Political Parties in Canada seem to have avoided the subject, yet today Private Industry is making inroads and have actually set in motion cruises to many of the north-west passage routes in the Canadian Artic. Major cruise lines also see this area as a revenue generator as prior routes have reached the saturation point.
The Canadian Government must come on board as the infrastructure is sorely inadequate to meet the demands forthcoming.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Friday, June 28, 2013
Update: June, 2013
Be part of a Liberal discussion.
Now is the time, to open our James/Hudson Bay area to International shipping. Ports capable of transporting Oil/Wheat and Tourism to all of our Northern frontiers. Finally, a requirement to provide meaningful employment to individuals without having them leave their ancestral grounds.
Now is the time, to open our James/Hudson Bay area to International shipping. Ports capable of transporting Oil/Wheat and Tourism to all of our Northern frontiers. Finally, a requirement to provide meaningful employment to individuals without having them leave their ancestral grounds.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Current Status - February 12, 2013
Still no update from Government sources,
HOWEVER,
With the Liberal Party of Canada being embroiled in a leadership campaign;
Have posed questions to major candidates, and still no response or even an acknowledgement: This is rather disturbing!
What can one assume?
The Canadian Federal Government has already agreed to some other role for the Hudson Bay, James Bay area that precludes the use of this area to port facilities?
With whom would this be?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Current Status. - October 20th, 2012
Suppose the only way to have it addressed is thru a email campaign waged by citizens that see some value.
Every e-mail sent out and forwarded to others can affect the votes of a Political representative.
An answer should be provided by those that want our votes, otherwise we feel that Citizens of Canada are not recognized.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Current Status - May 22. 2012
This has gone nowhere with the current Conservative Federal Government.
Although warranted and reported by MPP`s it is a dead issue at the present time.
Although warranted and reported by MPP`s it is a dead issue at the present time.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Ocean Port Comparisons
The following is a press release regarding Ocean Port activity at New York. Several points should be reviewed for comparison to what a port in James Bay could provide even if it were at a much smaller scale.
1. Volumes
2. Rail Traffic
3. Capital Investment
4. Jobs, jobs, jobs
5. Cargo Trading Partners
6. Long term Financial Requirements
7. Government commitment
With China & India as prime trading partners for the New York Port, it can be seen that James Bay would provide a good option to compete. It is far less in distance and round trip times would be far less in duration.
International cargo volumes in the Port of New York and New Jersey hit record levels in 2006.
Containerized cargo volumes in the Port of New York and New Jersey rose nearly 8 percent in 2006 to a new record high, led by continued growth in trade with the Far East, North Europe and Southeast Asia. The dollar value of all cargo moving through the port in 2006 exceeded $149 billion for the first time, up 13 percent from 2005. The number of loaded and empty TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) handled in the port exceeded 5 million for the first time.
ExpressRail, the Port Authority’s on-dock rail terminals in New Jersey, set a new record in 2006, handling 338,882 containers, 11.8 percent more than in 2005.
In the next 10 years, nearly $2 billion in infrastructure upgrades are planned for marine terminal facilities and for off-port roads and railways to improve the flow of cargo.
New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine said, “Our cargo volumes are at an all-time high, and projections for future port growth are extremely promising. However, for this growth to continue, we must act now, not later, to make necessary long-term investments to ensure that this port remains the East Coast’s leading destination for international shippers. I’m pleased that the Port Authority has allocated $2 billion over 10 years to help the port maintain its lofty stature in the maritime community.”
Chairman Coscia said, “During the past 10 years, our cargo volume has doubled and our rail volume has nearly tripled. The dramatic increases require us to take immediate steps to ensure that our port continues to grow and prosper. We’ve made a substantial $2 billion commitment to the port that not only will allow larger ships to call on port terminals, but will enhance the flow of cargo on and off the port. These investments will ensure that the port remains a leading generator of jobs and economic activity.”
Port Authority Executive Director Anthony E. Shorris said, “More port cargo is good for jobs and the economy, and it’s also good news for the region’s 80 million consumers. More than 230,000 people now make their living in port and port-related jobs like trucking and distribution, and the numbers we see today bode well for future growth. What’s more, an increase in cargo coming to this port means reduced shipping costs for goods like clothing, furniture and beverages and, ultimately, lower prices at the cash register.”
Port Authority Port Commerce Director Richard M. Larrabee said that in 2006, the total container volume (loaded and empty) handled in the Port of New York and New Jersey was 5,092,806 TEUs, a 6.4 percent increase over the 2005 total of 4,785,318 TEUs and a new annual record. The total value of all cargo handled in 2006 – more than $149 billion – surpassed the previous record of $132 billion, Mr. Larrabee said.
“Our new $2 billion, 10-year capital plan will prepare the port to meet the projected cargo demand in a way that protects the environment and quality of life of those who work at the port and live in nearby communities,” Mr. Larrabee said. “Our rail enhancement investments will provide an alternative to trucks, thereby reducing congestion and associated air emissions. The volume we now handle at our ExpressRail facilities will eliminate more than 500,000 truck trips from state and local roads. Our roadway improvement program will not only reduce congestion and its associated air emissions, but also will increase traffic safety.
