|
Jan posted:I mean, we're already way past the point of no return and anything we do now is just going to make our kids different levels of hosed, so why bother? https://twitter.com/internethippo/status/881161169469403137?s=21
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
I don't even care about the $5 billion, really. If it's just money being pissed away and not a 7x increase of tankers IN MY BACKYARD I can live with it
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Me: I believe in emissions controls and funding to transition away from fossil fuels Also me: You can't snap your fingers and have no more fossil fuel needs Still also me somehow: We should be spending billions of dollars investing in long-term fossil fuel infrastructure to ensure we can keep pumping it long after the point where either we're all dead or there's no longer any demand for fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I hate everyone on both sides of this debate and also myself for bothering to read about it. just come back tomorrow it'll be back to beer and wildlife chat
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
THC posted:I don't even care about the $5 billion, really. If it's just money being pissed away and not a 7x increase of tankers IN MY BACKYARD I can live with it Good news the federal government is doubling down and powering through despite the judgement. gently caress you Trudeau.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Jan posted:I mean, we're already way past the point of no return and anything we do now is just going to make our kids different levels of hosed, so why bother? I don't want my kids to be commless Breeders in the next Season, that's why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Good news the federal government is doubling down and powering through despite the judgement. gently caress you Trudeau. Is that true? Is the government obligated to buy it at this point, or can they still walk away? I mean, they won't walk away because that would lead to even more uncertainly for business, but could they?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Is that true? Is the government obligated to buy it at this point, or can they still walk away? I mean, they won't walk away because that would lead to even more uncertainly for business, but could they? Morneau says they are absolutely committed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Is that true? Is the government obligated to buy it at this point, or can they still walk away? I mean, they won't walk away because that would lead to even more uncertainly for business, but could they? Morneau just said they remain committed to the project despite the court ruling
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Me: I believe in emissions controls and funding to transition away from fossil fuels I mean I can't tell if you're quoting me or federal liberal, PC, probably NDP, ANDP policies Maybe I'm cynical but I don't see a practical path to stopping the climate change path we're on; if a major government ever took radical steps towards a solution they'd be hung in the streets within weeks
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:Any good guides to the candidates in the toronto municipal election? The Star had some profiles but everything is hosed since Bill 5 was ratified and half the candidates aren't even registered any more. You can use this site to figure out what ward you're in and who is registered to run there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is anyone pro-pipeline even if they are pro-oil and gas. We buy refined petroleum on the international market so if we send the crude out of country to be refined the net result is we're sending money out of country for no gain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
I'm cynical and don't see a practical path towards halting or reversing climate change too but I sure as gently caress don't post to defend oil and gas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Why the gently caress is anyone pro-pipeline even if they are pro-oil and gas. We buy refined petroleum on the international market so if we send the crude out of country to be refined the net result is we're sending money out of country for no gain. Because building refinery capacity is also very complex and not economically feasible generally Also looks like there was a shooting at Yorkdale mall, my friend got evacuated just now
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Maybe I'm cynical but I don't see a practical path to stopping the climate change path we're on; if a major government ever took radical steps towards a solution they'd be hung in the streets within weeks So this, but unironically? Jan posted:I mean, we're already way past the point of no return and anything we do now is just going to make our kids different levels of hosed, so why bother? Shocker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
