I reviewed waterflows for Site C, the major impact is during filling, which has already happened. Technically it is "run of the river" and cannot hold back a significant amount of water. It will change sequence of water flows as it now regulates the Moresby and Halfway Rivers. Predications for the effects at the water survey station near the confluence of the Peace are very minimal. But I placed a condition that BC Hydro confirms those predication on 5 and 10 years as I recall.
Let it be known im not trying to blame Site C for all the issues lol. Merely mentioning its now existence. I honestly forgot you did work on Site C, I know you've mentioned it to me before. You think that's something cool I would remember 🤣
To be fair it is a timely article. Every Province except Ontario (frigging slackers) have invested a fair bit in their northern territories. As a country we need to make some of these major infrastructure project happen. Beside roads and rail, I want to see a proper port at every major community in the Arctic and better connectivity as well. Along with a plan to improve airports up there.
I think another piece of the equation that doesn’t get enough discussion is the reduction of industrial and resource activity in the North. A lot of the roads and infrastructure we have came first from the fur trade, and then lots from mining and mining exploration. We’ve made policy choices to restrict this activity in the North, which is a national decision, but we haven’t discussed how much the rest of the North relied on this infrastructure. If we don’t want big corporations active here, who’s replacing their investment?
I wonder how many of the existing mines up north could be repurposed should they contain critical minerals that are quickly becoming a western priority? Is there possible deposits near by where existing infrastructure could be redirected for continued investment? Not sure just asking if this could be a feasible solution?
Perhaps the Federal Government should step in and make not only the existing line but a future extention of it a national defense priority paying not the total costs but atleast covering any losses from lack of use for the Rail company. Meaning if it gets used more and generates more profit then it costs the Government less and vise versa. Also to advance shipping capability in the North also a national priority the Federal Government should perhaps study and if possible implement dredging and enhancing the ports in these critical areas which could potentially increase the available time barges could access these areas. If the Panama canal can be constructed through an entire Country for commerce surely something could be done about extending the times barges can access the Northern ports. It simply takes political will and money which I'm sure could be worked into the 1.5 percent for infrastructure even if that meant building a civilian/ military supply type infrastructure / outpost to justify it.
Another great read! I was reminded of your post back in May about rail banking and now see the connection. I feel enlightened, but also disappointed... c'est la vie I guess?
Do you have any experience with writing MPs about matters like this? Does it really ever inspire change?
I reviewed waterflows for Site C, the major impact is during filling, which has already happened. Technically it is "run of the river" and cannot hold back a significant amount of water. It will change sequence of water flows as it now regulates the Moresby and Halfway Rivers. Predications for the effects at the water survey station near the confluence of the Peace are very minimal. But I placed a condition that BC Hydro confirms those predication on 5 and 10 years as I recall.
Let it be known im not trying to blame Site C for all the issues lol. Merely mentioning its now existence. I honestly forgot you did work on Site C, I know you've mentioned it to me before. You think that's something cool I would remember 🤣
To be fair it is a timely article. Every Province except Ontario (frigging slackers) have invested a fair bit in their northern territories. As a country we need to make some of these major infrastructure project happen. Beside roads and rail, I want to see a proper port at every major community in the Arctic and better connectivity as well. Along with a plan to improve airports up there.
LOL, we don't expect you to remember everything about every random dude on the internet :)
Thanks for your rant, almost as entertaining as Rick Mercer.
Seriously though, thanks for raising awareness of this important topic!
Yo. If this is your definition of 'short article', I don't know how long would it be when you make that long article.
My usual long articles are 3500+ words lol. Yesterday's was almost 4000? This is ~2500, so upper end of my short ones.
Awesome take on things. Please keep these coming.
I think another piece of the equation that doesn’t get enough discussion is the reduction of industrial and resource activity in the North. A lot of the roads and infrastructure we have came first from the fur trade, and then lots from mining and mining exploration. We’ve made policy choices to restrict this activity in the North, which is a national decision, but we haven’t discussed how much the rest of the North relied on this infrastructure. If we don’t want big corporations active here, who’s replacing their investment?
I wonder how many of the existing mines up north could be repurposed should they contain critical minerals that are quickly becoming a western priority? Is there possible deposits near by where existing infrastructure could be redirected for continued investment? Not sure just asking if this could be a feasible solution?
Perhaps the Federal Government should step in and make not only the existing line but a future extention of it a national defense priority paying not the total costs but atleast covering any losses from lack of use for the Rail company. Meaning if it gets used more and generates more profit then it costs the Government less and vise versa. Also to advance shipping capability in the North also a national priority the Federal Government should perhaps study and if possible implement dredging and enhancing the ports in these critical areas which could potentially increase the available time barges could access these areas. If the Panama canal can be constructed through an entire Country for commerce surely something could be done about extending the times barges can access the Northern ports. It simply takes political will and money which I'm sure could be worked into the 1.5 percent for infrastructure even if that meant building a civilian/ military supply type infrastructure / outpost to justify it.
Another great read! I was reminded of your post back in May about rail banking and now see the connection. I feel enlightened, but also disappointed... c'est la vie I guess?
Do you have any experience with writing MPs about matters like this? Does it really ever inspire change?