Pierre threatens non-confidence motion

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by AxeMan

I am suggesting to seize on this opportunity to make Trudeau eat his own words that he has publicly put forward and officially challenged 7 Provinces. Action, not just the same old condemnation to his carbon tax. Saskatchewan could produce a very compelling future plan to implement SMR nuclear supplements to energy. Alberta could expand on the very real carbon capture technology that we have already poured billions into.

I like this. Push back on two fronts -- One continue the political fight against the carbon tax, net zero grid, restrictions on resource development, intrusion into provincial mandates.

Second keeping implementing new technology development around energy reduction / generation, CO2 capture, improved resource developement --- show that there are alternatives that provide employment vs shutting everything down (Jonathan Wilkinson Minister of Natural Resources -- Canadians will have to learn to travel less, stay at home more and make due with less).

[Sundog57]

I keep going back to these folks...
https://deepcorp.ca/
Alberta has a ton of HPHT oil and gas fields and a huge amount of expertise in drilling them.
This could - help to move away from carbon intensive power generation
and - employ an bunch of folks in a currently underemployed sector.
A number of drilling companies have quite a bit of slack equipment, until the next price spike - this would be the time to get going on it.

This is technology that exists now - micro nuclear is certainly coming but not for a bit

And yes the carbon tax is just a typical Liberal tax grab dressed up by a bunch of virtue signalling buffoons until there is an alternative to carbon based fuels

[W921]

Originally Posted by AxeMan

Okay, Premiers, it is time to pounce. The door cracks open, even if it just for show.

Trudeau challenges premiers opposed to carbon tax hike to suggest alternatives to federal levy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...-tax-1.7156435

"In his letter, the prime minister suggested that the governments of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador haven't put forward suitable replacements to the federal backstop."

So draft up 7 well written suggestions like LNG exports, carbon capture, developing H2, insulation/furnace incentives, etc. Present them back to Trudeau with a demand to let the people of Canada decide on the way forward, that is to call an election immediately. He cannot be the judge of these ideas as he would be in conflict of interest; his idea is carbon taxing. This would be a true carbon tax election. Back this idiot into the corner that he created, he is getting desperate. Hand deliver the 7 ideas in person to him with all the other 7 Premiers there and call a press conference when doing it.

Also re-state to him that it is the constitutional legal jurisdiction of Provinces to govern their natural resources as already proven by the Canadian courts.

Well new vehicles are clean. Look at inside of a modern diesel exhaust and its as clean as outside. Its cleaner than these toxic battery cars that will all end up in landfills.
Natural gas is clean. Cleaner than wood stoves or better than dirty nuclear waste and huge hydro dams that destroy environment.
Let's save the water! Go after manufacturing that pollutes great lakes and sewage that goes into great lakes and Atlantic ocean. Better yet go after these dirty boats that burn heavy sulfur fuel oil and pollute more than all the cars put together.
Then let's go after off shore tax cheats and trust fund billionaires.
And if people pollute then stop letting people into Canada

[2 Tollers]

Well this article is another body shot to Trudeau and his carbon tax stories

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...ax/ar-BB1kEgUP

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by W921

Better yet go after these dirty boats that burn heavy sulfur fuel oil and pollute more than all the cars put together.

I don’t remember the specifics but I believe in 2021ish there were global standards put on marine fuel and the sulphur was cut drastically. Like 5% to 1% or something of that nature. Don’t hold me to that number, its just what came to mind.

Oh and I agree with your post, just an FYI on marine fuels.

[W921]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I don’t remember the specifics but I believe in 2021ish there were global standards put on marine fuel and the sulphur was cut drastically. Like 5% to 1% or something of that nature. Don’t hold me to that number, its just what came to mind.

Oh and I agree with your post, just an FYI on marine fuels.

European union ships have fuel standards but not normal big container ships that do most of worlds shipping. They burn worse crap fuel in the world that pollutes like crazy. These container ships pollute unbelievable a!punts into atmosphere. More than cars!
Another thing is these container ships fly international flags because cheaper but yet our Navy protects them from pirates. Why? If someone comes to rob or beat me I sure don't have government protection

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I don’t remember the specifics but I believe in 2021ish there were global standards put on marine fuel and the sulfer was cut drastically. Like 5% to 1% or something of that nature. Don’t hold me to that number, its just what came to mind.

