The discussion is fine, the premise is ridiculous.

Here, I'll actually post something of substance, and you can learn something:

• Outside of China, the Great Man-Made River in Libya is the largest water-moving project in the world. It's not a single pipeline, rather a series of them from underground aquifers to various cities along the coast and the interior of Libya. It moves almost 6,500,000 m^3 of water a day. It's also 2400km long, but it's longest single pipe is around 1000km in distance.

• The Northern Cyprus Water Supply Project (NCWSP) brings a total of 75,000,000 m^3 a year of water from Turkey to Cyprus via underwater pipeline. The pipeline is over 5 feet in diameter.

• The Colorado River Aqueduct draws from the Colorado River and brings it west to Southern California. It has a throughput of 1,200,000 acre-feet/year.

• Lake Mead has an inflow of 9 million acre-feet a year. It loses 600,000 acre-feet to evaporation and an outflow of 9.6 million acre-feet (MAF). It therefore has a annual loss of 1,200,000 acre-feet.

• The direct distance from Fort Mcmurray, AB to Lake Mead is a little over 2300km.

---

So, lets theoretically say that Cuepee Corporation Ltd. wanted to pitch their pipeline to a group of financiers. Your zany plan is to draw from the Athabasca River Basin to refill Lake Mead, therefore ensuring that the dancing fountains of the Bellagio can continue.

You can use the Libyan pipeline project as an example even! They spent $25 billion dollars (estimated) on a project that delivers 2,372,500,000 m^3 of water a year. That works out to just over 1.9 MAF a year - theoretically that's more than enough to handle the increased outflow due to population and increased evaporation due to temperature change. Of course, there's going to be leaks, there'll be accidents, but let's not fuss over a couple million gallons here or there.

One problem however: that Libyan number is system-wide. Look up the schematic of the system - there are a large number of pipes connecting multiple aquifers with multiple cities. It is the largest in the world for sheer throughput however. Since we're doing point-to-point water transmission, we need to look at real world examples that transport from a single point to our destination, so lets go to Cyprus.

The NCWSP, with it's 5 foot diameter pipe, brings just under 61,000 AF a year. That means, to overcome the lake's deficit, we need to run 20 of these pipes. What does that mean? It means that pipes cannot be an efficient way of moving water - we need aqueducts!

Luckily, there's a great example near Lake Mead of an aqueduct - the Colorado River Aqueduct. It only cost approx. $3.5 billion in today dollars, but is 389km in distance: 1/6th of the distance we need. It's throughput also matches the loss Lake Mead's currently experiencing - success!

So all Cupee Corp. has to do is convince investors that they can get a return on the investment required to build an aqueduct from the Athabasca River Basin to Lake Mead - a distance of over 2300km which just happens to pass through the ROCKY MOUNTAINS.

To say nothing of the environmental shitshow you'd touch off, the endless cases of eminent domain, the ridiculous number of pumping stations it would require, and the fact that the government of Canada has decided long ago that bulk export of water is a no-go. There's so many red flags in what you propose that I'm more likely to believe that you're trolling at this point, or at least bored and looking for someone to argue with on the internet.

If you want to learn more about this subject, I'd suggest you look up the North American Water and Power Alliance - it was a ridiculous suggestion back in 1960 and that was before the environmental and the indigenous movements had any political clout.

Sorry but you've got this a little wrong too. Biden can't 'change laws' himself, it takes an Act of Congress. And with the current climate getting even minor immigration reform that targets visas for Canadians is a pretty heavy lift.

What he CAN do is make the process of applying for existing visas a little easier. If you've ever gone through the process (which I have) you'll know that a lot of the approval is actually up to the actual immigration officer who processes your paperwork, and that they can make that go easy or go hard. I remember quite well how easy it was to get my first visa during the Clinton administration and how friendly all the staff was during processing, but how equally hard it was about eight years later when it was the Bush admin. I actually got rejected a few times for what I thought were pretty minor paperwork issues before finally getting through on the third attempt. To be fair much of that had to do with the general environment after 9/11 but regardless it was even more noticeably different after Obama took over in 2009.

