PDA

View Full Version : Environmental debate heating up in the North Country



johnnybgood
11-20-2012, 19:15
Reverse flow of tar sands through the Trailbreaker Pipeline is at the heart of this debate. What is certainly a big deal for oil companies that have already invested millions into this project could possibly affect residents of Vermont and New Hampshire.

What's your opinion on this environmental issue ? I'm not liking the idea of a abrasive sandpaper substance (grit oil) flowing in a pipeline through some of the most picturesque countryside in the northeast.

Slo-go'en
11-20-2012, 23:34
It just so happens one of the pipe lines in question runs right past my front door and thru the heart of the White Mountains. A spill in that pipe around here would shut down this area of the WMNF for a long time. And we're talking a pipe which has been underground for 60 years!

I went to a town meeting about this subject just a few days ago. We were assured by the pipe line owner that they currently had no plans to reverse the flow, but might think about it, because they could use the buisness. Then the guy from the Petrolium Institute assured us that tar sands oil was no more dangerous to ship then other types of heavy crude. Then the guy from the NH dept of Enviormental Services assured us they had the resources to clean up a spill it it DID happen. And then make someone pay dearly. The the lady from the Enviormental Defense something or other told us we'd be crazy to let that stuff flow through our back yards!

Needless to say, the residents of this area aren't really happy about this.

Slo-go'en
11-20-2012, 23:36
Oh by the way JAK, the reason they want to send the tar sands sludge through here is so they can boat it to New Brunswick, where Erving has a big refinery. From there who knows where it goes, but probably overseas.

Rasty
11-20-2012, 23:43
What's the alternative? Who is going to stop driving? The answer is almost no one. In my town people are protesting a cement factory but everyone uses concrete.

Leanthree
11-21-2012, 00:17
What's the alternative? Who is going to stop driving? The answer is almost no one. In my town people are protesting a cement factory but everyone uses concrete.

Don't have to stop driving, just have to get some to drive less.

There are more efficient ways (if I were dictator...) but NIMBYism is one weapon in the arsenal.

peakbagger
11-21-2012, 08:50
I also have the pipeline in my frontyard, I like it as they keep it cleared and keeps my view of the Northern Presidentials open. Most of the negative PR on this pipeline project and others is really a sham, the groups involved could care less if the pipelines are used. What they are really trying to do is restrict the flow of tar sand oil out of of Canada as the Canadians have bascially told them they plan to keep cranking oil out of the tar sands as long as they can. What these groups dont talk about is that a lot of the crude is being trucked currently over open highways and the likelyhood of a tanker wreck is far higher than a pipeline leak plus it requires a heck of lot more diesel to move it in a tanker than it does in pipeline. Locally I would far rather have it in my frontyard than the high voltage transmission line proposed for the area that is going to cut a swath across the AT south of Kinsman mountain and will be visible along many sections of the AT in the whites as well as in the north country of NH.

It is great PR ploy by the anti tar sands folks, this allows them to open up discussions on potential impacts of tar sands in peoples backyards where previously that wouldnt have cared as it was somewhere else. Realistically if it wasnt for the current tar sands production and the increased production of oil in the US, oil would be selling for a heck of a lot more with the current middle eastern issues going on. There is a lot of industrial production moving back onshore to the US and Canada due to the relative cost of energy and if you read the news, there is currently a shortage of most of the skilled trades to supply that new production. Ultimately Canada is going to export tar sand oil and therefore its best to do it in a way that minimizes the chance of a spill and that appears to be pipelines. The US isnt going to use it, its going to head where its wanted and thats China and India. If the crudeflows in the Portland Pipeline and they follow the regulations I am not stressed about it. By the way this pipeline has been in operation since world war two pumping crude from Portland Me to Montreal with few issues so its not like its unproven technology. By the way an1800 psi Canadian natural gas export pipeline is co-located along half the pipeline route but the groups dont talk about that one despite much higher hazards associated with a line rupture. Natural Gas just doesnt have the bad PR that Tar Sands have so the anti tars sands groups dont get the donations to run their organizations from going against gas. Of course, arguably natural gas development in the middle Atlantic has far more of an impact to the AT than the Tar Sands do.