Oh and I agree with your post, just an FYI on marine fuels.

Sulfur content on RMG (bunker fuel) was dropped to 5000ppm from I believe 35000ppm.
Ships have to switch to MGO when within a certain distance from shore (can't remember exact distance off hand). MGO has a maximum sulfur content of 1000ppm. The RMG (bunker fuel) we build at work is around 2500ppm
To put that into context diesel fuel is 10 ppm maximum
Jet A1 is 500ppm

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Sulfur content on RMG (bunker fuel) was dropped to 5000ppm from I believe 35000ppm.
Ships have to switch to MGO when within a certain distance from shore (can't remember exact distance off hand). MGO has a maximum sulfur content of 1000ppm. The RMG (bunker fuel) we build at work is around 2500ppm
To put that into context diesel fuel is 10 ppm maximum
Jet A1 is 500ppm

So it went from 3.5% to 0.5%. I wasn’t too far off.

[W921]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Sulfur content on RMG (bunker fuel) was dropped to 5000ppm from I believe 35000ppm.
Ships have to switch to MGO when within a certain distance from shore (can't remember exact distance off hand). MGO has a maximum sulfur content of 1000ppm. The RMG (bunker fuel) we build at work is around 2500ppm
To put that into context diesel fuel is 10 ppm maximum
Jet A1 is 500ppm

So when they come with in 12 miles of shore then they have to burn clean fuel?

In regular older diesels. Example Cummins powered earlier dodge trucks you can run on used motor oil. Smokes but they will run and doesn't really hurt them. Example oil needs to be filtered or better yet run through a centrifuge.

I watched a TV show about these container ships few years ago and it looked like they were burning molasses nasty stuff for fuel .

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

So it went from 3.5% to 0.5%. I wasn’t too far off.

Meanwhile, we are limited to 10 parts per million in Canada.

[W921]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Meanwhile, we are limited to 10 parts per million in Canada.

I just goggled how dirty are container ships
This is what I got

The circa 50,000 container and cargo ships around the world pump out 900 million tonnes of CO2 each year (around 3% of total global emissions). And the 15 largest ships alone emit more nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide (both potent greenhouse gases) than all the world's cars combined.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Meanwhile, we are limited to 10 parts per million in Canada.

Actually most of the world. But not too long ago the sulphur in diesel was much higher too. I am not saying its perfect, but cutting 84% of the sulphur in marine diesel will amount to big changes. Then when technology and retrofits catch up the marine fuel might end up at 10ppm too. Doesn’t it make sense to incrementally implement standards and improve emissions? Makes more sense to me than banning or taxing with no other alternatives.

[Sundog57]

The container ship question is mostly just finger pointing by the Gretas of this world - fix them, but don't you dare ask me to change my lifestyle. (not slagging anyone on this site - I think we mostly share similar world views - however there is a lack of understanding here of how things work in the marine industry)
The entire world economy is built on marine transportation.
Ships absolutely produce more GHG than vehicles - of course they do - the Dali of recent fame has a little over 55,000 horse power so more than something like 100 transport trucks. (I know nothing about trucks but I am guessing around 500 hp) She can also move more than 10,000 40' containers which would take 10,000 transport trucks or 25 x12000 foot container trains to move, each with at least three locomotives.
The volume of GHG produced is certainly larger than is produced by vehicles - more horsepower means more fuel - but the amount of fuel used per tonne mile of cargo is incredibly small.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Actually most of the world. But not too long ago the sulphur in diesel was much higher too. I am not saying its perfect, but cutting 84% of the sulphur in marine diesel will amount to big changes. Then when technology and retrofits catch up the marine fuel might end up at 10ppm too. Doesn’t it make sense to incrementally implement standards and improve emissions? Makes more sense to me than banning or taxing with no other alternatives.

It makes sense to demand that all ships entering Canadian harbors burn 10ppm fuel, before they implement a carbon tax on the much cleaner burning fuel that we burn in Canada. But Trudeau and sense don't mix .