I did TN and then H1B and then greencard (but came back before that was fully approved). **** man, it is such an outrageous process. So expensive, so time consuming, and nerve wracking in a "if you screw up this paperwork you are out of a job" kind of way.

I would say that is a great rebuttal

You know this is a great post and we should give credit were credit is due. The skeptics said he was crazy including me. They said no way you can deliver. Yet he did it developed a vaccine in Wharpspeed. Lets all wish him a Happy Birthday today

Funny you chose that one rather than the guy trolling for just that type of reply.

What he is doing here and prior was called 'empty posting' on the last forum i was on years ago and it got people cited.

It is right out of the right wing, troll the libz playbook. Say something obviously false and if they don't reply use that to pretend it is true, if they do reply laugh out how triggered they are that they replied.

If it was not so an old and tired obvious troll tactic I might give him credit for it, but it is not.

It is pretty crazy to me that the perhaps singular actual accomplishment of the trump administration, dumping huge sums at the biotech companies to make them move quickly, is paired with such utter incompetence and neglect across the board on covid related things that despite nationalizing their vaccine production and not shipping a single thing to Canada or anywhere else until they had enough doses for themselves we are already far head on first doses. I wouldn't be shocked if Canada ends up a full 10+ points higher in its vaccination rate.

And this is great info compared to all the prior hand waving.

it is by no means the entire story as the water would not be drawn from any single source, nor at origination point. Rivers all across Canada's west and beyond could and would be tapped.

The economics are not something any of us here will figure out the plausibility of as so much more goes into such projections. These are long term projects with significant pay back times and in this case, AS I HAVE said, competing issues such as water desalination, to provide fresh water and potentially offset rising oceans must be considered as that is a ridiculously expensive solution.

No conclusion can be made with out considered the competing costs.

So no, the premise is not ridiculous and you have not established that, not even one iota. What you have done is added some info to be considered.

Yeah and we shared all those vaccines and never had the me first strategy or took vaccines from Covax

I would agree with you on the 10% thing as well


As well lets acknowledge another president would have achieved the same thing and another prime minister would have as well delivered the same results on Vaccine procurement and distribution

Lol you are such a waste of time. Good day to you sir.

I told y'all this thread has been qp'd. Once it goes q that should be your cue

Not really. First of all, to be clear (and I apologize if this wasn't), that was me speaking as a poster. When people start sniping back and forth, I often skim over a number of the posts, especially when the posts are long, so I couldn't tell you who started what or who was meaner to who, or anything else like that. If I was taking moderation action or for some reason getting involved in the battle, I'd make sure I read over the whole thing carefully to understand it. In this case, I skimmed through a bunch, read uke's "Back on track" post, and then was pretty taken aback when I saw your "And so now I will go and find that prior exchange and post that in this thread" post.

And if that's an issue for you, you should report the posts rather than replying to them. Saying someone is a troll continually, all the while feeding them, seems like a very odd thing to do.

And I'll note, since as I said I only skim some of the back-and-forth, I thought I recalled many uses of "troll", but wanted to make sure I had that right before mentioning it. A quick search of the last 50 posts in this thread (which is what shows up when you preview a post) found 16 instances of "troll", "trolling", etc. in posts (not counting repeats in quoted posts). 12 of those were by you, in reference to three different posters. Of the 4 other instances, 3 were in direct response to your accusations (for example, "I'm not trolling").

Have you ever noticed that you seem to have a fairly high number of combative exchanges in this forum? I get that you're very invested in a number of topics here, and that requires a lot of in-depth posting and inevitably means you'll be in a lot of debates, so I'm not knocking you for that. But it makes one wonder if there might not be a different way once in a while.

Maybe, maybe not. We can look out at the various world leaders and some have just been objectively better and worse at the different components of the pandemic like the public health management, the economic supports, the vaccine procurement and distribution etc. Trump for instance actively ****ed up and made things substantially worse in many, many ways. Trudeau is a leg up over a lot of peers just in not having a major **** up. There are a bunch of countries for instance that really, really screwed up procurement and are months behind now. Maybe a hypothetical democratic president does just as bad as trump and a hypothtical conservative PM does just as well as Trudeau. But also very much maybe not. Certainly we would have gotten a substantially smaller economic support package. I don't think there is much value in such hypotheticals, but we definitely can acknowledge good and bad jobs done right now.