By the way, I have run a 40 MPG car for 12 years and generate all the electricty I need to run my house plus I heat mostly with locally harvested wood, so I am probably not a poster child for an evil corporate bureaucrat. The various towns selected for these forums have tended to be tourist towns with many of the residents owning second homes that they drive back and forth from massachusetts every weekend in their SUV's. Many of the residents approach is NIMBY on a local level, they dont care where the gas and oil comes from, they just use it and keep their blinders on.

Unfortunately some entrepeneur hasnt figured out how to brand "sustainably harvested" oil yet that is affordable so for now the folks who protest just have to ignore it when they fill up theit tank. Sure commerical biodiesel is available but unless it made with unsustainably produced Palm Oil from Indonesia, it sells for more than regular diesel unless heavilly subsidized. Any firm that has tried to sell it as a premium fuel to the general public has rapidly gone out of business in this region as the consumer ultimately votes with the pocketbook. .

nitewalker
11-21-2012, 08:51
Alage is the newest fuel technology that they are trying to push. its been around for a few years but they are finally puting it into production....maybe we can move past oil as a primary source of fuel and start using the alage to help offset the petro consumption...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alage%20as%20gas&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fscience%2Farticl e%2FAlgae-based-fuel-on-sale-in-Bay-Area-4035462.php&ei=mM6sUMORJaq10QGwmYHQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFRwVDnu9fjLpX5iOFRvLNJ0HLtTg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alage%20as%20gas&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fscience%2Farticl e%2FAlgae-based-fuel-on-sale-in-Bay-Area-4035462.php&ei=mM6sUMORJaq10QGwmYHQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFRwVDnu9fjLpX5iOFRvLNJ0HLtTg)

Majortrauma
11-21-2012, 09:39
Excellent point. More "Not in my backyard."
What's the alternative? Who is going to stop driving? The answer is almost no one. In my town people are protesting a cement factory but everyone uses concrete.

Tom Murphy
11-21-2012, 10:13
peakbagger has this exactly right

The environmental groups hate the tar sand oil production and are trying to put up as many obstacles as possible. The oil from tar sand is no more abrasive than convential oil. Read up on the production process.

random thoughts:
- someday there will be no more gas and no more oil and no more coal
- in the meantime people will extract this resource from the earth in any way possible
- I can remember tar sand oil being described as too energy intensive and therefore too expensive
- I expect that most US homes will have solar panels in my son's lifetime
- if we can't figure out a biochemical process, then it will be eventually be geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear
- I am hopeful that the population crisis will be reversed as globalization normalizes the standard of living around the world; that means third world SOL improves and first world SOL is reduced

bamboo bob
11-21-2012, 10:20
I am so fed up with fact spinners. A year of it is plenty. Any excuse to prevent development and/or any reason to allow unlimited development. Which one this time ?

Rasty
11-21-2012, 11:19
Don't have to stop driving, just have to get some to drive less.

There are more efficient ways (if I were dictator...) but NIMBYism is one weapon in the arsenal.

It's fairly easy not to drive in New York City. Try that in 99% of the remainder of the country. I work 40 miles from home. It's a choice between driving and having my kids go to a good school.

fcoulter
11-21-2012, 12:09
I suspect that a massive increase in the cost of gasoline (or equivalent energy source) will kill the AT. There will be very few walkers and almost no volunteers able to work on the trail. It's just one of those bits of american wealth that will be gone when cheap energy is gone.

Pedaling Fool
11-21-2012, 13:16
What I find funny about this issue is that people start talking about alternative lifestyles and living "sustainably". However, they fail to realize that their way of living is very unsustainable. http://directory.ic.org/videos/ people that live in a city live more sustainably than the people in that video.

The answer is in science and technology, just as it has made it possible for millions of people to live in a small area in a relatively clean environment and it's only improving with advancements.

rgarling
11-21-2012, 13:18
On a brighter note, there are technologies in the pipeline that will make oil look very expensive. e.g. LENR (E-CAT), EESTOR (capacitive batteries), super-capacitors, ... who knows what ...

swjohnsey
11-21-2012, 14:57
Folks who don't want to put up with dirty technology shouldn't drive or use electricity. NIMBY!