[W921]

Alberta is always playing defense. These liberal,NDP. Government's are always coming after us and wrecking everything.
Then when we finally get a Harper type government he just undoes a lot of their junk.
What I'm suggesting is let's go after these liberal,NDP types and make them pay. Ban,tax, register everything near and dear to them. Go after their industry's. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

[Sundog57]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It makes sense to demand that all ships entering Canadian harbors burn 10ppm fuel, before they implement a carbon tax on the much cleaner burning fuel that we burn in Canada. But Trudeau and sense don't mix .

They already do since 01 Jan 2020.
http://netpas.net/extension/common/seca_list.php#imo
Look up North American ECA - anywhere within 200 nautical miles of the coast they either have to be fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers or burn LSD (Low Sulphur Diesel)

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It makes sense to demand that all ships entering Canadian harbors burn 10ppm fuel, before they implement a carbon tax on the much cleaner burning fuel that we burn in Canada. But Trudeau and sense don't mix .

I don’t agree with the carbon tax but it is irrelevant to this conversation. So you want all marine shipping stopping in Canada? Do you know those big CAT 797’s moving oilsands don’t have the same emissions standards as your pick-up either? Big compressor engines don’t meet the same standards either. Should we shut them down too until someone figures it out? Just stop for a minute elk, and think what you would say if Justin actually did this.


Woah, woah, woah!!! Don‘t reply yet. Take another minute to think about that.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by W921

So when they come with in 12 miles of shore then they have to burn clean fuel?

In regular older diesels. Example Cummins powered earlier dodge trucks you can run on used motor oil. Smokes but they will run and doesn't really hurt them. Example oil needs to be filtered or better yet run through a centrifuge.

I watched a TV show about these container ships few years ago and it looked like they were burning molasses nasty stuff for fuel .

It's not pretty lol.
Spec for pour point on RMG 380 (what I deal with) is <30 degrees.
Dirty to work with

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I don’t agree with the carbon tax but it is irrelevant to this conversation. So you want all marine shipping stopping in Canada? Do you know those big CAT 797’s moving oilsands don’t have the same emissions standards as your pick-up either? Big compressor engines don’t meet the same standards either. Should we shut them down too until someone figures it out? Just stop for a minute elk, and think what you would say if Justin actually did this.
. Woah, woah, woah!!! Don‘t reply yet. Take another
minute to think about that.

Seeing as how our diesel plant made the diesel that we burned in our heavy equipment, I happen to know that our diesel had to meet the 10ppm standard. My analyzer crew was responsible for monitoring the sulfur level, and if the level ever exceeded the 10ppm, we were not allowed to burn it, we had to run it through the plant again . And if we had an issue with a reading above 10ppm, I heard about it immediately. And we also had to import biodiesel to comply with the government standard for using a percentage of renewable based diesel.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2016/0...ewable-diesel/
So no carbon tax should be even considered, until all fuel used in Canada, is held to the same standard. And I am referring to fuel, not to the actual emissions produced by the engine, since it is the fuel that the carbon tax is applied to. And the carbon tax should be applied to all oil imports as well.

[W921]

Originally Posted by Sundog57

They already do since 01 Jan 2020.
http://netpas.net/extension/common/seca_list.php#imo
Look up North American ECA - anywhere within 200 nautical miles of the coast they either have to be fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers or burn LSD (Low Sulphur Diesel)

It used to be 12 mile limit for whole world? Example military. When has this changed?
And so I have a large commercial ship. With a flick of a switch I can change from the clean expensive tank of fuel to the dirty cheap tanks of fuel. How can they catch me? Haha you think Liberia or whatever flag of convenience I'm registered with for home base is going to somehow care or try to monitor me?
Plus everything is in international waters so nobody has jurisdiction.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by hypermoa

i don’t agree with the carbon tax but it is irrelevant to this conversation. So you want all marine shipping stopping in canada? Do you know those big cat 797’s moving oilsands don’t have the same emissions standards as your pick-up either? Big compressor engines don’t meet the same standards either. Should we shut them down too until someone figures it out? Just stop for a minute elk, and think what you would say if justin actually did this.


Woah, woah, woah!!! Don‘t reply yet. Take another minute to think about that.

lol

[W921]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I don’t agree with the carbon tax but it is irrelevant to this conversation. So you want all marine shipping stopping in Canada? Do you know those big CAT 797’s moving oilsands don’t have the same emissions standards as your pick-up either? Big compressor engines don’t meet the same standards either. Should we shut them down too until someone figures it out? Just stop for a minute elk, and think what you would say if Justin actually did this.


