It was you that took this "nuclear" as you positioned to suggest those were the only discharge events... that all discharge events were under Liberal governance. As is the waldo way, you took your comeuppance... but you didn't take it well! By the by, have you finally found Bragg Creek yet?

now, again... for cryin' out loud... will you quit purposely derailing this thread, your thread, and get back on topic?

[waldo]

Unlike you I would have no problem accepting 'factual' information when presented it.

"you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts"

[ReeferMadness]

Since Montreal didn't look after their sewage properly and had to discharge into the St Lawrence, they should accept a massive dilbit pipeline running up the St Lawrence valley. Is that the logic that is being suggested?