Some of your points are okay, but this one is not really accurate. Canadians like to make a joke of our military capabilities but the reality is that currently neither Russia nor China would have the naval capability to maintain some kind of offensive position in Canada's arctic. Firstly they'd be operating in a place where they'd be in close range of our air assets, but lack nearby air assets of their own for defense and counter attack, and neither really have the carrier capacity to overcome that presently. Secondly, it's not exactly an easy place to operate, and it's an even harder place to resupply when you are.

Hell, China doesn't even currently have the naval capability to invade Taiwan and that's right on their doorstep. Remember, it's not just about establishing the beachhead and overcoming what defenses are there, it's also about holding out against potential counterattack from a very capable military force on our home ground. That's a whole other ballgame when you're operating in an extremely hostile environment several thousand miles from your homeland. It's not just like rolling tanks over the border into Crimea, I can promise you that.

Besides, the phrasing of 'hold and defend' is pretty ambiguous, and certainly missing from the clause is the idea that the 'defense' has to be successful. Certainly Canada 'holds' the land now, and currently has plenty of air, sea, and land force assets to be able to 'defend' it. It's not like the UN committee overseeing this would be, like, playing out war game scenarios to determine whether Canada > Russian and/or China when it comes to defending the arctic. It's more a check the box type of thing, and I'd say we check both boxes as things stand right now, and likely will pretty much for as long as we have a military.

Also worth adding is that Canada is a full member of NATO, so the idea of a hostile nation like China or Russia landing some sort of aggressive force on land that's been part of Canada since the country was founded would almost certainly trigger Article 5, so forget that. And even if it didn't you'd better believe that if we didn't at least have the US as our ally we'd 100% have the Brits. And it's not like they'd be able to logistically occupy a single island or two -- if the goal is really to essentially claim the entire Northwest Passage they'd need almost all of the northern islands for sure.

Finally, I don't know when you looked at an actual map of the area, but some of the choke points make it pretty tough to imagine that it would be feasible for hostile shipping to use the entire passage without Canada permitting it. For sure if they're using the lower passage between Victoria Island and the mainland it just isn't happening. But even the northern passage around Baffin Island and through the channel between Melville Island and Banks is just as bad for them. I just don't see it.

It's not reflected on my usual go-to site Worldometer (and maybe other sites) due to BC reporting three days' number on Mondays (only 277!), but I believe today was Canada's first sub-1,000 new case day since September. Awesome news!

Cases are crumbling in ontario

And you continue to prove to be arrogant and ridiculous.

I have never acted like I have all the answers. This was meant to be a discussion to probe a little at a very high level and nothing more as we see Canadian and US studies (as I posted) discussing tangential issues to this very one.

You come in as an expert, so positive this is wrong and not worthy of discussion you just pronounce it so. You refuse to post an ounce of substantiation and instead we are just to take it as so, since you said it.

You then post one long post with some interesting data that does raises three key issues we know are at issue which are 'Cost' of transport, 'Logistics' of transport over large areas, and 'Environmental' issues.

In your idiocy you think that is a Mic drop moment and you have ended the discussion despite the fact everyone knows those are issues. Those were the EXACT same issue the US and Canada have dealt with BEFORE the first Oil and Gas pipelines were built which now carry product as vast distances all across the US. They SOLVED it.

Does that mean Water can solve it? That depends? How much will communities pay for access to vast amounts of water when they face impending catastrophic consequences otherwise?

You don't know that answer and nor do I and your hand waving certainly is not an answer.

For the record I all but ignored uke in the last thread he tried to get his flame war. One post of reply saying this thread is already busy enough that i am not going to get dragged into that garbage attempt.

That is what he then labelled 'tone policing' and 'triggered' which is the next step in the playbook to try and force a reply.

So step back. What is the source of any dispute going on in this thread.

It is claims by uke and one other that this topic(s) I raised in a thread about Canada, are somehow wrong/ridiculous/not worthy ...that is actively driving this dispute.

