Derek 2.0

No, we (like most other first world nations poach other nations personal) maintain standards that can’t be met by recruiting regular Joe/Janes off the street…….I’ve known personally, quite well, former RAAF P-3 Orion aircrew that made the switch (to crew our CP-140s) , likewise, during the 90s, New Zealand actively recruited Canadian and British naval engineers once we started retiring the last of our steamers…….The Australians are currently recruiting from American and Commonwealth navies, qualified submariners to make-up shortfalls and attrition losses to their mining industry. Simply put, in relation to this story, the RCAF can’t recruit qualified aircrew to fill postings in the training establishments off of Canadian streets.

That's probably not far off.......meanwhile due to the sequestration cuts, the United States is likely retiring early, a handful of ships that would be more than suitable interim replacements for our three current destroyers and the two supply ships.......all five of the ships are of the same age of the bulk of our fleet (early ~1990s), and on average 20+ years younger then the ships they would replace...

And in the news Not a surprise......As it stands, I don’t see how we won’t have a capability gap (No AORs and now DDGs) in the years ahead, so serious that the RCN won’t be able to deploy far beyond our shores without Allied support……Something we have been able to do since the Second World War.

It's been a common practice, since Confederation, for all three services.

Well there you go:

Exactly……

So you’d rather oil exported, from terminals along the St Lawrence, through waters inundated with icebergs, then the ice free West coast? Have these Earthquakes split the current Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that's been in service since the 1950s? You want to talk about the companies?How about TransCanada's record? Are you suggesting a leak in a West-East line wouldn't have a negative impact on aquifers? ~30% of Canadians rely on groundwater......

Certainly, are their concerns only valid with Northern Gateway (and Trans Mountain, Keystone xl etc) , but not Energy East? Also, with your linked data, ones’ to assume that you take TransCanada’s proposal at face value, but call into question the proposal put forth by Enbridge……..In essence, one company can be trusted, but another not so much…….Environmental and First Nations concerns are valid with one proposal, but not the other......Tarsands oil shipped around the world from East coasts ports is ok, but tar sands oil shipped through West coast ports is a bad thing....etc etc

Yet you suggested Energy East would be used for domestic consumption, even though environmental groups say different…….Appears a major discrepancy in your claimed knowledge. None the less, TransCanada isn’t suggesting exports shouldn’t go West (or South)……

Yes, and that's because of the taxes in the Lower Mainland........what was your point again?

No, you suggested banning trolls.

No, TransCanada........there already is a TCPL......homework? Really? Oh yeah What were you saying about homework?

So why is a West-East line better? Why can't both be built? And to add, in the post I quoted, you stated: So what company is proposing Energy East?

I think a one-eyed monkey would do better…….

The TCPL was finished in the 1950s....Are you referring to Energy East? Maybe you’d best do your homework before you post.... None the less, when did pipelines become a zero-sum game?

I’m certain if it made economic sense you’d have companies proposing just that……..Would you rather crude transported in rail or pipeline?

Are you suggesting transporting crude, to tanker terminals, via rail would be safer? 2 tankers each day? The proposals submitted have indicated 220 annual roundtrips…..365/220=? And what evidence do you have that transit times through the narrows won’t be staggered? As to the current level of commercial traffic, I have no idea, you said the increase will be “huge”…….So do you have data demonstrating this to be so?

Define huge........What is the current annual traffic, and what is the proposed increase? And what do Enbridge Pipeline incidents have to due with proposed tanker traffic, coupled with the current safety record of shipping in the area?

I've already read it.....so how many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago? By what percent will shipping increase over today’s current levels, with the proposed Northern Gateway?

How many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago?

How have the Petrochemical tankers managed for nearly three decades without incident?

I think you need to read the findings of the Queen of the North inquiry……knowing or not knowing the channel had nothing to do with it…….As to rough weather, so rough that the accompanying tugs couldn’t control the tanker, that’s simple, the tankers won’t operate through the channel in those conditions…..seems simple enough.

Care to prove the provided distances are wrong? Did the Queen of the North have a pilot aboard and tugs alongside?

I can read a map......so are you suggesting the provided info is wrong? And what of the Queen of the North? Methanol has been shipped through this very channel for nearly 30 years without incident, yet you point to a negligent BC Ferry bridge crew as evidence that the proposal isn’t safe?

The links provided are to the Municipality of Kitimat.......are you suggesting some form of discrepancy in the distances provided?