Is there hope ?

[LongLine]

$1 Billion loss to the (overall) economy - wow!

 

 

1 billon divided by 6 trillion  x 100%  = 0.02%.  I wonder how many CFOs jumped off their ships fantail for that tremendous loss?  Probably none as they received discounted seaway passage fees this year.

[wishinfishin]

Uncle

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[lost a lure]

5 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

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.

 

Multiple messages commending you. That's funnier than Hanks snowball comment.

[iiwhistlerii]

9 minutes ago, lost a lure said:

 

Multiple messages commending you. That's funnier than Hanks snowball comment.

If I argued the Sun rises and sets each day you'd tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.  Some people chose to learn at every opportunity.  Others are...  well....  you.  I can screen shot messages all day but what's the point, you'll just say I'm making it up.  It's all a conspiracy.

[lost a lure]

I did in no way imply that you were making up the messages. Simply stated that it was funnier than Hanks comment and you turned it around.

 

[lost a lure]

Flow was lowered from 10,500 to 10,300 at 19:01

 

[iiwhistlerii]

12 hours ago, LongLine said:

$1 Billion loss to the (overall) economy - wow!

 

 

1 billon divided by 6 trillion  x 100%  = 0.02%.  I wonder how many CFOs jumped off their ships fantail for that tremendous loss?  Probably none as they received discounted seaway passage fees this year.

Associating GDP with shipping industry profits.  That's cute.   Think about that for a minute.

[HB2]

I'm quite sure that any increase in shipping costs are passed on to the customer in some way . 

 

Additional  fuel costs are a part of the cost of doing business. 

 

Just like prices going up in any business . 

 

I don't see them going broke anytime soon . 

[Gill-T]

10 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

If I argued the Sun rises and sets each day you'd tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.  Some people chose to learn at every opportunity.  Others are...  well....  you.  I can screen shot messages all day but what's the point, you'll just say I'm making it up.  It's all a conspiracy.

 

 

Private message from Lucky13??

[lost a lure]

Flow increase from 10,300 to 10,400 on 1/5/2020 at 12:01. 

[LongLine]

On 1/3/2020 at 10:05 PM, iiwhistlerii said:

Use all the data and then form your opinions without prejudice.  

 

 

 

Just another example of your reading what nots there.  READ the first sentence of your copied article.  "Canadian & U.S economies..."  

[jimski2]

39 posts, all about out flow rates. What about the Lake Ontario in flow volumes? Your concerns about out flow rates are meaningless unless you have the numbers on Lake Erie flow rates along with canals and tributary flow volumes.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[lost a lure]

1 hour ago, jimski2 said:

39 posts, all about out flow rates. What about the Lake Ontario in flow volumes? Your concerns about out flow rates are meaningless unless you have the numbers on Lake Erie flow rates along with canals and tributary flow volumes.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

We have those numbers. Nothing can be done about the inflows. The outflows are higher than inflows now.

[iiwhistlerii]

3 hours ago, LongLine said:

 

Just another example of your reading what nots there.  READ the first sentence of your copied article.  "Canadian & U.S economies..."  

Yes..  3-4 million per day loss in business revenues.  BUSINESS REVINUES from the SHIPPING INDUSTRY.  

[lost a lure]

9 minutes ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Yes..  3-4 million per day loss in business revenues.  BUSINESS REVINUES from the SHIPPING INDUSTRY.  

 

And who is telling the Standard what to print? The shipping industry

[iiwhistlerii]

 
And who is telling the Standard what to print? The shipping industry

Do a google search man. Its public knowledge and common sense. I even lose 6mph on top end trying to go into that current and it takes me 4000 rpm to stay on plane where usually I can do it at 3 when I'm just cruising into the current. Nobody wants those rapids below the dam. You argue the shipping industry wants lower flows but then argue they want higher water. Guess what, those 2 things dont go together. With higher water come higher flows, they definitely dont want this.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[AAA]

50 minutes ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Do a google search man. Its public knowledge and common sense. I even lose 6mph on top end trying to go into that current and it takes me 4000 rpm to stay on plane where usually I can do it at 3 when I'm just cruising into the current. Nobody wants those rapids below the dam. You argue the shipping industry wants lower flows but then argue they want higher water. Guess what, those 2 things dont go together. With higher water come higher flows, they definitely dont want this.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

From what I gathered from the video you posted from the engineer living on LO, there is a minimum flow ("carve out") for shipping but not a maximum flow.  There is a maximum outflow (L limit) objective for shipping.  Clearly, as stated in that video, outflow was limited to protect Montreal over LO in April and May and to protect shipping since then.  Which, according to him, was in violation of provision H14.  He states that the flow should have been up to 500 m/s over L limit if I followed it correctly.  He had also recommended at least 300 m/s over.  Highest I believe I have seen is up to 200 m/s approved by IJC.  What am I missing here?   This is a fluids engineer who has stated that outflows could have been significantly higher but wasn't to protect against flooding in Montreal and also shipping thereafter, at the expense of LO.  By his calculation this added 1.5 feet to LO water levels.  I am not sure I understand the disagreement here.  