“These investments, combined with those of our private terminal operators, underscore our commitment to meet our environmental responsibilities while accommodating future cargo growth,” Mr. Larrabee said.
The Port Import-Export Reporting System (PIERS) reported that loaded TEUs in 2006 totaled 3,650,926, a 7.9 percent increase over the 3,385,003 loaded TEUs handled in the port in 2005. Loaded imports and exports totaled 2,599,554 and 1,051,372 TEUs respectively.
The port’s total general cargo volume, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, increased to 31,194,421 metric tons in 2006, compared with 28,132,497 metric tons in 2005. General cargo imports totaled 22,126,272 metric tons, a 9.3 percent increase over the 2005 import volume of 20,236,519 metric tons. General cargo exports also increased, by 14.8 percent, from 7,895,978 metric tons in 2005 to 9,068,149 metric tons in 2006.
Total bulk cargo was down 2.9 percent to 54,968,141 metric tons in 2006, compared to 56,621,526 metric tons in 2005. Total bulk cargo imports decreased from 53,449,638 metric tons in 2005 to 49,168,042 metric tons in 2006. Total bulk cargo exports increased by 83 percent, from 3,171,888 in 2005 to 5,800,099 metric tons in 2006. The changes in bulk cargo imports and exports were due primarily to refined petroleum products. Total cargo volume by weight (bulk and general cargo combined) grew by 1.7 percent, from 84,754,023 metric tons in 2005 to 86,162,562 metric tons in 2006.
The number of vehicles handled, including small trucks, vans, SUVs and other personal vehicles, was 852,297, up 18 percent for the year. Imports increased to 690,636 in 2006 from 578,694 in 2005. Exports increased to 161,661 in 2006 from 143,717 in 2005.
Other 2006 trade highlights include:
The top five containerized import commodities by volume were furniture, paper and paperboard, beer and ale, general cargo, and women and children’s clothing.
The top five containerized export commodities by volume were paper and paperboard, automobiles, auto parts, general cargo and mixed metal scrap.
Imported containerized commodities showing major growth by volume were general cargo, beer and ale, apparel, paper and paperboard, and sheets, towels and blankets.
Exported containerized commodities showing major growth by volume were auto parts, plastic products, synthetic resins and plastics, machinery and automobiles.
The top five trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, Italy, India, Germany and Brazil.
Top import trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, Italy, Germany, India and Brazil.
Top export trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, India, Japan, United Kingdom and South Korea.
There were 5,577 ship calls in the Port of New York and New Jersey in 2006, compared to 5,322 in 2005.
The Port Authority is financially self-supporting and receives no tax revenue from either state.
1. Volumes
2. Rail Traffic
3. Capital Investment
4. Jobs, jobs, jobs
5. Cargo Trading Partners
6. Long term Financial Requirements
7. Government commitment
With China & India as prime trading partners for the New York Port, it can be seen that James Bay would provide a good option to compete. It is far less in distance and round trip times would be far less in duration.
International cargo volumes in the Port of New York and New Jersey hit record levels in 2006.
Containerized cargo volumes in the Port of New York and New Jersey rose nearly 8 percent in 2006 to a new record high, led by continued growth in trade with the Far East, North Europe and Southeast Asia. The dollar value of all cargo moving through the port in 2006 exceeded $149 billion for the first time, up 13 percent from 2005. The number of loaded and empty TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) handled in the port exceeded 5 million for the first time.
ExpressRail, the Port Authority’s on-dock rail terminals in New Jersey, set a new record in 2006, handling 338,882 containers, 11.8 percent more than in 2005.
In the next 10 years, nearly $2 billion in infrastructure upgrades are planned for marine terminal facilities and for off-port roads and railways to improve the flow of cargo.
New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine said, “Our cargo volumes are at an all-time high, and projections for future port growth are extremely promising. However, for this growth to continue, we must act now, not later, to make necessary long-term investments to ensure that this port remains the East Coast’s leading destination for international shippers. I’m pleased that the Port Authority has allocated $2 billion over 10 years to help the port maintain its lofty stature in the maritime community.”
Chairman Coscia said, “During the past 10 years, our cargo volume has doubled and our rail volume has nearly tripled. The dramatic increases require us to take immediate steps to ensure that our port continues to grow and prosper. We’ve made a substantial $2 billion commitment to the port that not only will allow larger ships to call on port terminals, but will enhance the flow of cargo on and off the port. These investments will ensure that the port remains a leading generator of jobs and economic activity.”
Port Authority Executive Director Anthony E. Shorris said, “More port cargo is good for jobs and the economy, and it’s also good news for the region’s 80 million consumers. More than 230,000 people now make their living in port and port-related jobs like trucking and distribution, and the numbers we see today bode well for future growth. What’s more, an increase in cargo coming to this port means reduced shipping costs for goods like clothing, furniture and beverages and, ultimately, lower prices at the cash register.”
Port Authority Port Commerce Director Richard M. Larrabee said that in 2006, the total container volume (loaded and empty) handled in the Port of New York and New Jersey was 5,092,806 TEUs, a 6.4 percent increase over the 2005 total of 4,785,318 TEUs and a new annual record. The total value of all cargo handled in 2006 – more than $149 billion – surpassed the previous record of $132 billion, Mr. Larrabee said.
