Canada Kicks Ass
Time to tap Canada's water riches

REPLY

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  Next



Ripcat @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:54 am

ziggy ziggy:
I flew over 4 provinces this week,Manitoba and Nunavut are two of them,more then enough water to share with our southern cousins there alone.

It doesn't work like that...it works like your bank account, if you take out more than you put in it is soon gone.

ziggy ziggy:
I dont think we have much of a choice,according to the first link posted the deal is allready in the works,with folks paying more for a liter of water at the 7-11 then a liter of gas I see a huge market here waiting to be tapped.

That's tap water!!! The bottler adds minerals to make it a bit tastier...you are being ripped off...run your tap water through a Brita filter and fill a few Thermoses with it and take the water from home. It's 3000 times cheaper this way.

The religious war on bottled water

$1:
A one-litre bottle of Dasani brand water, sold at a Toronto supermarket recently for $1.59, retails for about 3,000 times the price of a litre of municipal water from nearby Brampton, where the container was filled. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. filters the municipal water and then adds minerals to improve its taste. Federal product labelling laws do not require bottlers to indicate that their products originally were tap water'

   



ziggy @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:01 am

Care to share a source for this crystal ballism?

$1:
Uh, news flash, Canada is only expected to be an exporter of gas for another ten years before internal demand sopps up supply.


I cant see the future but will call bullshit on that one for sure.

   



ziggy @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:05 am

$1:
That's tap water!!! The bottler adds minerals to make it a bit tastier...you are being ripped off...run your tap water through a Brita filter and fill a few Thermoses with it and take the water from home. It's 3000 times cheaper this way.


Most bottled water is just tap water,or in Nanton's Alberta water....spring water. Dont think I'm getting ripped off as I still drink the stuff from the tap and so far where I live here it's still free.


$1:
Maybe a few more of those arial photos will do the trick.

Air or ground photo's,I got tons,been around a bit and am a cam whore. The truth is Canada has lots of water,and ice,and permafrost....27 feet of it where I just came from,that's a whack of moisture. :wink:

   



USCAdad @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:47 am

ziggy ziggy:
Care to share a source for this crystal ballism?

$1:
Uh, news flash, Canada is only expected to be an exporter of gas for another ten years before internal demand sopps up supply.


I cant see the future but will call bullshit on that one for sure.

OK, my numbers are a bit off:
$1:
Canada, currently the source of almost 90 percent of U.S. net natural gas imports, remains the primary source of natural gas imported into the United States until 2010. After 2010, LNG imports replace Canadian imports as the primary source. The decline of Canada’s largest producing basin, the Western Sedimentary Basin, coupled with 1.9-percent projected average annual growth in Canada’s domestic consumption, leaves less Canadian natural gas available for export to the United States.

In EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006) reference case, rising natural gas prices make it economical for two major North American pipelines that have long been in the planning stages to come online. The first, a Canadian pipeline to transport natural gas from the MacKenzie Delta, is expected to become operational in 2011. The second, an Alaska pipeline, is expected to begin transporting natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States in 2015, contributing significantly to U.S. domestic supply. From 2003 to 2030, Alaska’s natural gas production accounts for most of the growth in domestic U.S. conventional natural gas production, with flows on the pipeline exceeding 2 trillion cubic feet in 2030.

The other expected source of U.S. domestic incremental supply is unconventional natural gas production. More than one-third of the remaining U.S. technically recoverable resource base consists of unconventional sources, which include tight sands, shale, and coalbed methane. With most of the large onshore conventional fields in the United States already having been discovered, the United States, like Canada, must look to these costlier sources of supply to make up for declines in conventional production.

Currently, the United States has five LNG import facilities in operation, with a combined peak annual capacity of 1.6 trillion cubic feet. Three additional terminals under construction in the Gulf of Mexico will add a combined peak annual regasification capacity of 2.0 trillion cubic feet, more than doubling U.S. LNG import capacity. AEO2006 projects peak annual U.S. LNG import capacity in 2030 at 5.9 trillion cubic feet, with actual imports of 4.4 trillion cubic feet (Figure 41). The growth of U.S. LNG import capacity is expected to be strong through 2015 and then to slow as high natural gas prices begin to slow the growth of domestic consumption. LNG imports into Canada are also expected to contribute to the supply of Canadian natural gas available for export to the United States. LNG is expected to be a significant contributor to supply in the United States, indicative of the country’s growing dependence on imports and the increasing globalization of natural gas markets.

In Canada, most of the projected increase in natural gas consumption is for industrial uses and electricity generation, with only moderate growth in the other consuming sectors. Although natural gas use in Canada’s electric power sector more than doubles from 2003 to 2030, the largest absolute increase is projected for the industrial sector, largely because significant amounts of natural gas are expected to be used in the mining of Canada’s expansive oil sands deposits.

Canada produced more than twice as much natural gas as it consumed in 2003, and the balance was exported to the United States. In 2030, Canada is projected to consume 85 percent of its own production, leaving only 15 percent available for export. Increases in unconventional production in western Canada and conventional production in the MacKenzie Delta and Eastern Canada are expected to help reverse the decline in production after 2020, and net exports to the United States increase gradually from 2020 to 2030.

