On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> water gets none.
> >>
> >
> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
>
> Shatner thinks so.
>
> Seattle may differ.

I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.

--

sf

On 24/05/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
No we are NOT!
Graham

--

On 5/24/2015 3:55 PM, graham wrote:
> On 24/05/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>> water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shatner thinks so.
>>>
>>> Seattle may differ.
>>
>> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>>
> No we are NOT!
> Graham
>
Oh come on, we'll trade you a Keystone XL approval for some water...

On 5/24/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
One fly in that ointment, we've already got water bottlers in line ahead
exporting some of that water.

And Canada told us once to go pound sand.

There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
no kidding.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:24:58 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
> no kidding.

All that was "floated" during the last big one 40 years ago.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 4:47 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:24:58 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
>> no kidding.
>
> All that was "floated" during the last big one 40 years ago.
>
Lol.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...chemes/243364/

Every few years for the past couple centuries, even before the
large-scale cultivation of marijuana, this idea occurs to someone: What
if we towed an iceberg from the poles, where there are no people, to
some dry, populous place and then melted it into freshwater?

In some cases, that person has ginned up a company to try to make it
happen. In others, they've written reports for the RAND Corporation or
turned the idea into the basis for a thriller mass market paperback.

Long-distance iceberg towing is one of those ideas that will not die but
never really springs to life either. It exists in a kind of
technological purgatory, dressed up in whatever technology is
fashionable during an epoch and resold to a happily gullible media.

This happened again this week when Georges Mougin told the world that
newfangled computer models just happened to confirm what he'd long
thought: that icebergs could be transported economically to Africa.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>> >> water gets none.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.


How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/24/2015 8:04 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>> water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shatner thinks so.
>>>
>>> Seattle may differ.
>>
>> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
>
> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?

With a real fine straw, you ****ing ASSHOLE!

On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> >> water gets none.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >>
> >>
> >> Shatner thinks so.
> >>
> >> Seattle may differ.
> >
> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
>
> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>
The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of
>> >> >> pipelines,
>> >> >> water gets none.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Shatner thinks so.
>> >>
>> >> Seattle may differ.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>>
>>
>> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>>
> The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

As in room and board?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com