“Our new $2 billion, 10-year capital plan will prepare the port to meet the projected cargo demand in a way that protects the environment and quality of life of those who work at the port and live in nearby communities,” Mr. Larrabee said. “Our rail enhancement investments will provide an alternative to trucks, thereby reducing congestion and associated air emissions. The volume we now handle at our ExpressRail facilities will eliminate more than 500,000 truck trips from state and local roads. Our roadway improvement program will not only reduce congestion and its associated air emissions, but also will increase traffic safety.
“These investments, combined with those of our private terminal operators, underscore our commitment to meet our environmental responsibilities while accommodating future cargo growth,” Mr. Larrabee said.
The Port Import-Export Reporting System (PIERS) reported that loaded TEUs in 2006 totaled 3,650,926, a 7.9 percent increase over the 3,385,003 loaded TEUs handled in the port in 2005. Loaded imports and exports totaled 2,599,554 and 1,051,372 TEUs respectively.
The port’s total general cargo volume, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, increased to 31,194,421 metric tons in 2006, compared with 28,132,497 metric tons in 2005. General cargo imports totaled 22,126,272 metric tons, a 9.3 percent increase over the 2005 import volume of 20,236,519 metric tons. General cargo exports also increased, by 14.8 percent, from 7,895,978 metric tons in 2005 to 9,068,149 metric tons in 2006.
Total bulk cargo was down 2.9 percent to 54,968,141 metric tons in 2006, compared to 56,621,526 metric tons in 2005. Total bulk cargo imports decreased from 53,449,638 metric tons in 2005 to 49,168,042 metric tons in 2006. Total bulk cargo exports increased by 83 percent, from 3,171,888 in 2005 to 5,800,099 metric tons in 2006. The changes in bulk cargo imports and exports were due primarily to refined petroleum products. Total cargo volume by weight (bulk and general cargo combined) grew by 1.7 percent, from 84,754,023 metric tons in 2005 to 86,162,562 metric tons in 2006.
The number of vehicles handled, including small trucks, vans, SUVs and other personal vehicles, was 852,297, up 18 percent for the year. Imports increased to 690,636 in 2006 from 578,694 in 2005. Exports increased to 161,661 in 2006 from 143,717 in 2005.
Other 2006 trade highlights include:
The top five containerized import commodities by volume were furniture, paper and paperboard, beer and ale, general cargo, and women and children’s clothing.
The top five containerized export commodities by volume were paper and paperboard, automobiles, auto parts, general cargo and mixed metal scrap.
Imported containerized commodities showing major growth by volume were general cargo, beer and ale, apparel, paper and paperboard, and sheets, towels and blankets.
Exported containerized commodities showing major growth by volume were auto parts, plastic products, synthetic resins and plastics, machinery and automobiles.
The top five trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, Italy, India, Germany and Brazil.
Top import trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, Italy, Germany, India and Brazil.
Top export trading partners in general cargo tonnage were China, India, Japan, United Kingdom and South Korea.
There were 5,577 ship calls in the Port of New York and New Jersey in 2006, compared to 5,322 in 2005.
The Port Authority is financially self-supporting and receives no tax revenue from either state.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Ont. Transportation Minister, Jim Bradley - Continuing Conversation RE: James Bay
John Halonen to Minister
show details 12:34 PM, March 19,2008 Reply
Thanks for the reply and further efforts on your part to consider this item as an option that Ontario should particapate in.
Another thing that should be considered is that the Super Corridor is a twenty year idea dreamt up by those that could see a profit. Things have changed drastically since that time, with Global warming now a reality, making an ocean corridor between China and James Bay is more than a wish in someone`s imagination. Having access to a port in that area would decrease transit times drastically and relieve the necessity of now transitting the Panama Canal.
James Bay is the closest area to North America`s population centers.
Unfortunately Churchill does not have the same position, but could still be used as a port to ship out some of our Canadian products such as wheat, potash, etc.
Ontario must stand up, build for the future, rather than the past. With Global warming changing our future, we should be developing the infra-structure to support that change.
This really could be a combination of Quebec & Ontario to build future capabilities for their citizens.
It does not make sense now to ship by ocean to Mexico, transit 2000 miles by almost non-existant roads to Kansas City, then forward again to population centers. James Bay is closer than even Mexico to China!!!! It could even be a replacement for all ocean going traffic to the New York area from the mid-east.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account) wrote:
On behalf of the Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation, thank you for your second e-mail. I am writing to confirm that your e-mail has been forwarded to the program area in the Ministry that deals with your concerns for review.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to the attention of the minister; he always appreciates hearing from members of the public.
From: John Halonen
Sent: March 16, 2008 8:05 PM
To: Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account); Terry.Vachon@town.cochrane.on.ca
Subject: Re: Response from the Hon. Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation
Thank you for your response.
I do not believe this is the answer than citizens in Ontario expect from Ministers elected to the Ontario Legislature, however, there are perhaps issues that I am not aware of.