- the fact I raised issues about Canadian sovereignty and Arctic disputes and suggested if the US is going to try and destabilize Canada's claims we should consider talking to the other claimants (Russia and china) .

The very article I linked says a Canadian commission has been examining the same and made similar suggestions.

- the fact i raised the idea that Canada's growing 'excess' water issue could be a potential solution to the US growing drought issue


I engaged with you and others in productive talk and would have been fine letting the discussion live or die based on interest.

And yet there is some pretense the very idea of me raising them was somehow wrong and you see uke trolling both those discussions. Adding not a comment of any substance and just trying to bait me in both instances.

I don't think that is the case of BrookTrout who instead i think is just a reactionary person who thinks once they take a position no one should disagree and the very discussion continue is somehow offensive to them.

But I challenge you to look at uke's comments in this thread directed at me and suggest how they are anything but trolling, empty comments as he tries to carry his grudge from our trans thread exchange forward, thread to thread. Because to answer your question, the only way for me to avoid this exchange with uke was to not post those two topics as he is clearly going to use any post, no matter how appropriate as a reason to try and get his flame war.

While i don't really disagree with your comments, Russia and CHina are already arguably doing more and spending more in the disputed regions to substantiate their claim. A lot of this is future based when navigation is not so problematic as well.

Again what people need to understand is that these claims are never clean. It is not like the World court will simply read Canada's claim and throw out the others.

Each side has competing rationale for why their claim is the correct one and they make that case to the World Court hoping for a ruling, which is not final but adds the biggest substantiation one can then base 'defending' their claim on.

So if Russia or China wins a Court claim battle against Canada and they then state they now have sovereignty on this area or passage and 'here are the new rules', I do not think, even if Canada has the superior military capabilities they can just use force and expect Nato to have our back. It will be complicated to say the least.

The goal should be to not allow Russia and China to circumvent and subvert our claims by either ramping up our presence (cost is high so that might be a no) or some negotiated agreements (we won't dispute you here, if you don't dispute us there).

If the US was on our side instead of trying to destabilize and erode our claims, everything would be different. Russia and China will use the US position and documents at the World court to suggest our claims are not valid and that is a big risk to us, imo.

It is amazing. Nevertheless, I'm becoming extremely worried by plummeting first dose rates. Here is AB for instance but the other provinces are similar:



Also oddly from AB (this isn't me shitting on them today, just where the data is coming from) talking about how vaccine rates are connected to education levels: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tion-1.6063373. Extending that slope looks like first doses hitting ~0 in about two weeks?! It makes sense, who would get it that hasn't gotten it already? But still, a LOT of vaccine hesitant people are still out there.

Lozen, I have a question. Regarding the Alberta equalization referendum debate, O'Toole said this:

Do you agree? Typically I would think this is a no brainer, that a conservative from Alberta OBVIOUSLY doesn't think trudeau should be interferring in albertan affairs. However, your biggest proclaimed source of criticism about trudeau's handling of the pandemic is that he didn't dictate public health rules on Alberta when they were doing such a bad job.

Are you saying I am a Conservative?
I think Albertan's should be allowed to vote on equalization and separation. I also think O'Toole can have an opinion on it as well as JT

I stand by my premise Canada could have done a better job with federal mandates with Covid and reduced deaths. My argument for why is it was a World issue just like Climate Change and required a Federal answer as does Climate Change. Lets be clear a bunch of provinces had times were they were doing terrible Alberta was not the only one.
I like Erin O'Toole over Justin Trudeau and will be voting for him. As well I will not be voting for Jason Kenney which I never did last election either.

I don't see how Russia or China wins a court case against Canada for shipping rights within the boundaries of our nation. I mean, I can see it for maybe the way upper passage around the northern islands, but that's likely to still be frozen over for the next 20 years or more. But for the lower passage forget it.
It'd be analogous to us trying to claim part of the Kara Sea or soemthing.

How much of a nerd are you?

https://financesofthenation.ca/equalization/

Enjoy fiddling with the finances of Canada. Here's a page with some explanation:

https://financesofthenation.ca/2021/...lization-tool/

That didn't answer the question of whether you agree with O'Toole's quote.