Woah, woah, woah!!! Don‘t reply yet. Take another minute to think about that.

700 plus HP farm equipment is exempt as well. That's just it. Big player is always exempt or above all this nonsense.
What I want is to tax and regulate Ontario and Quebec and spend their tax money in Alberta to make up for past injustices

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by W921

700 plus HP farm equipment is exempt as well. That's just it. Big player is always exempt or above all this nonsense.
What I want is to tax and regulate Ontario and Quebec and spend their tax money in Alberta to make up for past injustices

Wrong, the big players are not all exempt,we even had to burn a minimum percentage of biodiesel, as well as meeting the 10ppm of sulfur in the diesel fuel that we produced on site, for our own use.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2016/0...ewable-diesel/

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

lol

Just for you, I will repeat my reply.

Seeing as how our diesel plant made the diesel that we burned in our heavy equipment, I happen to know that our diesel had to meet the 10ppm standard. My analyzer crew was responsible for monitoring the sulfur level, and if the level ever exceeded the 10ppm, we were not allowed to burn it, we had to run it through the plant again . And if we had an issue with a reading above 10ppm, I heard about it immediately. And we also had to import biodiesel to comply with the government standard for using a percentage of renewable based diesel.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2016/0...ewable-diesel/

[Sundog57]

Originally Posted by W921

It used to be 12 mile limit for whole world? Example military. When has this changed?
And so I have a large commercial ship. With a flick of a switch I can change from the clean expensive tank of fuel to the dirty cheap tanks of fuel. How can they catch me? Haha you think Liberia or whatever flag of convenience I'm registered with for home base is going to somehow care or try to monitor me?
Plus everything is in international waters so nobody has jurisdiction.

First off out to 200 miles isn't international waters, those would be domestic waters in Canada, Europe or pretty much anywhere in the world - they refer to it as the Exclusive Economic Zone.
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/useez.html
Believe me it's monitored...
Absolutely mind boggling what satellites and aerial surveillance can do now a days, as well as port state control inspections, quality surveyors, class inspections, flag inspections and all of the other stuff that folks in the marine industry get to enjoy dealing with.
The surveillance is impressive and the fines are as well.
When you have a ship that generates 50 or 60,000 dollars a day in charter hire and carries half a billion dollars worth of cargo, the owners do not dare to take chances f'ing around with it.
Screw this up and have the ship arrested alongside for a couple of weeks, or banned from US, Canadian or European waters, or blacklisted by charterers makes trying to play it smart and save $25,000 in fuel costs by rolling over from HFO late start to look pretty dumb.
This isn't about environmental awareness it's about money...
That and the criminal side as well - the DPA (designated person ashore) as well as the Master and Chief Engineer being charged criminally is a pretty strong disincentive to cheat - It's not like gun crime in Canada - screw this up and you actually go to jail.

[W921]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Wrong, the big players are not all exempt,we even had to burn a minimum percentage of biodiesel, as well as meeting the 10ppm of sulfur in the diesel fuel that we produced on site, for our own use.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2016/0...ewable-diesel/

I know and you are right. What I meant was new engines of a certain size don't have to be built with environmental crap on them which costs money not only to buy but to maintain.
Example if a farm was going to buy a new tractor one reason to go big is to be exempt from all this pollution crap and to buy a tractor 700 plus horsepower so it will actually work with less long term trouble and no expensive def
But small farm can't go out and buy big gear like this. My newest tractor is from 90s .
I will never go newer than this because of way everything is made with to much crap on them that I can't fix or afford to pay someone else to fix.
It used to be if you wanted to start some kind of business and it could be anything from a farm or trucking business. If you were really good at building and fixing your equipment and if determined enough you could make a go of it if you did everything yourself.
Now the way stuff is made you pretty much need everything to be new and it takes deep pockets to make new equipment pay off if you are trying to get something established. You can't afford to let new equipment sit. I dont see much of a future for upstarts. Basically everything I did in my lifetime all impossible now.
I'm surprised people dont start saving up waste motor oil in 5 gallon buckets. When your furnace goes in future maybe your next furnace will burn waste oil even if you have to build it yourself I'm also surprised more people are not set up for black diesel and start burning that as well instead of regular taxed diesel.