Slo-go'en
11-21-2012, 15:03
Yes, we need the oil while it lasts, but turning large swatches of Alberta into toxic waste land doesn't seem to be a good way to get it. Everyone should be opposed to this stuff simply on moral grounds. If we can limit thier ability to move the product, maybe that would limit the damage. (wishful thinking there)

I supose in the long run it really doesn't matter. We'll either kill the planet in our never ending thurst for fossile fuels or we'll simply run out of it and have no choice but to burn something else. I figure in a million years there will be no sign we were ever here - except for all the plastic water bottles which keep popping up....

Tom Murphy
11-21-2012, 15:48
It's fairly easy not to drive in New York City. Try that in 99% of the remainder of the country. I work 40 miles from home. It's a choice between driving and having my kids go to a good school.

hahaha, "I have a long commute because I want to live in the suburbs"

Rasty
11-21-2012, 16:35
It's fairly easy not to drive in New York City. Try that in 99% of the remainder of the country. I work 40 miles from home. It's a choice between driving and having my kids go to a good school.

hahaha, "I have a long commute because I want to live in the suburbs"

For me it's the opposite. I live in the city of Wlmington and drive to another town 40 miles to work. Was working 4 miles from work for 15+ years then got laid off in 2008. Took a job which I really like but has lousy schools. Big difference.

peakbagger
11-21-2012, 17:14
The world wont run of fossil fuels it will run out of places to put the CO2. There have been recent reports that the total reserves of fossil fuels can generate about 3 times more CO2 than climate models predict the is needed to get in the high end of serious global warming. Then again there was a report in the last few months that global warming is most likely delaying the incidence of the next ice age which is good news for us folks up north.

Drybones
11-21-2012, 17:27
Don't have to stop driving, just have to get some to drive less.

There are more efficient ways (if I were dictator...) but NIMBYism is one weapon in the arsenal.

When you say some, you mean for other people to drive less, not you though, right. I love when people like Al Gore tell us we need to reduce our "footprint" while they drive gas guuzzlers, heat thier pools and 20K sq ft homes and fly thier jets and could care less...they just want you, the average Joe, to contribute, not them, they're above it all. I wont go there with my thoughts on taxes.

Drybones
11-21-2012, 17:33
The world wont run of fossil fuels it will run out of places to put the CO2. There have been recent reports that the total reserves of fossil fuels can generate about 3 times more CO2 than climate models predict the is needed to get in the high end of serious global warming. Then again there was a report in the last few months that global warming is most likely delaying the incidence of the next ice age which is good news for us folks up north.

That global warming is bad stuff, I'm sure that's what caused the ice to receed from Europe 10,000 years ago.

Pedaling Fool
11-21-2012, 17:35
Fossil fuels brings out the hypocrites in all of us; everyone complains about it but no one really does anything to reduce it in any meaningful way. Green technologies are a step backwards and not a real answer, the answer is in the future. One very big hypocrite is Denmark.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-still-fuels-the-green-state-of-denmark/article793507/


"Denmark oozes green.

Its capital, Copenhagen, won the moral right to host next month's climate change summit in good part because Denmark seems to have found the winning balance between growth and carbon reduction. Wind power is coming on strong. Its citizens are willing to pay sky-high electricity prices to encourage conservation. Its hot-water-based district heating system is considered a marvel of energy efficiency.


Denmark's green efforts have won praise from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the World Bank.

But this small, wealthy Nordic country - population 5.4-million - may not be as green as advertised. The fine print in Denmark's Energy Agency data paints a paler picture.
While Denmark has made considerable progress in moving toward clean energy, it is still tethered to the grubby old carbon world.

In reality, the Danish economy is more dependent on fossil fuels and the wealth they create than at any time in the country's history. The fuels come from the North Sea, whose reserves gave Denmark its first oil production in 1972.

In 1990 Denmark's oil production was 7-million cubic metres (one cubic metre equals 6.3 barrels). Production peaked at 22.6-million cubic metres in 2004. In 2007, the figure was a still-hefty 18.1-million. Natural gas production has doubled since 1990.

Most of the oil and gas is exported. "Denmark's economic success story is dependent on other nations increasing their carbon-dioxide footprint," said Aldyen Donnelly, president of Vancouver's WDA Consulting, a greenhouse-gas emissions management consultancy.

Of course, Denmark also exports green technology, such as wind turbines made by Vestas, the world's biggest wind-energy company. But clean-tech exports, combined with exports of electricity, are still well below the combined value of its exports fossil fuel and fossil-fuel technology, such as oil-drilling equipment. In 2008, for every dollar of exports in the clean-tech and electricity category, $6 worth of exports in the fossil-fuel category left Denmark. On the export front at least, Denmark is still very much an oil economy.