[LongLine]

On 1/3/2020 at 9:01 PM, iiwhistlerii said:

  Realistically the high water has cost shipping about a billion dollars so far

 

3 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Yes..  3-4 million per day loss in business revenues.  BUSINESS REVINUES from the SHIPPING INDUSTRY.  

 

Please make up your mind.  It either cost shipping $1 billion or it didn't. 

 

Given 90 days for summer (even though flow wasn't there the full summer and using the higher estimate):  $4M per day x 90days = $360M.  360M doesn't round off to 1 Billion (not even on your fantasy calculator)

 

If it did cost shipping $1 billion when water flows were over 10.4K (as claimed by you from your article) at $3-4M per day then there had to be a minimum of 250 days in which water flow was over that mark. (divide 1B by 4M)   I'd like to see your fantasy calendar showing that many days at or over that outflow.  It would be a very imaginative design and worth publishing. 

[LongLine]

13 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Associating GDP with shipping industry profits.  That's cute.

 

"profits"....."revenues"..."GDP"..."costs"  . You need an economics dictionary as you obviously don't know the  difference and certainly can't make up your mind..  

[Silver Fox]

 
 
Private message from Lucky13??

You just won comment of the year!


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Gill-T]

Its only January 5th .....

[lost a lure]

5 hours ago, iiwhistlerii said:

Do a google search man. Its public knowledge and common sense. I even lose 6mph on top end trying to go into that current and it takes me 4000 rpm to stay on plane where usually I can do it at 3 when I'm just cruising into the current. Nobody wants those rapids below the dam. You argue the shipping industry wants lower flows but then argue they want higher water. Guess what, those 2 things dont go together. With higher water come higher flows, they definitely dont want this.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

I did not argue that the shipping wants lower flows or higher water. Those are your words. When are you going to realize that major corporations don't tell the truth about their profits? What happened to your argument about the water flows could not reach 10,400?

[GAMBLER]

From what I gathered from the video you posted from the engineer living on LO, there is a minimum flow ("carve out") for shipping but not a maximum flow.  There is a maximum outflow (L limit) objective for shipping.  Clearly, as stated in that video, outflow was limited to protect Montreal over LO in April and May and to protect shipping since then.  Which, according to him, was in violation of provision H14.  He states that the flow should have been up to 500 m/s over L limit if I followed it correctly.  He had also recommended at least 300 m/s over.  Highest I believe I have seen is up to 200 m/s approved by IJC.  What am I missing here?   This is a fluids engineer who has stated that outflows could have been significantly higher but wasn't to protect against flooding in Montreal and also shipping thereafter, at the expense of LO.  By his calculation this added 1.5 feet to LO water levels.  I am not sure I understand the disagreement here.  

Like I have been saying all along. More could have been done. It would have minimized the flooding. Also more could have been done in the early fall but they continually dropped flow. Now we are sitting higher than last year at this time. Erie is also higher than last year at this time so that only
means more water coming in.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[iiwhistlerii]

52 minutes ago, GAMBLER said:

Like I have been saying all along. More could have been done. It would have minimized the flooding. Also more could have been done in the early fall but they continually dropped flow. Now we are sitting higher than last year at this time. Erie is also higher than last year at this time so that only
means more water coming in.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

More could have been done?.  In early fall?  God forbid they drop flows so lake st. Lawrence can level out and the people who have been begging for flow reductions to let the water reach the launches again can get there boat out of the water or use thier docks.  God forbid they lower flows just enough so residents along the river on Lake St. Lawrence can remove thier boats for the river and access their own docks for a few days.  I get it.  F everybody but us.  Current conditions on lake st. Lawrence below  Pics from today.  1 week of high flows and it's almost to absolute minimum.  The lowest anybody I've talked to can ever remember seeing it.   They are only doing this now because they know they will have to drop flows for ice formation eventually but they've sacrificed another area for ours.  Say thank you.  It's an extreme measure we should be thankful for and river residents are already losing thier minds about it.  Good chance water will be too low to launch there clear into next spring, no ice fishing in the bays there this year as they are bone dry.  We arent the only ones suffering.  

 

 

[iiwhistlerii]

 

 

https://www.newyorkupstate.com/weather/2019/05/is-plan-2014-getting-a-bad-rap-for-lake-ontario-flooding.html

 

You guys will love this one.  He must have gotten paid off by the ijc.  Probably works for the shipping industry.