Wow, how *&^$ed up is that that there is no information on the web as to whether it is an open system, which will wipe out massive amounts of bay wildlife, and closed loop, which doesn't. Good job Irving media and CBC, no wonder all the attention is on where the pipeline goes.
There's no proof to prove your claim, especially since there is no adequate data available. IMHO, the LNG industry has the potential to create good jobs, significant capital investments, and give a significant boost to a staggering local economy. As far as I'm concrened that is a good thing.
The claim above was that the media didn't even bother to ask this basic question as to whether it was a closed loop or open loop. There is tons of 'evidence', namely, the fact that the media didn't answer or even ask that question. If they did, it's very well hidden, the CBC back stories are searchable on the web, while Irving articles sometimes show up but often don't. I searched for 20 minutes but couldn't find anything. Canaport LNG doesn't even have a website that I could find.
This has nothing to do with jobs, although even before the LNG terminal began construction the Saint John Board of Trade was bragging that the local economy was going full tilt.
The open loop, if you read the above link, uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of ocean water to 're-gasify' the liquid gas from the ships. It kills massive amounts of ocean wildlife. The closed loop doesn't, but its more expensive. I'd put money on it that Irving would choose the cheaper route, but would be quite happy to lose that bet.
So the question is, which system will the LNG terminal use? That's not a 'claim', that's a question.
anonymous said it kills massive amounts of ocean wildlife. according to the tree huggers in the link yes.that does not make it a fact.of course some people will believe anything they read if it supports their postition.
Keep on top of this Charles, if you can find out then you will be a far better 'reporter' than any at the CBC or Irving, who never bothered checking.
It's interesting how the only defense of the LNG terminal trotted out by media is the jobs it creates. Just remember, that 9 1/2 million a year difference between what Levis is getting in Quebec, or even the 1 1/2 million difference for the one in Maine would have created a LOT of jobs.
If Irving hadn't set up a terminal, then perhaps Shell would have, and the city could have gotten that 10 MILLION dollars a year. Keep in mind also that by 2008 all those jobs will be gone, and most of the foreign workers with it. Whereas in Levis, they will continue to get that 10 MILLION dollars a year for every year its in operation, plus all the environmental perks.
9 1/2 MILLION dollars creates approximately 200 jobs at 50 grand a piece, thats PERMANENT jobs. Maybe a few more ER docs would be nice (although they probably cost more than that)
So before people get too excited about the jobs angle, they should look at how many jobs it COSTS.
In case the above poster isn't aware, adding chlorine kills life. So there is very little reason to not believe that running ocean water through 'radiator like tubes' and chlorinating them and radically changing temperature won't kill fish eggs and larvae. That's pretty much a given.
anon 9:10 you must be an Irving boot licker if you are at least not a little bit interested in what kind of system they are going to use.I would think that the EIA would have the method that the EMPIRE is going to use.Irving sucks! tomsj
8 comments:
Wow, how *&^$ed up is that that there is no information on the web as to whether it is an open system, which will wipe out massive amounts of bay wildlife, and closed loop, which doesn't. Good job Irving media and CBC, no wonder all the attention is on where the pipeline goes.
Anon & Charles,
There's no proof to prove your claim, especially since there is no adequate data available. IMHO, the LNG industry has the potential to create good jobs, significant capital investments, and give a significant boost to a staggering local economy. As far as I'm concrened that is a good thing.
Let's not jump the gun once again folks.
The claim above was that the media didn't even bother to ask this basic question as to whether it was a closed loop or open loop. There is tons of 'evidence', namely, the fact that the media didn't answer or even ask that question. If they did, it's very well hidden, the CBC back stories are searchable on the web, while Irving articles sometimes show up but often don't. I searched for 20 minutes but couldn't find anything. Canaport LNG doesn't even have a website that I could find.
This has nothing to do with jobs, although even before the LNG terminal began construction the Saint John Board of Trade was bragging that the local economy was going full tilt.
The open loop, if you read the above link, uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of ocean water to 're-gasify' the liquid gas from the ships. It kills massive amounts of ocean wildlife. The closed loop doesn't, but its more expensive. I'd put money on it that Irving would choose the cheaper route, but would be quite happy to lose that bet.
So the question is, which system will the LNG terminal use? That's not a 'claim', that's a question.
anonymous said it kills massive amounts of ocean wildlife.
according to the tree huggers in the link yes.that does not make it a fact.of course some people will believe anything they read if it supports their postition.
Keep on top of this Charles, if you can find out then you will be a far better 'reporter' than any at the CBC or Irving, who never bothered checking.
It's interesting how the only defense of the LNG terminal trotted out by media is the jobs it creates. Just remember, that 9 1/2 million a year difference between what Levis is getting in Quebec, or even the 1 1/2 million difference for the one in Maine would have created a LOT of jobs.
If Irving hadn't set up a terminal, then perhaps Shell would have, and the city could have gotten that 10 MILLION dollars a year. Keep in mind also that by 2008 all those jobs will be gone, and most of the foreign workers with it. Whereas in Levis, they will continue to get that 10 MILLION dollars a year for every year its in operation, plus all the environmental perks.
9 1/2 MILLION dollars creates approximately 200 jobs at 50 grand a piece, thats PERMANENT jobs. Maybe a few more ER docs would be nice (although they probably cost more than that)
So before people get too excited about the jobs angle, they should look at how many jobs it COSTS.
if anyone had bothered to read it was posted by wcie not charles.learn to read people.
In case the above poster isn't aware, adding chlorine kills life. So there is very little reason to not believe that running ocean water through 'radiator like tubes' and chlorinating them and radically changing temperature won't kill fish eggs and larvae. That's pretty much a given.
anon 9:10 you must be an Irving boot licker if you are at least not a little bit interested in what kind of system they are going to use.I would think that the EIA would have the method that the EMPIRE is going to use.Irving sucks! tomsj
Post a Comment