Is there hope ?

[iiwhistlerii]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=175762606825898&id=100031764788513

 

Amazing

[Gill-T]

We didn’t say you are full of shat. We said you didn’t get “it”. “It” being what is important. People that lost their homes, businesses, time on the water, home values, land etc etc don’t care about the water level on Lake St Lawrence, especially with what is coming down the pipeline. What is that expression “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining .”

Edited January 3, 2020 by Gill-T

[iiwhistlerii]

We did say you are full of shat. We said you didn’t get “it”. “It” being what is important. People that lost their homes, businesses, time on the water, home values, land etc etc don’t care about the water level on Lake St Lawrence, especially with what is coming down the pipeline. What is that expression “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining .”

Point is flows were constantly adjusted to maintain levels on Lake st. Lawrence. When it began to drop they lowered flow to maintain while still draining lake Ontario as fast as the water was coming through the river. Everyone wants flows of 10,000 non stop and this is the demonstration of why it's not possible and shows why the argument flows were dropped for the benefit of shipping is poor. These high lake levels are killing the shipping industry, increased currents have cost them almost 1 billion. If they would have dumped the water on Montreal for those 4 months we'd be 16" lower, flow would be down and the shipping industry would have saved millions. It's a poor argument that doesnt make sence.

It's ok to be upset about water levels here at home as we all should be, but you have to be mad at the right people for the right reasons or we just look like idiots with an invalid argument. Be upset they sacrificed Lake Ontario residents for Montreal twice for 2 months each time. The rest is just a poor argument not supported by the actual facts of what's occurring.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[GAMBLER]

I don’t want 10,000 all the time. I want the most possible when it is possible when the lake is high and risks flooding. I don’t feel the IJC did that. It’s my opinion. When money is involved, money has control. I have seen it in places of employment and government. They will post “facts” to support their agenda yet they hide the facts that hold them liable.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Legacy]

.

Sent from my moto z4 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[whaler1]

Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

[iiwhistlerii]

That's cute.  Realistically the high water has cost shipping about a billion dollars so far but ok if you say so. 

 

2014 was put in place to help shipping and increase power production. It will help shipping by allowing the lake to drop further in the winter extending flows into the late fall.  In years past they've had to drop fall flows in the late fall because lake ontario was reaching minimum.  Same idea and benefit for power production.   None of this applies at all to what's happened in the last 3 years tho.  High water has clusterfuched the plan since the get go.  Been operation outside of its peramiters with over maximum flows non stop.  This isnt helping anybody but ur going to believe what u believe no matter what is said.  I do appreciate the entertainment tho.

[LongLine]

Prediction for 2019 shipping by marine chamber:

https://www.marinedelivers.com/media_release/great-lakes-seaway-ports-forecast-stellar-2019-shipping-season/

 

Results reported:

(right click & open in another tab/window if you can't read it)

Yes - down at US ports 6.4%, but was due to tariffs on metals. Other materials all broke records.

Yes - "Massive cargo ships" (salties) from all over the world came all the way in this year.

Yes - IJC was going to close seaway in Dec but didn't because of industry protests

Yes - with another week, they will exceed their 2018 goals. (note this was posted 12/24)

 

There's another post in the above link (further down it) as to how they extended the shipping season another week this year.

 

Yep - shipping lost money all right...NOT!  (Now I got'ta go buy a new meter, you just bent the needle on the old BS meter.) 

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

 

 

 

[LongLine]

another from Mid Oct:

 

 

Looks to me like shipping was loving the high water!

[iiwhistlerii]

15 minutes ago, LongLine said:

Prediction for 2019 shipping by marine chamber:

https://www.marinedelivers.com/media_release/great-lakes-seaway-ports-forecast-stellar-2019-shipping-season/

 

Results reported:

(right click & open in another tab/window if you can't read it)

Yes - down at US ports 6.4%, but was due to tariffs on metals. Other materials all broke records.

Yes - "Massive cargo ships" (salties) from all over the world came all the way in this year.

Yes - IJC was going to close seaway in Dec but didn't because of industry protests

Yes - with another week, they will exceed their 2018 goals. (note this was posted 12/24)

 

There's another post in the above link (further down it) as to how they extended the shipping season another week this year.

 

Yep - shipping lost money all right...NOT!  (Now I got'ta go buy a new meter, you just bent the needle on the old BS meter.) 

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

 

 

 

Increased fuel costs alone from operating in that current are astronomical.  You really think these ships want that river flowing at 10,000+?   Those flows not only increase fuel costs, they cause delays, and the high water imposes lower speed limits.  Please tell me again how much they are loving this...  Its amazing the opinions you are able to form when you chose to ignore the facts that dont fit your agenda.  Use all the data and then form your opinions without prejudice.  

 

 

[iiwhistlerii]

3-4 million dollars per day at 10,400.  They were at 10,400 most of the summer.  I'm sure it's just propaganda.  

