CanucksCorner.com Forums

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 7:58 am They seem to think they can leverage the rail and infrastructure link to the west coast for mutually beneficial trade agreements.

It's asinine.

I swear this is all foreign interference just like the anti Canadian oil movement coming out of BC that was all funded indirectly from the US oil industry. It's dirty pool

Canada has about $25billion a year in equalization. Alberta funds $15 to $20billion. I think they would be able to afford a few bad trade deals and still be as well off as they are now.

Thanks for the summary Tops. I didn't know about the supreme Court ruling.

So the obstacle to an energy east pipe is purely political? What about running it to Sarnia? At least they can support existing Canadian refinement infrastructure and also avoid the quebs

Tciso wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 8:39 am

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 7:58 am They seem to think they can leverage the rail and infrastructure link to the west coast for mutually beneficial trade agreements.

It's asinine.

I swear this is all foreign interference just like the anti Canadian oil movement coming out of BC that was all funded indirectly from the US oil industry. It's dirty pool

Canada has about $25billion a year in equalization. Alberta funds $15 to $20billion. I think they would be able to afford a few bad trade deals and still be as well off as they are now.

The equalization debate has thrown about conflicting facts that are confusing to interpret. Will there be a bill for their share of the national debt? How many revenue sources for that surplus will get out of the new Republic for the stability of Canada? Will Canada still be considered stable after splitting?

At the end of the day, they only have 25% popular support for this anyway so its all going to be filed under the trash folder to be studied by future generations like the Quebec separatists movement

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 8:43 am Thanks for the summary Tops. I didn't know about the supreme Court ruling.

So the obstacle to an energy east pipe is purely political? What about running it to Sarnia? At least they can support existing Canadian refinement infrastructure and also avoid the quebs

The limit may be the size of ships that can transit the St Lawrence Seaway to feed export traffic.

It may be why Manitoba is pushing Churchill. That would require ice breakers though and not to mention the natural shallowing of Hudson's Bay.

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 8:48 am

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 8:43 am Thanks for the summary Tops. I didn't know about the supreme Court ruling.

So the obstacle to an energy east pipe is purely political? What about running it to Sarnia? At least they can support existing Canadian refinement infrastructure and also avoid the quebs

The limit may be the size of ships that can transit the St Lawrence Seaway to feed export traffic.

It may be why Manitoba is pushing Churchill. That would require ice breakers though and not to mention the natural shallowing of Hudson's Bay.

The St Lawrence can only handle small tankers ( still freaking huge ). I can't find exact volumes , but probably about 200,000 barrels. They can't go bigger because of the lock sizes. Churchill can handle Panamax size, about 500,000 barrels. I don't know how much bigger it can handle with expansion.

The big monsters can do up to 3.7 million barrels, and only cost 3x as much. Size matters a lot for shipping costs. Vancouver handes 750,000 barrel tankers. Kitimat can go over 1 million barrels, and possibly larger with expansion.

Sorry if my numbers are a bit off. The interweeb likes to mix up barrels, cubic meters and tons, just like journalists.

and the St Lawrence ships are purpose built for those lock dimensions, not exactly the most sea worthy design as correctly Lightfoot note.

Hudson's Bay is getting shallower by roughly 1m/100yrs and the coastline further from its current location. Climate alarmist may have that rate higher.

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 11:53 am and the St Lawrence ships are purpose built for those lock dimensions, not exactly the most sea worthy design as correctly Lightfoot note.

Hudson's Bay is getting shallower by roughly 1m/100yrs and the coastline further from its current location. Climate alarmist may have that rate higher.

Actually, ”climate alarmists” are concerned about rising sea levels. That would actually reduce this problem.

Sweden is also rising roughly 1 cm out of the sea per year, so the more optimistic climate change scenarios make it pretty much a zero sum game for us. The more pessimistic forecasts have the sea level rise five meters or more over the next century.

So that’s probably good news for the prospects of Hudson Bay shipping.

Per wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 1:09 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 11:53 am and the St Lawrence ships are purpose built for those lock dimensions, not exactly the most sea worthy design as correctly Lightfoot note.

Hudson's Bay is getting shallower by roughly 1m/100yrs and the coastline further from its current location. Climate alarmist may have that rate higher.

Actually, ”climate alarmists” are concerned about rising sea levels. That would actually reduce this problem.

Sweden is also rising roughly 1 cm out of the sea per year, so the more optimistic climate change scenarios make it pretty much a zero sum game for us. The more pessimistic forecasts have the sea level rise five meters or more over the next century.

So that’s probably good news for the prospects of Hudson Bay shipping.

Hudson's Bay is in isostatic rebound from the melting of Arctic ice. The ground is rising faster than sea level.

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 3:22 pm

Per wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 1:09 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 11:53 am and the St Lawrence ships are purpose built for those lock dimensions, not exactly the most sea worthy design as correctly Lightfoot note.

Hudson's Bay is getting shallower by roughly 1m/100yrs and the coastline further from its current location. Climate alarmist may have that rate higher.

Actually, ”climate alarmists” are concerned about rising sea levels. That would actually reduce this problem.

Sweden is also rising roughly 1 cm out of the sea per year, so the more optimistic climate change scenarios make it pretty much a zero sum game for us. The more pessimistic forecasts have the sea level rise five meters or more over the next century.

So that’s probably good news for the prospects of Hudson Bay shipping.

Hudson's Bay is in isostatic rebound from the melting of Arctic ice. The ground is rising faster than sea level.

Yes, just like Sweden. At present.

But if all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melts, the sea levels will rise 60 meters.
Now, that will not happen over night, it will take centuries, but if ten percent of that ice melts within the next century, sea levels will rise 6 meters, but the Hudson Bay area will only rise 1 meter, so sea levels would rise by five meters there as well.

Now, neither you nor I will be around to see that happen, but with the rapid reduction of Greenland ice over the last few years, the melting seems to be picking up speed, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see sea levels rising faster than the isostatic rebound within a decade or two, which we hopefully may be around to witness.

Btw, Swedish scientists noted the isostatic rebound in the 17th century, but they did not understand what it was. They did not understand that the ground was rising; they figured the water was retreating. So someone came up with the idea that there must be a hole at the bottom of the Baltic and that the water was being drained out of it.

Are you really trying explain isostatic rebound to me?

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 6:34 pm Are you really trying explain isostatic rebound to me?

Can someone teach it to Boeser? I didn't see him pot a rebound all season. Isostatic, or any other kind,

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 6:34 pm Are you really trying explain isostatic rebound to me?

Wow.

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 6:34 pm Are you really trying explain isostatic rebound to me?

Topper wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 6:34 pm Are you really trying explain isostatic rebound to me?

No, I was just saying that the sea level rise may soon be greater than the rebound.