Perhaps, as you have indicated in your answer both Quebec and Ontario are looking at this issue in tandem. Would it be also an item that should be forwarded to members in the Quebec legislature, as almost half of James Bay is in their jurisdiction?
Looking forward to your answer, but being a citizen in Ontario, I think that those members elected by Ontario would first want to consider, if not, then I will forward to our Quebec members of Parliament.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account) wrote:
show details 12:34 PM, March 19,2008 Reply
Thanks for the reply and further efforts on your part to consider this item as an option that Ontario should particapate in.
Another thing that should be considered is that the Super Corridor is a twenty year idea dreamt up by those that could see a profit. Things have changed drastically since that time, with Global warming now a reality, making an ocean corridor between China and James Bay is more than a wish in someone`s imagination. Having access to a port in that area would decrease transit times drastically and relieve the necessity of now transitting the Panama Canal.
James Bay is the closest area to North America`s population centers.
Unfortunately Churchill does not have the same position, but could still be used as a port to ship out some of our Canadian products such as wheat, potash, etc.
Ontario must stand up, build for the future, rather than the past. With Global warming changing our future, we should be developing the infra-structure to support that change.
This really could be a combination of Quebec & Ontario to build future capabilities for their citizens.
It does not make sense now to ship by ocean to Mexico, transit 2000 miles by almost non-existant roads to Kansas City, then forward again to population centers. James Bay is closer than even Mexico to China!!!! It could even be a replacement for all ocean going traffic to the New York area from the mid-east.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account)
On behalf of the Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation, thank you for your second e-mail. I am writing to confirm that your e-mail has been forwarded to the program area in the Ministry that deals with your concerns for review.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to the attention of the minister; he always appreciates hearing from members of the public.
From: John Halonen
Sent: March 16, 2008 8:05 PM
To: Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account); Terry.Vachon@town.cochrane.on.ca
Subject: Re: Response from the Hon. Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation
Thank you for your response.
I do not believe this is the answer than citizens in Ontario expect from Ministers elected to the Ontario Legislature, however, there are perhaps issues that I am not aware of.
Perhaps, as you have indicated in your answer both Quebec and Ontario are looking at this issue in tandem. Would it be also an item that should be forwarded to members in the Quebec legislature, as almost half of James Bay is in their jurisdiction?
Looking forward to your answer, but being a citizen in Ontario, I think that those members elected by Ontario would first want to consider, if not, then I will forward to our Quebec members of Parliament.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Minister of Transportation Correspondence (Web Account)
Friday, March 14, 2008
Cochrane - Reply to Business Initiative - March 14, 2008
To: Town of Cochrane
Mayor: Lawrence Martin
Business Representative: Terry Vachon
Copies to: Town Coucillors:
Donald Genier,
Jane Skidmore Fox,
Robert Hutchinson,
Jean-Paul Lajeunesse,
Lisa Girard,
Gilles Chartrand
Thank you very much for the phone call. It was very appreciated.
As usual, a normal bi-weekly pastime of mine is to take a long walk along the inter-coastal waterway between Clearwater and Dunedin ( Blue Jay land ), Florida.
Today after your call, I had time to persue ( in my thoughts ) of what I may have said during a presentation to members of your town.
1. Important to note that I am not the first to bring this subject up. Therefore why has it failed before. Is the commitment there to have it addressed. If not, it is best to be forgotten as its` success depends wholly on citizens in the area and those that can see a benefit ( best to publicize what it can do for Ontario as a whole ).
2. Your current elected political representatives must have the desire to go forward. Sometimes when they meet others their perspective changes. If they don't have that desire, then it is up to your constituents to change their perspective or get rid of them. Remember that they can address the Provincial or Federal legislatures.
3. Media is critical for support. If the media of your town is not on board, then the chances of any success is minimal.
If it is not, get them on board, or tell them where to go. This goes for the supposedly National chains such as the Toronto Star or Globe & Mail. If they won't participate in helping Northern Ontario achieve some economic independence, then hold a town bonfire with their products, and invite the competition. This is so critical, as without them you cannot succeed.
4. A past successful role in identifying the publication of important issues was the use of the internet by individuals in the Thunder Bay region. Here they used contacts wherever, to publicize the Sleeping Giant in Lake Superior. Voted number 1 of all others indicating a great natural resource throughout Canada. Although not selected by individuals making the final decision, it did bring the publicity to a region that was lacking.
Only some thoughts, but wish you the best of success.
John Halonen
From: john_halonen@hotmail.com
To: Terry.Vachon@town.cochrane.on.ca
Subject: James Bay as an Ocean Port
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:31:58 -0500
During the past few months I have contacted all of our elected members of the Ontario Legislature.
Some success has been accomplished, but for this to have a positive effect for James Bay and the town of Cochrane it is imperative that we all continue to push our politicians in Ontario to provide for their citizens.
The possibility of James Bay having an Ocean Port has great economic benefit to Cochrane and really all of Ontario. Cochrane is a major hub on the rail line to James Bay and can be a stepping stone to the west.