Another myth is that Demark's electricity production is ultra-clean.

There is no doubt that the Danes are world leaders in the development of wind energy. Wind power generated 18.3 per cent of Denmark's electricity last year, up from 11.6 per cent in 1990. (Solar power has a near zero share of the market.) "They broke every barrier in the wind market," said Jonathan Coony, an energy technology specialist at the World Bank. "They were pioneers in that area. No one thought they could go beyond 5 per cent. But they went to 10, then 15 and kept on going."

But coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, is still the most popular electricity-generating fuel. Last year it supplied 48 per cent of Denmark's electricity, a ratio that has varied little this decade. Since coal plants are used as backups for wind generators when the wind doesn't blow, the plants are unlikely to be phased out.

Oil and natural gas, meanwhile, are still doing yeoman's work in the Danish electricity market. In 2008 the two fuels accounted for 22 per cent of total electricity generation. Coal, oil and gas together account for a not-so green 70 per cent of total electricity generation.

Other than wind power, Denmark's big environmental success story is district heating, hailed as a model of energy efficiency. District heating takes the surplus heat thrown off by coal and gas plants and uses it to create hot water that travels through pipes to heat homes. Today, some 2.5 million Danish homes are connected to the vast underground heating grid.

The Danish government says the system reduces fuel consumption by 30 per cent compared with the amount that would have been consumed in home furnaces. Ms. Donnelly says district heating can reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions from home heating by as much as half. But she notes the system was built well before the 1997 Kyoto climate change accord, and had nothing to do with Denmark's green halo. Developed in the 1930s and greatly expanded in the 1980s, district heating was the national effort to reduce energy costs after the twin oil shocks of the 1970s.

District heating is a consumer bargain. What is not a bargain is Denmark's electricity price. At the end of last year, according to Energy Regulatory Authority, the consumer price had reached the equivalent of 46 cents a kilowatt hour. That's more than three times the typical Canadian and American price. Only 30 per cent of the charge represents the actual energy cost. The rest comes from taxes, transmission costs and other fees.

The prices have worked in the sense that they have kept a lid on electricity consumption in recent years. But they seem to have failed to create an alternative energy revolution; fossil fuels still dominate electricity production.

Still, international organizations like the World Bank and the UN praise Denmark's green efforts and hold it out as an example to be followed as the world lurches towards a difficult carbon-reduction summit in Copenhagen. But Denmark, in spite of its best efforts, shows how hard it is to make significant progress on the carbon-reduction file. Said one energy executive: "It's not all sunshine and rainbows in the Danish energy market."

Drybones
11-21-2012, 17:37
On a brighter note, there are technologies in the pipeline that will make oil look very expensive. e.g. LENR (E-CAT), EESTOR (capacitive batteries), super-capacitors, ... who knows what ...

Just so it's private interprise and not the gov. doing the investing...no more Solyndras please.

Drybones
11-21-2012, 17:42
What's the alternative? .

If we can find a way to bottle the gas my dog generates in our tent every night we can save the world...grade A stuff...eyes water and nose burns...I dare not put the tent close to the fire.

Rasty
11-21-2012, 17:45
What's the alternative? .

If we can find a way to bottle the gas my dog generates in our tent every night we can save the world...grade A stuff...eyes water and nose burns...I dare not put the tent close to the fire.

Methane's not green! Too many dog farts are causing global warming.

johnnybgood
11-21-2012, 18:14
Clearly petro-politics as everyone knows plays a significant role in pushing this issue forward and it will be addressed in due time. The concern here,if I am reading
right ,is not the oil that normally flows through these pipelines but a backflow of (tar sands) ,"SLUDGE" that corrodes metal .
The answer here lies in making use of the technology we have in producing a better cleaner energy for the future which decreases our need for fossil fuels. The environmentalist have painted a bleak picture for what may happen , likely won't happen -wanting to appeal to those whose livihood is at stake if such a diaster were to occur. The big oil giants lest we not forget have a huge interest here and will also have their own spin doctors at work. I'm not sure if we're looking at the 800 lb gorilla in the room here or simply another sighting of bigfoot .

handlebar
11-21-2012, 21:57
...... The environmentalist have painted a bleak picture for what may happen , likely won't happen........ The big oil giants lest we not forget have a huge interest here and will also have their own spin doctors at work.