THC posted:I don't even care about the $5 billion, really. If it's just money being pissed away and not a 7x increase of tankers IN MY BACKYARD I can live with it Same. Idgaf what the libs want to blow $5b on. If this came without the tanker traffic increase right loving in Burrard Inlet I'd care a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Same. Idgaf what the libs want to blow $5b on. If this came without the tanker traffic increase right loving in Burrard Inlet I'd care a lot less. So currently there's 50 tankers/year and it would go to ~400/year. Going off the port of Vancouver's site; Rotterdam sees about 8,200/year and Singapore 22,000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Because building refinery capacity is also very complex and not economically feasible generally Less economically-feasible than this pipeline boondoggle though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:So currently there's 50 tankers/year and it would go to ~400/year. Going off the port of Vancouver's site; Rotterdam sees about 8,200/year and Singapore 22,000. You're an idiot. Rotterdam and Singapore are not extremely fragile and sensitive natural environments containing critically endangered species.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Less economically-feasible than this pipeline boondoggle though? No, this boondoggle is also a disaster and while the federal government was probably hosed no matter what they somehow picked probably the worst possible outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Just build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as an oil pipeline instead, and shift the tanker traffic outside of the enviroment. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:A coastal LNG leak/spill would become methane extremely quickly, any impacted area would be very very small and be gone in minutes. This isn't a field you have any education or experience in is it? The risks associated with methane vapour clouds from LNG leaks are well known and taken seriously by the industry. Specifically the risks associated with their combustion, because it is a very real and dangerous hazard. Do you really work the field or are you just pretending so you can sound cool on the internet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Jan posted:I mean, we're already way past the point of no return and anything we do now is just going to make our kids different levels of hosed, so why bother? Jokes on you, I'm never having kids. Enjoy your future wasteland, future suckers!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:I thought every single tanker coming in was getting brought in by tugboats specific to Vancouver's port areas? Thus negating the pilot error thing. Last year, the Globe and Mail put a reporter onto a tanker that filled up at the current terminal and headed out to sea. Words: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...rticle35070386/ Interactive: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-pipeline-bc-coast/article35043172/ Wilhelm posted:A coastal LNG leak/spill would become methane extremely quickly, any impacted area would be very very small and be gone in minutes. Methane is heavier than air (especially still-cold, recently boiled methane) so it would form an invisible cloud near the spill or leak. At atmospheric pressure and mixed with normal air, it's explosive at concentrations between 4.4 and 17%. I'm trying to imagine a spill that did not happen pretty close to some source of heat, flame, or spark. Even if it doesn't go bang, it can simply displace enough oxygen to suffocate anybody (or any other air-breathing animal) nearby. A few thousand litres of LNG turns into enough gas to hang around for at least a few minutes, long enough to kill any person nearby. The edge of the cloud, slowly dissolving into the atmosphere, is going to have a big, fat volume in three dimensions inside that explosive-danger zone, probably for hours. Diffusion of gases in gases is pretty fast, yes, but we're not talking about somebody blowing out the pilot light on a stove, this is a truckload of liquid all over Wreck Beach. I work with methane at atmospheric concentrations, I study greenhouse gas processes in soils. About 1/3 of my PhD was methane, but I admit I have no experience of large volumes of methane under the kinds of conditions (very high concentration, very low temperature) that would be prevailing in a LNG-tanker spill. CLAM DOWN posted:Rotterdam and Singapore are not extremely fragile and sensitive natural environments containing critically endangered species.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
Would the cloud cause long-term environmental damage though? I'll admit I'm probably ignorant on this point; but my understanding was that a 'worst-case' event would probably kill the ship's crew and cause a decent radius fish-kill; but nothing along the lines of an Exxon-Valdez type catastrophe. I should have specified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Would the cloud cause long-term environmental damage though? I'll admit I'm probably ignorant on this point; but my understanding was that a 'worst-case' event would probably kill the ship's crew and cause a decent radius fish-kill; but nothing along the lines of an Exxon-Valdez type catastrophe. I should have specified. Am I correct in assuming you heard about this 'worst-case' event form somebody else who's paycheck depends on the LNG industry?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
I don't know. I *think* the methane (that didn't burn) would need to be polymerised to something less likely to boil off, or otherwise form a chemical complex (clathrates?) and stick around. It's not particularly toxic to most life, and I don't know of any methanotrophs (methane-eating bacteria) that are also pathogenic or otherwise dangerous. The thing is, a fire and explosion is very likely from a large spill. So I imagine there is very little stopping a medium-sized spill becoming a big spill as the fire enlarges the hole in the vessel, then the explosion blows open the other tanks on board the ship, which then ALSO explode. Would this chain reaction come close to something like the Halifax explosion? Methane isn't an explosive in the same category as what the SS Mont-Blanc was carrying, but a decent sized LNG tanker is also a much bigger ship: Mont-Blanc had a gross tonnage of 3121 tonnes, The Al Hamla, a "Q-Flex" LNG carrier, is