Mayor: Lawrence Martin
Business Representative: Terry Vachon
Copies to: Town Coucillors:
Donald Genier,
Jane Skidmore Fox,
Robert Hutchinson,
Jean-Paul Lajeunesse,
Lisa Girard,
Gilles Chartrand
Thank you very much for the phone call. It was very appreciated.
As usual, a normal bi-weekly pastime of mine is to take a long walk along the inter-coastal waterway between Clearwater and Dunedin ( Blue Jay land ), Florida.
Today after your call, I had time to persue ( in my thoughts ) of what I may have said during a presentation to members of your town.
1. Important to note that I am not the first to bring this subject up. Therefore why has it failed before. Is the commitment there to have it addressed. If not, it is best to be forgotten as its` success depends wholly on citizens in the area and those that can see a benefit ( best to publicize what it can do for Ontario as a whole ).
2. Your current elected political representatives must have the desire to go forward. Sometimes when they meet others their perspective changes. If they don't have that desire, then it is up to your constituents to change their perspective or get rid of them. Remember that they can address the Provincial or Federal legislatures.
3. Media is critical for support. If the media of your town is not on board, then the chances of any success is minimal.
If it is not, get them on board, or tell them where to go. This goes for the supposedly National chains such as the Toronto Star or Globe & Mail. If they won't participate in helping Northern Ontario achieve some economic independence, then hold a town bonfire with their products, and invite the competition. This is so critical, as without them you cannot succeed.
4. A past successful role in identifying the publication of important issues was the use of the internet by individuals in the Thunder Bay region. Here they used contacts wherever, to publicize the Sleeping Giant in Lake Superior. Voted number 1 of all others indicating a great natural resource throughout Canada. Although not selected by individuals making the final decision, it did bring the publicity to a region that was lacking.
Only some thoughts, but wish you the best of success.
John Halonen
From: john_halonen@hotmail.com
To: Terry.Vachon@town.cochrane.on.ca
Subject: James Bay as an Ocean Port
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:31:58 -0500
During the past few months I have contacted all of our elected members of the Ontario Legislature.
Some success has been accomplished, but for this to have a positive effect for James Bay and the town of Cochrane it is imperative that we all continue to push our politicians in Ontario to provide for their citizens.
The possibility of James Bay having an Ocean Port has great economic benefit to Cochrane and really all of Ontario. Cochrane is a major hub on the rail line to James Bay and can be a stepping stone to the west.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
James Bay - Ocean Port & Water Reservoir
Following are comments related to James Bay's future as written by Rome Audet. Article originally published in " American Water Resources Association"
Click here to link
The James Bay Tunnel Project
Some of James Bay’s saved fresh water would be transferred through a tunnel, as needed, to stabilize the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River levels and flows, relieve drought in other areas and lower pollution concentration in both nations.
In short, what are the most important reasons for the James Bay Tunnel Project?
Supply and Demand
· The large supply and high demand of recycled fresh water to areas of water scarcity in the Great Lakes to Canada, United States & Mexico
Profits to Canadians
· This is an economic growth project for Canada. At a profit of $7.7 Billion/year to ALL Canadians controlled by a crown corporation.
The Executive Summary
1. North America is not running out of water, but we are running out of time to tackle critical water stress problems.
2. The Great Lakes are glacial phenomena - not a water basin. Despite all the threats of drought, there will not be one drop available from the Great Lakes to areas of water scarcity.
3. The average daily inflow of 11,000 cubic meters per second (m3s) of fresh water from 11 large rivers is lost to the ocean through James Bay. This is happening while the demand for fresh water in N. America is increasing.
4. The southern part of James Bay will become a self-sustaining fresh water lake behind a sea barrier. Its salt water will be flush through a narrow channel into the ocean over four years.
5. In this channel, a system of Run of the River turbines will be installed to supply sizeable hydroelectric power.
6. A deep-sea port in James Bay could open access from Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec to Europe. In ten years, it could open access from China and India as far as the Midwest US, thereby bypassing the Panama Canal at a savings of 10,000 km.
7. The primary purpose of this project will then be realized: to pump fresh water over the Northern Divide to the Great Lakes and then to areas of water scarcity. The water flow potential is the same as Niagara Falls flow: 2653 m3s.
8. From the Great Lakes, it will be possible to build a distribution network of fresh water to regions of present and future water scarcity to the dry Midwest and to as far south as Mexico. In Canada, there will be a potential for a Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal to the dry prairies.
9. Part of the financing would come from the US Federal Reserve Project Fund. An amount of us$8 Billion is available upon approval to non-US government bodies. These funds will be approved because they will be used to solve a US water crisis. The funds actually are non-repayable so it does not entail any real financial obligation to the Canadian public or government. Also, normal government water subsidies of OECD countries range between 30%-50%.
10. The project is economically feasible: the cost is only $5.55/acre-foot: the present annual national U.S. delivered cost of water is $814/acre-foot.
(Add $1.25 Million/mile or $780,000/km for pipelines from the Great Lakes.)
The estimated auctioned price would be $160/acre-foot compared to the heavily subsidized rate of $50/ acre-foot to agricultural areas.