[iiwhistlerii]

Oh and please tell me again about how they slowed flow in august to help shipping and not because lake st. Lawrence was beginning to drop without the water being as high.  They tapered down the flows as flow from lake Ontario slowed as it dropped.    Here is what happens with 249 ft flows when we are at 246ft...  lake st. Lawrence losing a foot a day and at a historical low that would have went over real well in August.  Lake ontario is holding steady as water is working it's way through the bottleneck of the river.  Probably at about 8,000, it's natural drainage rate for this level.

[L&M]

Ever considered selling snowballs to eskimos ?  

[Gator]

I really, really try to keep an open mind on this issue, but as soon as the "Chamber" that issued the report was described as a non-profit that represents the shipping industry, I immediately discounted their report. Of course it's propaganda. That's their job and the sole reason for their existence. I have no idea whether the industry as a whole lost money or not, but wouldn't increased fuel costs on the way up the river be recovered on the way down the river, when the current's at your back? Maybe it's not a complete push, but I suspect that increased revenue more than makes up for it. And also, the one billion dollar number? That is total impact to the economy. Not losses to the shipping industry. It includes revenue from local businesses and all the other things that have nothing to do with shipping. If you're going to put something like that out there as evidence, please think more deeply about what it actually says, not about how you can use it to support your argument. You know the saying - there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Gator

[chinook35]

I really, really try to keep an open mind on this issue, but as soon as the "Chamber" that issued the report was described as a non-profit that represents the shipping industry, I immediately discounted their report. Of course it's propaganda. That's their job and the sole reason for their existence. I have no idea whether the industry as a whole lost money or not, but wouldn't increased fuel costs on the way up the river be recovered on the way down the river, when the current's at your back? Maybe it's not a complete push, but I suspect that increased revenue more than makes up for it. And also, the one billion dollar number? That is total impact to the economy. Not losses to the shipping industry. It includes revenue from local businesses and all the other things that have nothing to do with shipping. If you're going to put something like that out there as evidence, please think more deeply about what it actually says, not about how you can use it to support your argument. You know the saying - there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Thrust and speed must be increased down bound to maintain steerageway or tugs must assist steering. So it probably costs more in fuel downbound The IJC commissioner just attended a public forum in Watertown She told the panel to expect more flooding for LO


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[chinook35]

https://www.newzjunky.com/ijc-plan-2014-changes

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

 

[horsehunter]

1 hour ago, chinook35 said:

 The IJC commissioner just attended a public forum in Watertown She told the panel to expect more flooding for LO


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

So I guess I won't get in a hurry to pay for next years slip at the marina till I see if I can park the truck on dry land and not have to wear waders or take a canoe to get to my dock. Last year even some of the floating docks were pulled underwater by their chains.

[lost a lure]

10 hours ago, L&M said:

Ever considered selling snowballs to eskimos ?  

 

Best one yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sk8man]

Man.....this thread sure has taken on its own life might be easier and perhaps even more productive to just "agree to disagree"

[horsehunter]

agreed

[lost a lure]

11 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Oh and please tell me again about how they slowed flow in august to help shipping and not because lake st. Lawrence was beginning to drop without the water being as high.  They tapered down the flows as flow from lake Ontario slowed as it dropped.    Here is what happens with 249 ft flows when we are at 246ft...  lake st. Lawrence losing a foot a day and at a historical low that would have went over real well in August.  Lake ontario is holding steady as water is working it's way through the bottleneck of the river.  Probably at about 8,000, it's natural drainage rate for this level.

 

Flow was decreased on 12/28 until 12/31. Lake St. Lawrence level decreased. 

[jeb1340]

10990

[HB2]

2 hours ago, Sk8man said:

Man.....this thread sure has taken on its own life might be easier and perhaps even more productive to just "agree to disagree"

 

I originally posted this thread to explore if all the water made for more nutrients in the water  as I saw more green water this year since the mid 80s. 

 

I'm not a hydrologist, and everyone's data may or may not  be true . 

 

I just want to know if everything that can be done is being done to lower the lake level . 

 

And my gut tells me it's not . 

[iiwhistlerii]

5 hours ago, Sk8man said:

Man.....this thread sure has taken on its own life might be easier and perhaps even more productive to just "agree to disagree"

Far less entertaining...  plus I've gotten multiple messages from guys on the site commending me for taking on the impossible task of convincing those scorn that there may be more to this than they are willing to see.  Lots of people appreciate the info and like to learn how the system works whether they chose to agree or not.  We are all adults, as long as people dont start taking things personal it's all good educational banter.

[Sk8man]

I think you missed my point  it wasn't a criticism of you. Each side of the argument has made its point with "data" to support it but it has now become like beating a dead horse and sure looks as though nobody is going to cry "uncle" anyway.