Energy Information Administration

   



danikyvor @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:43 am

My goodness, all this hoopla over water and other stuff...

I just want to make a point here...digging sand in the oilsands in Fort McMurray? That's how we get the oil. It comes from the bitumen sands, which is separated via a water process. We don't drill for oil like they do in the south. It comes out of the sand.

(Note: I'm Fort McMurray raised)

Also, about the Prius'....are you kidding me?

About the water thing...well, I think when all is said and done, everyone will be crying for water. The problem is with global warming, all the ice and snow that's melting up in the tundra, that's such a huge water source. They need to figure out how to get that water before it hits the Arctic Ocean.

AND they need to start figuring out how to change salt water into drinking water. Is that even possible?

   



bootlegga @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:49 am

dimoreien dimoreien:
AND they need to start figuring out how to change salt water into drinking water. Is that even possible?


Yes, they do, but it takes an inordinate amount of energy to do so (thereby further contributing to global warming). Desalinzation plants are in use in the Persian Gulf for example, where they have plenty of fuel for it, but using it on a large scale for millions of Californians would cost a fortune and create a lot CO2.

   



USCAdad @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:07 am

dimoreien dimoreien:
Also, about the Prius'....are you kidding me?

Absolutely kidding. Albertan oil workers aren't going to show up to the job site with their econoboxes, BC folk are going to consume more water than a desert dweller.

   



SireJoe @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:07 am

bootlegga bootlegga:
dimoreien dimoreien:
AND they need to start figuring out how to change salt water into drinking water. Is that even possible?


Yes, they do, but it takes an inordinate amount of energy to do so (thereby further contributing to global warming). Desalinzation plants are in use in the Persian Gulf for example, where they have plenty of fuel for it, but using it on a large scale for millions of Californians would cost a fortune and create a lot CO2.


Why? Like, it SEEMS like quite a simple process. The earth does it all the time. The water evaporates, clouds role in over land, it rains, the water runs through the land and there you have it.

Obviously no THAT that easy, but really, would it not be as simple as boiling off the salt and then running it through a purifier of some sort? Why would something like that take up so much energy?

   



Ripcat @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:08 pm

SireJoe SireJoe:
bootlegga bootlegga:
dimoreien dimoreien:
AND they need to start figuring out how to change salt water into drinking water. Is that even possible?


Yes, they do, but it takes an inordinate amount of energy to do so (thereby further contributing to global warming). Desalinzation plants are in use in the Persian Gulf for example, where they have plenty of fuel for it, but using it on a large scale for millions of Californians would cost a fortune and create a lot CO2.


Why? Like, it SEEMS like quite a simple process. The earth does it all the time. The water evaporates, clouds role in over land, it rains, the water runs through the land and there you have it.

Obviously no THAT that easy, but really, would it not be as simple as boiling off the salt and then running it through a purifier of some sort? Why would something like that take up so much energy?

I'm guessing that it would have something to do with the amount of water that would need to be processed to make the whole thing worthwile.

   



Ripcat @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:14 pm

I just did a quick google search on "costs of desalination". I didn't read much but there is alot there including new emerging technologies claiming to significantly reduce the cost such as nuclear and carbon nanotube-based membranes yada yada....

   



SireJoe @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:36 pm

I looked it up before but couldnt find much on it...I wasnt looking up the right stuff I guess. Wrong keywords :P

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:46 pm

USCAdad USCAdad:
lily lily:
I thought USCAdad was an American. :?

My passport and plates are Yank. My family is Canadian and American; I have two partners. We pay taxes in both places.


I see. So you live in Bountiful, then? PDT_Armataz_01_28

   



USCAdad @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:54 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
USCAdad USCAdad:
lily lily:
I thought USCAdad was an American. :?

My passport and plates are Yank. My family is Canadian and American; I have two partners. We pay taxes in both places.


I see. So you live in Bountiful, then? PDT_Armataz_01_28

Nope, I don't think the mormons would take to me :twisted: Besides, the girls are way too thin and aren't partial to floral print dresses

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:19 pm

USCAdad USCAdad:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
USCAdad USCAdad:
lily lily:
I thought USCAdad was an American. :?

My passport and plates are Yank. My family is Canadian and American; I have two partners. We pay taxes in both places.


I see. So you live in Bountiful, then? PDT_Armataz_01_28

Nope, I don't think the mormons would take to me :twisted: Besides, the girls are way too thin and aren't partial to floral print dresses


Two women? Dude, I've had up to 100 angry jihadis chasing me on foot across the desert and I think I'd rather do that again then have two women around the house. 8O

You are a braver man than I, Gunga Din. PDT_Armataz_01_25

   



USCAdad @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:23 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Two women? Dude, I've had up to 100 angry jihadis chasing me on foot across the desert and I think I'd rather do that again then have two women around the house. 8O

You are a braver man than I, Gunga Din. PDT_Armataz_01_25

You're a wise man. Yup, there are times when it's down right dangerous... not the sort of thing for the faint of heart.

   



REPLY

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  Next