11. This water supply will remain in public ownership to maintain control of Canada’s natural resources in Canada, but management will be a mix of public and private systems (Public-Private Partnerships). The original partners will be open to new co-owners and invite all water supply and sanitation organizations to become “implementation partners” of the initiative. The private sector involved in the design and construction of the infrastructure usually requires a 10 per cent real pre-tax equity return.
12. Our Next Steps:
a. Select a Management Agency to finalize the 84-page Pre-feasibility Study.
b. Evaluation: an inventory of all factors involved in construction with a computer simulation. Cost estimate: $2 Million in one year.
c. Full implementation of #b: $12 Million over two years.
d. Evaluation of #c and Construction: us$153 Million in 6-7 years.
Canadians can’t wait for the Crisis
A WATER CRISIS is defined as a state of emergency in which populations are at risk of death, disease and panic due to an interruption/contamination of the fresh water supply. The “business as usual” alternative is to tolerate a level of avoidable suffering and loss of human potential. This is ethically indefensible and economically wasteful.
· Canada is not immune: Ontario simply has the most to lose. It is the largest consumer of water in the Great Lakes and also the most densely populated.
· Our Great Lakes water reservoir is emptying – and not replenishing.
· Our USA neighbor is already in a Water Crisis.
Why are the new construction techniques far superior to a 1964 Proposal?
· Non-invasive tunnel boring machines that measure 6 meters diameter that didn’t exist until 1985.
· The hydroelectric potential of Run of the River turbines in a channel at the Sea Barrier and at the tidal flats of James Bay supply 3900 MW of hydroelectricity.
Let us deal with the main objections to this project.
1. Surely we are not going to encourage the blatant disregard for good conservation of water from the largest polluters in the world.
Most of the watercourses have been over dammed in the U. S. and Mexico. This will probably be known as the decade of water conservation in North America.
We are trying to solve the problems of a major water crisis in the next decade when conservation will not suffice.
2. Surely we are not going to ruin a pristine environment in James Bay.
A two-year feasibility study will determine the real environmental impact. We must measure and compare the impact of a more important environmental problem in the Great Lakes. The large Great Lakes wetlands are being decimated.
We are trying to solve the environmental problems of the Great Lakes.
3. Surely we are not going to sell our Canadian resources to the U.S.
Water in excess of Canadian needs has a ready USA Market. The annual projected return on selling our fresh water will be $7.7 Billion. Canada is becoming well known for not following the Kyoto Accord. One of the major problems is that there will be a major “bite” on our well-oiled economic machine.
This money will allow Canada to overcome the high costs of pollution.
4. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation of governments and NGOs is very difficult.
It will take a minor miracle to bring all aboriginal, provincial and federal bodies together. Once the aboriginal nations sign on, the government will take heart.
This is an economic growth project for Canada.
An equitable formula will benefit ALL Canadians.
5. There is a misplaced belief that Canada has an excess of water. This myth is firmly entrenched. This thinking will lead to detrimental decisions.
This is why we will recycle 2653 cubic meters per second into the Great Lakes.
Albert Einstein said, “The problems in the world today are so enormous that they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.”
We must step away from old thinking.
Desalination Plant water costs $3083/acre-foot compared to the present cost of $814/acre-foot. Smart consumers are already willing to pay a 1000% premium for a product that is readily available for free in their own homes.
North America is home to 514 million people. The projections for 2050 are 710 million people (a 38% increase). What do you think will happen when the water availability does not increase by 38% because of global warming?
Dare we predict what the Great Lake and the areas of drought will be like in 50 years? Will it be “Don’t drink from the faucet today”? Or, “Daddy, why is the bath water so dirty?”
This is a problem that needs long term planning. Decisions must be made now.
So, what part do you wish to play in the overall solution?
Note: More information about this brief news release is available from:
Romain Audet roaudet@sympatico.ca
Click here to link
The James Bay Tunnel Project
Some of James Bay’s saved fresh water would be transferred through a tunnel, as needed, to stabilize the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River levels and flows, relieve drought in other areas and lower pollution concentration in both nations.
In short, what are the most important reasons for the James Bay Tunnel Project?
Supply and Demand
· The large supply and high demand of recycled fresh water to areas of water scarcity in the Great Lakes to Canada, United States & Mexico
Profits to Canadians
· This is an economic growth project for Canada. At a profit of $7.7 Billion/year to ALL Canadians controlled by a crown corporation.
The Executive Summary
1. North America is not running out of water, but we are running out of time to tackle critical water stress problems.
2. The Great Lakes are glacial phenomena - not a water basin. Despite all the threats of drought, there will not be one drop available from the Great Lakes to areas of water scarcity.
3. The average daily inflow of 11,000 cubic meters per second (m3s) of fresh water from 11 large rivers is lost to the ocean through James Bay. This is happening while the demand for fresh water in N. America is increasing.
4. The southern part of James Bay will become a self-sustaining fresh water lake behind a sea barrier. Its salt water will be flush through a narrow channel into the ocean over four years.
5. In this channel, a system of Run of the River turbines will be installed to supply sizeable hydroelectric power.
6. A deep-sea port in James Bay could open access from Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec to Europe. In ten years, it could open access from China and India as far as the Midwest US, thereby bypassing the Panama Canal at a savings of 10,000 km.