currently just east of Singapore and has a gross tonnage of 136410 tonnes. https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=248778 Imagine that going kablooey after ramming one of the bridge supports for the Lionsgate. Large explosions and city-wide fires do tend to have a bit of an environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Massive nuclear expansion would be the most sensible energy plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Massive nuclear expansion would be the most sensible energy plan. Tbqh blowing up Vancouver would be doing God's work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:Am I correct in assuming you heard about this 'worst-case' event form somebody else who's paycheck depends on the LNG industry? I've done grad courses more specialized in subsurface contamination (mostly for things like PCB oils, solvents, coal tar etc) and have worked in direct O&G contracting, but also on the consulting side for environmental remediation - I'm certainly not specialized in this subject but I have some tangential background to the industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
I finished up that book "Clearing the Plains", the author actually mirrors what i said in that effortpost, that Macdonald were largely guided by his indifference to their suffering, although Macdonald and Dewdney were also horrible assholes who were directly responsible for over a century of suffering on reserves, withholding food to punish and subjugate without consideration for the relationship between malnutrition and disease. It's loving shameful that there is so little political will to correct centuries old problems. It's all still happening. We are still culpable. The conservatives would still starve the same vulnerable group for entirely the same reasons. The Liberals are apologizing for some of the harm done, while continuing to do harm a future government will have to apologize for. The book also highlighted the climate's role in the multiple epidemics and famines that hit the plains, talking about 15 year long droughts, The 1257 Samalas eruption that brought an end to the medieval warm period, the year without summer caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 causing harsh winters for the following 5 years, the black winter, a year without snow. Everybody talks about the current drought/forest fires being "the new normal" but it seems there has never been a normal. I think it's clear with climate change, there are 2 extremely important sides of it we have to address. The first obviously our contribution to the changing climate, which is being addressed albeit extremely slowly and with extreme resistance from the right. The second is preparation for rapid shifts in climate that will happen, are 100% guaranteed to happen, and may already be happening. A large volcanic eruption could cause global crop failures, and impede our ability to grow anything for a decade. We're here bickering about delivering oil to a terminal that will be below sea level in our lifetimes. There should be no political resistance to saying "this has happened before, and will happen again, we should prepare" but if there is, i can imagine who it would come from. Now the question is, will we ever have a government willing to say "we need to spend $1 billion today so we don't have to spend $1 trillion tomorrow".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Would the cloud cause long-term environmental damage though? I'll admit I'm probably ignorant on this point; but my understanding was that a 'worst-case' event would probably kill the ship's crew and cause a decent radius fish-kill; but nothing along the lines of an Exxon-Valdez type catastrophe. I should have specified. I don't know poo poo about methane chemistry, but what happens if the leak/explosion occurs just off the terminal, or under the Lionsgate bridge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
We saw what happened when the government spent $10M now to avoid spending $30M soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't know poo poo about methane chemistry, but what happens if the leak/explosion occurs just off the terminal, or under the Lionsgate bridge? CI would call that a divine blessing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Don't worry, the Liberals have found a way to cancel Trans Mountain using math:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
So apparently the Ontario government is requiring universities to create speech codes with insane and stupid penalties if, in effect, students inconvenience insane idiots speaking on campus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Apparently the government can cancel the Trans Mountain purchase for a 10 million dollar penalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
people saying Alberta should cut off oil shipments until they get what they want are like a toddler refusing to eat or holding his breath until he turns blue only we don't have a legal responsibility to keep him alive and wouldn't feel all that bad if he died
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
God drat I wish Alberta would cut off oil shipments. Yes please, the entire national goal should be to shut down the tar sands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
LNG was going to be near Kitimat and a spill/explosion would have just killed the nearby native village. Hence the lack of concern.  The problem with the Vancouver pipeline is that the 2nd Narrows bridge is quite narrow for the current generation of tankers. When there is a leak, that oil isn't going anywhere. e: correct small town
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 22:34
|
|