Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Okay, so there are no tidewater ports, just ports that have access to tidewater.
Does it matter if there is a distinction in name only?
https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-trans...-safety-canada
From that site:
Tankers carrying oil products account for 7 percent of all shipments completed in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway. Heavy crude oil is not currently transported on the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway.
Refined product is already moving through the St. Lawrence.
Could crude happen? Probably.
Is it ideal? No, but it's an option that is better than nothing. |
I guess you can technicality talk your way through anything, but no, lake Ontario does not have tidewater ports. They have access to tidewater with restrictions I mentioned.
So refined products move between Canada and the US, but I'd bet those are within thee great lakes, not externally.
"over 2.3 million tonnes are imported/exported in and out of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway system.over 2.3 million tonnes are imported/exported in and out of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway system."
A Seawaymax tanker can carry up to 28,500 DWT. So that's about 40 trips, given they are probably not going empty in either direction.
Supertankers carry up to 500,000 DWT. So you need 18 Seawaymax to equal one Supertanker. They also don't need to spend days each direction, and compete with other traffic, and pay the lock fees. None of this sounds practical, more than an incremental increase. It just doesn't make sense to bud a pipeline there to export through the seaway. And that doesn't even begin to get into the opposition you'd get from indigenous groups, environmental groups, Quebec, and the US.
I'm sure none of this is what they actually meant. I assume the tidewater port they are thinking of would be in James Bay.