Anyone remember the Exxon Valdez and Prudhoe Bay? That wasn't going to happen either. It's particularly enlightening to note that the company applying to transport the "diluted bitumen" took an unconsciounably long time to shut down the pipeline that burst near Kalamazoo. I'm sure the corporate spin doctors will spout how much they've learned from that experience!

Yes, the oil giants do have a huge interest. They want to keep their refineries, all located on seaways or coastal areas in order to process imported crude, in operation. Otherwise, they could build refineries near the source in Alberta to refine, or partly refine, the tar sands bitumen. Then they could ship the refined product to market or to further refining in pipelines in a form much less hazardous to the environment should the inevitable spills occur. Of course, that would mean idled facilities into which they have "sunk costs" on the seacoasts and the need to make new investments in northern Canada, cutting into their profits.

swjohnsey
11-21-2012, 22:33
Anyone remember the Exxon Valdez and Prudhoe Bay? That wasn't going to happen either. It's particularly enlightening to note that the company applying to transport the "diluted bitumen" took an unconsciounably long time to shut down the pipeline that burst near Kalamazoo. I'm sure the corporate spin doctors will spout how much they've learned from that experience!

Yes, the oil giants do have a huge interest. They want to keep their refineries, all located on seaways or coastal areas in order to process imported crude, in operation. Otherwise, they could build refineries near the source in Alberta to refine, or partly refine, the tar sands bitumen. Then they could ship the refined product to market or to further refining in pipelines in a form much less hazardous to the environment should the inevitable spills occur. Of course, that would mean idled facilities into which they have "sunk costs" on the seacoasts and the need to make new investments in northern Canada, cutting into their profits.

You been to Prudoe Bay lately? I have. Pristine. Maine is a chit hole by comparison.

rickb
11-21-2012, 22:40
You been to Prudoe Bay lately? I have. Pristine. Maine is a chit hole by comparison.

Do tankers even go there?

peakbagger
11-22-2012, 06:20
Maine has a couple of very active oil terminals in Portland plus a couple of other towns. The Portland Pipeline has been importing oil to pump to Montreal since WW2. The port is not set up for supertankers but does get some pretty large ones. There has been one major oil spill in Portland harbor in the past, I believe that it was refined heating oil instead of crude. The tanker hit a bridge (since replaced with a much larger one with protective barriers. The cause was a pilot that siad go left when he should have said go right. Portland also get a lot of cruise ships and they are parked right across the harbor from the Portland Pipeline terminal

rickb
11-22-2012, 08:34
Maine has a couple of very active oil terminals in Portland plus a couple of other towns. The Portland Pipeline has been importing oil to pump to Montreal since WW2. The port is not set up for supertankers but does get some pretty large ones. There has been one major oil spill in Portland harbor in the past, I believe that it was refined heating oil instead of crude. The tanker hit a bridge (since replaced with a much larger one with protective barriers. The cause was a pilot that siad go left when he should have said go right. Portland also get a lot of cruise ships and they are parked right across the harbor from the Portland Pipeline terminal

That was a very interesting question to my rather dumb question.

I was asking swjohnsey if tankers even go to Prudhoe Bayhoe Bay. I only know it from "Iceroad Truckers" and I can't imagine they do.

Sometime this summer I was lost and found my self driving near one of the tank farms in Portland while looking for BMG Foods. Crazy how close one can get to them and how little security is in the area-- the industial oil smell was rather powerful.

rickb
11-22-2012, 08:35
I meant a very interesting answer to my rather dumb question, of course.

Pedaling Fool
11-22-2012, 09:04
Sometime this summer I was lost and found my self driving near one of the tank farms in Portland while looking for BMG Foods.I'm sure you meant that you found yourself riding a bike near one of the tank farms...:eek::D

Happy Thanksgiving ;)

swjohnsey
11-22-2012, 11:41
Do tankers even go there?

