Brought about by the Liberal party Federally (Bill C-48) to create Western infighting. It's working too so I'm assuming it was Gerald Butts idea and Justin just had to be told it was his idea. Divide & conquer the West from Ottawa.
Sask. comes out swinging against Bill C-48, saying tanker ban will 'alienate Western
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Are there any facts in play in this. . . I hesitate to use the word. . . debate?
Stuff like relative safety of larger and smaller tankers? Relative fuel efficiency per ton of cargo moved? Infrastructure costs?
Anything?
Saskatchewan is landlocked, and is the second largest oil producing province in Canada. Lots of Oil Tanker Rail Cars if that answers your question. The Bakken Play that lays under much of ND is also under much of Southern SK. The Oil Sands that are under Fort Mac are also under Mid-Western SK but are still undeveloped.
Brought to you by American agents provocateurs, probably, to prevent you from selling the oil that they get from you for half price to the Chinese for full price. They have the most to gain. The Feds gain nothing from your theory.
Barely navigable by war canoe (in the wet season) ... if you don't mind a lot of long portages.
Thank you. My knowledge of Saskatchewan geography is limited. Wisconsin is "landlocked" too, but seems to do a fair amount of trade by water.
Good questions. Here's more. Are Larger Tankers safer in Southern BC with lots of traffic than Northern BC with much less traffic? Are smaller tankers safer off the West Coast than off the East Coast? Why do Super-Tankers exist? Why are B-Trains (Truck/Tractor combo's) a 'Thing' when 20 years ago in Canada they didn't exist?
I presume they exist because they're more profitable. That's an argument with limits.
I'm not sure what road trains have to do with this, but I'm sure you have a point somewhere. I do hope it's something a bit more sensible than "bigger is necessarily and inevitably better."
No. Please Google a map of North America. No Ocean Going Tankers in Saskatchewan for the same reason they aren't in Montana and Utah. It's tough getting them over the mountains to the West, and Western Canada is a long ways from the Atlantic.
My Dad's from there and I've been there a lot. Not much tanker traffic but I did sail on a topsail schooner there once ... err .... or was the the laundry on the line in the back yard?
Fuel consumption vs commodity hauled. We haul RV's from NW Indiana to Dealerships in Western Canada. Other companies haul them one at a time. We build trucks that do more than that. This unit below does the work of two 1Ton Duelly Diesels but uses less fuel to do the job of two 1 Ton Duelly Diesels making it much more profitable to operate due to this efficiency. This Truck costs about the same to build as the purchase of two 1Ton Duelly Diesel trucks and operates with 1 driver and much less than double the fuel consumption of two 1Tons to do the same job. Are you seeing where I'm going with this?
Wisconsin's Borders are defined by Lake Michigan & Lake Superior & the Mississippi River. More of Wisconsin's borders are bound by waterways than aren't. How on Earth is Wisconsin Landlocked in your opinion?
Saskatchewan is in Green on the above map. It's about the same area as Texas but with less (zero) coastlines. Alberta is to the West of Saskatchewan with an equal amount of coastlines as Saskatchewan. No Seaway access like Wisconsin.
Sorry, I mistook the question for deprecating sarcasm. It's a bit surprising that someone as sharp as i mistakenly thought you were would honestly ask a question with such an obvious answer.
To answer your question, there is lots of activity in "Flatskatchewan" that supports the need and support for tankers, so indirectly...yes.
Last edited:
Good reason to have more than 1 road going into the interior from BC. We have food and energy, go ahead, start a siege.
OK, Inter Provincial Transport is a Federal Jurisdiction. The Fed's 'Should Have' enforced this but in turn sabotaged things and continue to do so. BC is obstructing Inter Provincial Transport (lets call this a wrong) and AB has put in place (but hasn't used) a law (Bill 12) to defend itself (and in turn also to defend SK interests). If used it would fall into the 'Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right' camp in my opinion. The BC Premiere (in my opinion) has admitted to this wrong with the immediate court claim against Bill 12 (that has never been used) because AB is setting itself up to potentially defend itself if needed against BC's obstructing Inter Provincial Transport because the Federal Gov't didn't do what they should have done....
Are you advocating retaliation for retaliation for BC's obstructing Inter Provincial Transportation which the Fed's should have stepped on immediately but didn't in order to divide Western Canada.....and further escalate things?
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act of 1867......In general terms, works declared by the Parliament of Canada to be "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" tend to be part of the national infrastructure.The Federal Gov't failed in its responsibility in order to create conflict in Western Canada and here we are now. I acknowledge that BC's in the wrong, and that if AB retaliates it would also be a wrong...and it all goes back to the Fed's not enforcing things (also a wrong) to create this situation. If BC wants to retaliate against a retaliation, shouldn't if be directed towards the current Fed Gov't (=The Federal Liberal Party) that created the situation for this mess to exist?
So, you are vaguely aware of the concept of navigable lakes and rivers?Wisconsin's Borders are defined by Lake Michigan & Lake Superior & the Mississippi River. More of Wisconsin's borders are bound by waterways than aren't. How on Earth is Wisconsin Landlocked in your opinion?
Saskatchewan is in Green on the above map. It's about the same area as Texas but with less (zero) coastlines. Alberta is to the West of Saskatchewan with an equal amount of coastlines as Saskatchewan. No Seaway access like Wisconsin.
Hey, we may be getting within shouting distance of common ground.
Here's another amazing fact. Did you know that several American (Missouri is a good example) do a pretty booming shipping trade on something called the Missouri-Mississippi, the longest river in the world?
There are a good number of other navigable rivers on the North American continent as well! Though apparently none of them are in Saskatchewan, which I now know thanks to Curious's ability to answer a simple question.
Though I would like to apologize for my shocking lack of familiarity with a not-shit province of a third-rate country. Unforgivable, really.
Go Riders.