7. The primary purpose of this project will then be realized: to pump fresh water over the Northern Divide to the Great Lakes and then to areas of water scarcity. The water flow potential is the same as Niagara Falls flow: 2653 m3s.
8. From the Great Lakes, it will be possible to build a distribution network of fresh water to regions of present and future water scarcity to the dry Midwest and to as far south as Mexico. In Canada, there will be a potential for a Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal to the dry prairies.
9. Part of the financing would come from the US Federal Reserve Project Fund. An amount of us$8 Billion is available upon approval to non-US government bodies. These funds will be approved because they will be used to solve a US water crisis. The funds actually are non-repayable so it does not entail any real financial obligation to the Canadian public or government. Also, normal government water subsidies of OECD countries range between 30%-50%.
10. The project is economically feasible: the cost is only $5.55/acre-foot: the present annual national U.S. delivered cost of water is $814/acre-foot.
(Add $1.25 Million/mile or $780,000/km for pipelines from the Great Lakes.)
The estimated auctioned price would be $160/acre-foot compared to the heavily subsidized rate of $50/ acre-foot to agricultural areas.
11. This water supply will remain in public ownership to maintain control of Canada’s natural resources in Canada, but management will be a mix of public and private systems (Public-Private Partnerships). The original partners will be open to new co-owners and invite all water supply and sanitation organizations to become “implementation partners” of the initiative. The private sector involved in the design and construction of the infrastructure usually requires a 10 per cent real pre-tax equity return.
12. Our Next Steps:
a. Select a Management Agency to finalize the 84-page Pre-feasibility Study.
b. Evaluation: an inventory of all factors involved in construction with a computer simulation. Cost estimate: $2 Million in one year.
c. Full implementation of #b: $12 Million over two years.
d. Evaluation of #c and Construction: us$153 Million in 6-7 years.
Canadians can’t wait for the Crisis
A WATER CRISIS is defined as a state of emergency in which populations are at risk of death, disease and panic due to an interruption/contamination of the fresh water supply. The “business as usual” alternative is to tolerate a level of avoidable suffering and loss of human potential. This is ethically indefensible and economically wasteful.
· Canada is not immune: Ontario simply has the most to lose. It is the largest consumer of water in the Great Lakes and also the most densely populated.
· Our Great Lakes water reservoir is emptying – and not replenishing.
· Our USA neighbor is already in a Water Crisis.
Why are the new construction techniques far superior to a 1964 Proposal?
· Non-invasive tunnel boring machines that measure 6 meters diameter that didn’t exist until 1985.
· The hydroelectric potential of Run of the River turbines in a channel at the Sea Barrier and at the tidal flats of James Bay supply 3900 MW of hydroelectricity.
Let us deal with the main objections to this project.
1. Surely we are not going to encourage the blatant disregard for good conservation of water from the largest polluters in the world.
Most of the watercourses have been over dammed in the U. S. and Mexico. This will probably be known as the decade of water conservation in North America.
We are trying to solve the problems of a major water crisis in the next decade when conservation will not suffice.
2. Surely we are not going to ruin a pristine environment in James Bay.
A two-year feasibility study will determine the real environmental impact. We must measure and compare the impact of a more important environmental problem in the Great Lakes. The large Great Lakes wetlands are being decimated.
We are trying to solve the environmental problems of the Great Lakes.
3. Surely we are not going to sell our Canadian resources to the U.S.
Water in excess of Canadian needs has a ready USA Market. The annual projected return on selling our fresh water will be $7.7 Billion. Canada is becoming well known for not following the Kyoto Accord. One of the major problems is that there will be a major “bite” on our well-oiled economic machine.
This money will allow Canada to overcome the high costs of pollution.
4. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation of governments and NGOs is very difficult.
It will take a minor miracle to bring all aboriginal, provincial and federal bodies together. Once the aboriginal nations sign on, the government will take heart.
This is an economic growth project for Canada.
An equitable formula will benefit ALL Canadians.
5. There is a misplaced belief that Canada has an excess of water. This myth is firmly entrenched. This thinking will lead to detrimental decisions.
This is why we will recycle 2653 cubic meters per second into the Great Lakes.
Albert Einstein said, “The problems in the world today are so enormous that they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.”
We must step away from old thinking.
Desalination Plant water costs $3083/acre-foot compared to the present cost of $814/acre-foot. Smart consumers are already willing to pay a 1000% premium for a product that is readily available for free in their own homes.
North America is home to 514 million people. The projections for 2050 are 710 million people (a 38% increase). What do you think will happen when the water availability does not increase by 38% because of global warming?
Dare we predict what the Great Lake and the areas of drought will be like in 50 years? Will it be “Don’t drink from the faucet today”? Or, “Daddy, why is the bath water so dirty?”
This is a problem that needs long term planning. Decisions must be made now.
So, what part do you wish to play in the overall solution?
Note: More information about this brief news release is available from:
Romain Audet roaudet@sympatico.ca
Monday, March 3, 2008
Conservative Party - Lack of Response
Thank you for your response. I must admit however that I do have some concern as to the efforts expended by Ontario representatives elected to the Canadian Federal Government. Their efforts on ensuring that Ontario has equal representation with other Provinces has very little credence. In fact it could be said that they have betrayed Ontario citizens.