No, tankers go to Valdez, pipeline goes from Prudoe Bay to Valdez. Valdez is also pristine, no sign of the spill. The earth quake, on the other hand, reeked havoc.

johnnybgood
11-22-2012, 11:56
[QUOTE=swjohnsey;1364540]No, tankers go to Valdez, pipeline goes from Prudoe Bay to Valdez. Valdez is also pristine, no sign of the spill. The earth quake, on the other hand, reeked havoc.[/QUOTE

Do you knoow what the word "pristine" means ? It suggests fresh ,unspoiled and probably another adjective too. I think it to be clean but not pristine.


Happy Thankgiving !

atraildreamer
11-22-2012, 12:36
Alage is the newest fuel technology that they are trying to push. its been around for a few years but they are finally puting it into production....maybe we can move past oil as a primary source of fuel and start using the alage to help offset the petro consumption...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alage%20as%20gas&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fscience%2Farticl e%2FAlgae-based-fuel-on-sale-in-Bay-Area-4035462.php&ei=mM6sUMORJaq10QGwmYHQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFRwVDnu9fjLpX5iOFRvLNJ0HLtTg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alage%20as%20gas&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fscience%2Farticl e%2FAlgae-based-fuel-on-sale-in-Bay-Area-4035462.php&ei=mM6sUMORJaq10QGwmYHQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFRwVDnu9fjLpX5iOFRvLNJ0HLtTg)

Check out these people:

http://www.hypersolar.com/

They are working on algae to produce feedstock for conversion to diesel, as well as hydrogen fuel production.

swjohnsey
11-22-2012, 12:55
[QUOTE=swjohnsey;1364540]No, tankers go to Valdez, pipeline goes from Prudoe Bay to Valdez. Valdez is also pristine, no sign of the spill. The earth quake, on the other hand, reeked havoc.[/QUOTE

Do you knoow what the word "pristine" means ? It suggests fresh ,unspoiled and probably another adjective too. I think it to be clean but not pristine.


Happy Thankgiving !

Yep, know what it means. If you can used pristine to describe Maine you will have no problem using it to describe Prudoe Bay or Valdez. Deadhorse is an oil field town, very industrial, built on a gravel pad probably 10 feet thick. Once you get off the pad the landscape is just like it always has been. caribou, artic fox and musk ox roaming around, thousands of birds, no trees, none. Valdez is a regular town. Once you get out of town it is beautiful, glaciers, lotsa wildlife.

Sly
11-22-2012, 13:39
Valdez is also pristine, no sign of the spill.

Are we supposed to take your word for it?

http://news.discovery.com/earth/exxon-valdez-110324.html

or Rush Limbaugh's?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/30/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-alaskas-prince-william-sound-no/

johnnybgood
11-22-2012, 13:51
The oil spill has been a massive cleanup operation since the spill of March , 1989 and it appears the Alaskian seaport has fully recovered with the return of wildlife and marine animals.

The article that I read indicated that while the coastline is now clean of oil it isn't considered pristine as it once was.

The picture does however provide us a beautiful view of an eco system that is once again thriving.

atraildreamer
11-23-2012, 17:45
The oil spill has been a massive cleanup operation since the spill of March , 1989 and it appears the Alaskian seaport has fully recovered with the return of wildlife and marine animals.

The article that I read indicated that while the coastline is now clean of oil it isn't considered pristine as it once was.

The picture does however provide us a beautiful view of an eco system that is once again thriving.

Question for you trivia buffs: What was the name of the ship that Kevin Costner sank in the movie "Waterworld"? :confused:

atraildreamer
11-24-2012, 12:27
Question for you trivia buffs: What was the name of the ship that Kevin Costner sank in the movie "Waterworld"? :confused:

OK, here is a hint:

Pedaling Fool
11-25-2012, 14:10
I know, but only because I googled it http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Waterworld-10750.html

atraildreamer
11-29-2012, 18:47
I know, but only because I googled it http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Waterworld-10750.html

John, I just read that it was converted to a bulk carrier and renamed. It is now on its way to India to be scrapped!

chief
11-29-2012, 19:23
John, I just read that it was converted to a bulk carrier and renamed. It is now on its way to India to be scrapped!The ship was beached at Alang, India in August. Probably not much left by now.

atraildreamer
11-30-2012, 12:07
The ship was beached at Alang, India in August. Probably not much left by now.

Must be an amazing process to watch...a ship being dismantled for scrap. I wonder what the value of the scrap is in $$$?

So...nobody else figured out the name of the ship? Here you go: