Jump to content

Canadian PM Says He’s Glad Trump Couldn’t Read His Mind in Oval Office


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

I saw something months ago about Canada (I think it was even bipartisan) looking to establish export facilities on your east coast to greatly increase your ability to export petroleum products to Europe. Is that something that is likely to happen?

 

Not without a pipeline.

Posted
1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

So what the heck is Carney planning to do?

 

Everything he can to minimize the damage Trump is inflicting on Canada? And as his opposite number is unpredictable, without any long term plans, surrounded by lickspittles, on an obvious downward mental trajectory and seemingly confused about who signed the trade deal he now so opposes in the first place, he really has his work cut out for him.

Good luck Carney, I really wouldn't wanna be in your shoes.

  • Agree 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thumbs Down 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Everything he can to minimize the damage Trump is inflicting on Canada? And as his opposite number is unpredictable, without any long term plans, surrounded by lickspittles, on an obvious downward mental trajectory and seemingly confused about who signed the trade deal he now so opposes in the first place, he really has his work cut out for him.

Good luck Carney, I really wouldn't wanna be in your shoes.

 

Me neither. Trudeau made a total mess of Canada.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a great idea but difficult to do. The province of Quebec is very very pro "clean" energy and is reluctant to allow a pipeline through their territory.  Then there are the natives to pacify/bribe....


Another line to the west coast, to supply Asia, would be easier. Best of all would be to build refineries to turn our own crude oil into usable products, THEN ship them overseas. But the previous government stood in the way of all that for a decade. 


I have to confess that Carney has been a pleasant surprise up to now. I am a died in the wool Conservative and was dreading a continuation of the previous Trudeau government's policies. Fingers crossed...

Supposing Quebec and any native tribes could be brought onboard quickly what kind of time frame are we talking about  for the East Coast option? Surely, this is something that must have been discussed already.

  • Thumbs Down 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, flexomike said:

I was talking about you, do I need to draw a picture

You probably should as you're not very good with words.

  • Thumbs Down 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Supposing Quebec and any native tribes could be brought onboard quickly what kind of time frame are we talking about  for the East Coast option? Surely, this is something that must have been discussed already.

Minimum 10 years.  It is a LOOONG way from Alberta to the east coast. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Me neither. Trudeau made a total mess of Canada.

 

C'mon, will ya? It's not his fault he's a good looking guy who became the dream f*** of a woman who most likely hasn't had a good shag since before she got married, and who's husband, feeling cuckolded, lashed out at Canada since has the emotional maturity of a 5 y/o.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Love It 1
  • Thumbs Down 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

 

C'mon, will ya? It's not his fault he's a good looking guy who became the dream f*** of a woman who most likely hasn't had a good shag since before she got married, and who's husband, feeling cuckolded, lashed out at Canada since has the emotional maturity of a 5 y/o.

 

Because it's 2015.

Posted
11 hours ago, BLMFem said:

I saw something months ago about Canada (I think it was even bipartisan) looking to establish export facilities on your east coast to greatly increase your ability to export petroleum products to Europe. Is that something that is likely to happen?

 

Or Canadian ports to do rather well offloading those Chinese built container ships, then for the load to be trucked to railheads into the US. Won't avoid tariffs, but certainly avoids the barmy ship fees. Seattle will lose out, and it might finish off Tacoma as a viable port.

  • Agree 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Minimum 10 years.  It is a LOOONG way from Alberta to the east coast. 

Not so far to Hudson's Bay, and that's beginning to open up as a port, thanks to climate change.

  • Agree 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Not so far to Hudson's Bay, and that's beginning to open up as a port, thanks to climate change.

 

Climate change vs build a new pipeline that will cause more damage. Hmmmm

  • Thumbs Down 3
Posted
16 hours ago, xylophone said:

trump's head is an empty vessel, so Mark Carney would have found nothing in there!!!

Yes that why he was elected president , three (3) times .

And why he is a billionair , because his head is an empty vessel. 😄

 

  • Thumbs Down 3
Posted
8 hours ago, gargamon said:

Not so far to Hudson's Bay, and that's beginning to open up as a port, thanks to climate change.

I doubt that 300 metre long tankers and LNG carriers would ever be able to manoeuver into Hudson's Bay, regardless of the climate. Even if the shipping lane were marginally open in winter, the drift ice would make it unspeakable dangerous. 

Posted
4 hours ago, FlorC said:

Yes that why he was elected president , three (3) times .

And why he is a billionair , because his head is an empty vessel. 😄

 

Anyone that actually thinks he won three times is a sad example of an empty vessel.

  • Agree 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

I doubt that 300 metre long tankers and LNG carriers would ever be able to manoeuver into Hudson's Bay, regardless of the climate. Even if the shipping lane were marginally open in winter, the drift ice would make it unspeakable dangerous. 

A quick check on Google Earth tells me Hudson Bay is abt. 500 nm across and twice that longitudinally. That's more than enough water to shelter the entire world fleet of LNG carriers. GE isn't great at showing water depths but there seems to be water depth enough most places.

The presence of drift ice could complicate things but not to the extent that it wouldn't be doable. I'm not saying it could be a 365 days/year operation but IMO it could certainly be an option for Canada.

Posted
27 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

A quick check on Google Earth tells me Hudson Bay is abt. 500 nm across and twice that longitudinally. That's more than enough water to shelter the entire world fleet of LNG carriers. GE isn't great at showing water depths but there seems to be water depth enough most places.

The presence of drift ice could complicate things but not to the extent that it wouldn't be doable. I'm not saying it could be a 365 days/year operation but IMO it could certainly be an option for Canada.

You know, if it could be done, then I would say go for it. Hope you are right.  

 

Also, the crude needs to be processed and refined before shipping, and the biggest refineries in Canada are in the east.  So in the long run it may be easier to use existing ports/refineries and build a pipeline than to make a much shorter pipeline but need to build a new deepwater port facility.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...