"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, [and] prepared an ark." --Hebrews 11:7 Are we living again in the days of Noah--when another flood will suddenly burst upon the world with terrifying devastation? Anthony Ho believes so. This time, however, the flood will be economic. God is soon going to judge the global economies, writes Pastor Ho, and the results will be, as in Noah's day, swift and catastrophic. An engineer and scientist, Pastor Ho uses a reasoned approach--describing personal visions from God that he corroborates with scientific data and Bible prophecy--to show why the collapse is imminent. He will tell you how to prepare spiritually for the flood, much like Noah did by building an ark. And he will show you ways that we, as Christians living amid the crisis, can point people to their only hope: Jesus.

Intuitively, geologic and geometric effects on torque and drag should be significant. But literature suggests otherwise. Lesage et al. (1988) wrote that friction coefficients are not affected by lithology and hole angle, among other things. And if friction coefficients are similar for all of these factors, then only inclination, azimuth, and pipe specifications affect torque and drag. My thesis looks to test this statement using Johancsik’s torque and drag model and data provided by our sponsors. Johancsik’s model was chosen to test these effects because it is the most widely used torque and drag model in industry. Johancsik’s model also only relies on surface data in order to conduct an analysis. This contributes to the widespread use of Johancsik’s model and therefore increases the applicability of this paper. Once Johancsik’s model was chosen, it became natural to choose the minimum curvature method to interpolate the wellbore trajectory because Johancsik’s model was designed using the minimum-curvature method. Also, the minimum curvature method is the most widely used wellbore-interpolation method in industry. By using the minimum curvature method, this paper increases its applicability to industry. The analyses were conducted by examining the friction coefficients of each individual formation and lithology and geometric section. Friction factors encompass all factors that are not explicitly captured by the model and any factors affecting torque and drag that are not in the model will be captured by the friction factors. This study found lithology effects to affect drag consistently, though more data is needed. Drag friction factors were consistent by lithology, though they did appeared less predictable in Dataset 1 than the Datasets 2 and 3. Lithology affected torque less consistently than it did drag, though again more data is needed. Again, the results from Dataset 1 appeared to differ from Datasets 2 and 3. Further analyses are needed to conclude if this is caused by factors unrelated to lithology or individual geologies. The geometric effects of curved versus straight sections appear to not affect torque and drag. The results from the curved sections from the analyses have little relation to each other. As for more specific geometries, more analyses are needed before conclusions can be reached.

There has been a steady growth in Canadian scholarship and advocacy regarding sustainability-based approaches to environmental assessments (“EA”). However, to what extent and in what circumstances would a sustainability-based EA inevitably confront some of the same conceptual and technical challenges that bedevil more traditional EA models? In this paper, we consider and critique the capability of a sustainability-based EA to consider the specific issue of a project's climate change impacts from its greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Using the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project as a case study, we compare and contrast the current EA regime and the sustainability-based EA regime first proposed by Gibson. We found that, while adoption of a sustainability-based framework would be a distinct improvement upon the current regime in certain areas (such as more stringent trade-off rules for justifying significant adverse effects), it would still be forced to grapple with many of the same vexing problems and issues that have undermined the efficacy of the current regime. In particular, our analysis suggests that, on the complex and global issue of climate change, project level EAs alone (whether they include sustainability criteria) may not be an effective tool in making sure that industrial developments help, not hinder, Canada's capability to meet its commitment to reduce GHG emissions. Any reform to the federal EA regime that tries to incorporate the sustainability framework must be attentive to the weaknesses within that framework in addressing the complex and global phenomenon of climate change. Accordingly, such reforms must also be part of a more comprehensive effort to design a GHG reduction regime that can provide concrete GHG benchmarks for project EAs.