Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[Kirkhill]

No, ‘our side’ is crystal clear. Duty to consult is borne by the ‘crown’, full stop. That’s the federal or provincial executives due to our system of ‘responsible government’ where those executives act on the crown’s behalf. Formally through the GG/LGs. None of the rest of your list has any constitutional responsibility. That does not mean that any of those others may not feel political pressure if they have institutionally in ways that are held to run counter to the spirit of reconciliation, but that’s not a constitutional duty to consult issue. While the extent of duty to consult remains debated, who bears the duty is not.

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.

Depth in the channel / Burrard inlet is an issue. They haven’t been able to bring out fully loaded Aframaxes, however dredging was approved earlier this year that should allow that. But that’s about as good as the existing terminal will get. VLCC necessitates an ocean terminal.

What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

 

[brihard]

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.

I can’t guess as to where you went astray, but this has been settled for a long time. Lots of ink has been put to paper by the Supreme Court on this.

What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

They’re fine. Haro Strait and Boundary Pass are both a couple hundred meters deep. It’s all glacially carved fjords. And of course the main wider pass west of the islands has lots to work with.

I’m not sure what the depth is like just offshore of Tsawassen. Presumably this has all been assessed already by project proponents

 

[daftandbarmy]

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.



What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

Given enough tugs and pilots, just about anything - as I understand it from the pilots. There are far busier waterways around the world that do just fine.

As always the main issue with these big infrastructure decisions is seldom the hard infrastructure, but all the enablers that facilitate their operation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Given enough tugs and pilots, just about anything - as I understand it from the pilots. There are far busier waterways around the world that do just fine.

As always the main issue with these big infrastructure decisions is seldom the hard infrastructure, but all the enablers that facilitate their operation.

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

I’ve been in the Straits of Malacca and I have been in Haro Strait.

It is about like comparing a Costco Parking lot on a Pre Christmas Saturday to the parking lot of your local Anglican Church on a random tuesday morning…

 

[brihard]

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

Yeah I don’t think anyone’s making an argument that volume of traffic will be an issue.

Say TM3 runs the planned 1m BPD. That’s half a VLCC per day. The port could likely be served by a Suezmax per day- that size vessel can do trans-oceanic runs no problem, and it probably offers more versatility on where it can go on the other end of the trip.

So yeah, a ship every day or two? No issue in terms of traffic volume. Obviously they’ll need excellent pilotage, and I imagine attending tugs with huge speakers playing “Move, bitch, get out the way”… But physical ship traffic will not, I think, be a constraint.

 

[YZT580]

No, ‘our side’ is crystal clear. Duty to consult is borne by the ‘crown’, full stop. That’s the federal or provincial executives due to our system of ‘responsible government’ where those executives act on the crown’s behalf. Formally through the GG/LGs. None of the rest of your list has any constitutional responsibility. That does not mean that any of those others may not feel political pressure if they have institutionally in ways that are held to run counter to the spirit of reconciliation, but that’s not a constitutional duty to consult issue. While the extent of duty to consult remains debated, who bears the duty is not.



Depth in the channel / Burrard inlet is an issue. They haven’t been able to bring out fully loaded Aframaxes, however dredging was approved earlier this year that should allow that. But that’s about as good as the existing terminal will get. VLCC necessitates an ocean terminal.

so theoretically they could construct a terminal off of the coast from Kitimat clear of the inner channel and meet the letter of the law re: no VLCCs provided they could get the first nations to sign on or the feds. to consult and do it anyways? Not intended to stir the pot just wondering if there is a large tanker option