[W921]

Originally Posted by Sundog57

First off out to 200 miles isn't international waters, those would be domestic waters in Canada, Europe or pretty much anywhere in the world - they refer to it as the Exclusive Economic Zone.
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/useez.html
Believe me it's monitored...
Absolutely mind boggling what satellites and aerial surveillance can do now a days, as well as port state control inspections, quality surveyors, class inspections, flag inspections and all of the other stuff that folks in the marine industry get to enjoy dealing with.
The surveillance is impressive and the fines are as well.
When you have a ship that generates 50 or 60,000 dollars a day in charter hire and carries half a billion dollars worth of cargo, the owners do not dare to take chances f'ing around with it.
Screw this up and have the ship arrested alongside for a couple of weeks, or banned from US, Canadian or European waters, or blacklisted by charterers makes trying to play it smart and save $25,000 in fuel costs by rolling over from HFO late start to look pretty dumb.
This isn't about environmental awareness it's about money...
That and the criminal side as well - the DPA (designated person ashore) as well as the Master and Chief Engineer being charged criminally is a pretty strong disincentive to cheat - It's not like gun crime in Canada - screw this up and you actually go to jail.

Your stuff comes from UN
I wonder about enforcement because boats do or used to do a lot of crooked things and there always seems to be ways to get around laws. Example dumping old tires and other garbage at sea.
I Google it and got the following from Canadian government website
Sorry Im not good with computers. Can only copy and paste

The territorial sea is an area of the sea which has an outer limit extending 12 nautical miles measured seaward from the baselines. The coastal state exercises sovereignty in this area which extends to the airspace, sea-bed and sub-soil; in this respect, the territorial sea is akin to a state's land territory.
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca › ...PDF
CANAD/\S OCEANS ESTAT

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by W921

I know and you are right. What I meant was new engines of a certain size don't have to be built with environmental crap on them which costs money not only to buy but to maintain.
Example if a farm was going to buy a new tractor one reason to go big is to be exempt from all this pollution crap and to buy a tractor 700 plus horsepower so it will actually work with less long term trouble and no expensive def
But small farm can't go out and buy big gear like this. My newest tractor is from 90s .
I will never go newer than this because of way everything is made with to much crap on them that I can't fix or afford to pay someone else to fix.
It used to be if you wanted to start some kind of business and it could be anything from a farm or trucking business. If you were really good at building and fixing your equipment and if determined enough you could make a go of it if you did everything yourself.
Now the way stuff is made you pretty much need everything to be new and it takes deep pockets to make new equipment pay off if you are trying to get something established. You can't afford to let new equipment sit. I dont see much of a future for upstarts. Basically everything I did in my lifetime all impossible now.
I'm surprised people dont start saving up waste motor oil in 5 gallon buckets. When your furnace goes in future maybe your next furnace will burn waste oil even if you have to build it yourself I'm also surprised more people are not set up for black diesel and start burning that as well instead of regular taxed diesel.

First off, I think there is only one tractor available right now with over 700 hp, the Steiger 715 quad track, isn't it pretty, putting out 715 hp with a 16L diesel:



Secondly, it definitely is Stage V emissions compliant and uses DEF (or has a 85 g DEF tank).

[W921]

Originally Posted by Trochu

First off, I think there is only one tractor available right now with over 700 hp, the Steiger 715 quad track, isn't it pretty, putting out 715 hp with a 16L diesel:



Secondly, it definitely is Stage V emissions compliant and uses DEF (or has a 85 g DEF tank).

Supposedly north of 700 hp you don't need to meet tier 4 emissions. JD's 18 liter engine which is rated over 700 hp doesn't use def
There is a company called big bud that used to make big tractors in Montana and went bankrupt. They were going to be making a comeback and tractor's were going to be made in Georgia. I was kind of following what they were doing because the new tractors were going to be designed so farmer could fix and maintain himself on farm. Part of the appeal was we thought going to be emissions exempt because of size but apparently major investor pulled out and tractor is dead idea again.

[Trochu]

I'm not sure about the Bud, but the new John Deere 9RX that's coming, meets "Final Tier 4/Stage V-compliant....emissions requirements using exhaust-gas recirculation technology". So while it doesn't use DEF, it does have emissions equipment on board, just switching EGR for DEF.

Link