I would look at your efforts in representing Ontario citizens to be of far greater importance, as your MPP, has been elected by citizens in Ontario to represent Ontario. I trust that your perspective will be far greater, rather than that of a Federal Government representative from Ontario that does not appear to have the concerns of Ontario at heart.
John,
Our apologies for not replying earlier, but we would like to share this information with our federal member in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Ana Sajfert
EA
......................
Office of Bill Murdoch, MPP, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
Member, Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills
Critic, Northern Development and Mines
Rm 451, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel : 416-325-6242
Fax: 416-325-6248
From: John Halonen [mailto:johnhalonen@gmail.com]
Sent: February 15, 2008 3:16 PMTo: Murdoch, Bill; Murdoch-CO, Bill
Subject: Conservative Party - Lack of Response
To Conservative members of the Ontario Legislature.
A recent e-mail correspondence was forwarded to all elected members of the Ontario Legislature.
Answers have been received from both the NDP & Liberal Parties as to their interest in providing Ontario citizens with the best possible initiatives.
No answer has been received from the Conservative Party. Are we do assume that Conservatives do not have the interests best served by their elected members, or is it that Ontario Conservatives wish to follow Federal quidelines?
From the Liberal Party:
From the New Democratic Party:
Latest:
On Feb 5, 2008 11:48 AM, Bisson, Gilles2 <GBisson@ndp.on.ca> wrote:
John, Paul Miller's office has forwarded your ideas to me on this issue. Recently, at a combined federal/provincial NDP riding association meeting for Timmins-James Bay, we passed a resolution to work towards such a plan. I will be discussing this further with Paul.
Thanks - Gilles
On Feb 5, 2008 11:48 AM, Bisson, Gilles2 <GBisson@ndp.on.ca> wrote:
John, Paul Miller's office has forwarded your ideas to me on this issue. Recently, at a combined federal/provincial NDP riding association meeting for Timmins-James Bay, we passed a resolution to work towards such a plan. I will be discussing this further with Paul.
Thanks - Gilles
____________________________________________________________
QP, Paul <pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca> wrote:
Dear Mr. Halonen,
Thank you for sending this e-mail to MPP Miller; it is an interesting suggestion.
As well as providing NDP MPP Miller, critic for Economic Development and Trade, with your e-mail, by copy of this response I am sending your proposal to NDP MPP Gilles Bisson, MPP for Timmins – James Bay, as well as critic for Natural Resources and Transportation, for his information.
We will look very carefully at your proposal and discuss our position on it. As far as contacting the Premier to include this issue in his discussions with the Prime Minister, I suggest that you send your proposal directly to the Premier's office through his website –
http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp
from which you can e-mail him.
We appreciate you taking the time to look into this issue and send your information to us.
Margo Duncan, Executive Assistant to
Paul Miller, MPP
Hamilton East – Stoney Creek
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QP, Paul <pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca> wrote:
Dear Mr. Halonen,
Thank you for sending this e-mail to MPP Miller; it is an interesting suggestion.
As well as providing NDP MPP Miller, critic for Economic Development and Trade, with your e-mail, by copy of this response I am sending your proposal to NDP MPP Gilles Bisson, MPP for Timmins – James Bay, as well as critic for Natural Resources and Transportation, for his information.
We will look very carefully at your proposal and discuss our position on it. As far as contacting the Premier to include this issue in his discussions with the Prime Minister, I suggest that you send your proposal directly to the Premier's office through his website –
http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp
from which you can e-mail him.
We appreciate you taking the time to look into this issue and send your information to us.
Margo Duncan, Executive Assistant to
Paul Miller, MPP
Hamilton East – Stoney Creek
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded to all Members of Ontario Legislature
Subject: Ontario Premier to meet with Prime Minister Harper - Economic Summit
Please
use your influence to contact our Premier of Ontario and include for discussion with the Prime Minister of Canada during the Minister`s Economic meeting this month.
Subject:
North American Super Corridor
History
: Manitoba`s Premier has mentioned in his address to the legislature that Manitoba has been in discussion for five years on this subject, as to building a pathway to Hudson Bay to facilitate the movement of goods delivered via Ocean vessels to the mid-west US marketplace and Mexico.
Saskatchewan has addressed a possibility of building the pathway thru their province.
Proposal:
Ontario should be thought of as an alternative to the proposed route, via linkage to James Bay.
Reason:
James Bay currently has rail traffic, and there is a highway sytem currently in place that could be upgraded to accomodate major movement of shipping goods.
James Bay is also much closer to population centres across North America and would allow for greater Ocean traffic to a port that would allow easy entry to most of our population in North America. Linkage is still available to mid west US marketplaces via current highway systems in place today. Even the distance to Winnipeg, Manitoba from James Bay is not that much greater than Churchill, Manitoba.
Justification:
Least Cost and with current access .
John P. Halonen
401 Wentworth St. W., Unit 54
Oshawa, Ontario
L1J 6J1
Ph: 727-953-3260 (Snowbirding in Florida)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
