Maxim Engles - The Worlds Greatest Tobaccos.

Good Morning:

This is for all of my friends who love a good smoke.  I enjoy reading what Maxim has to say in each of his missives; he is a great reader, his reviews of crime and spy novels is a great lead and worth subscribing to his pipe letter even if you don't smoke, he also reviews items from pipe tobacco land and the article which is of particular merit.  He tends to be a bit up market for me but then again I am only a tobacco burner.

Enjoy.....


The Worlds Greatest Tobaccos.
 
After over 40 years of pipe smoking and having consulted with a number of knowledgeable smokers I have comprised this list of what i consider some of the best tobaccos ever made.  I was originally going to keep it limited to 10 but it grew, & became 10 plus makers and what I consider their best blends. Some of these have not been made for years but occasionally can be found at a reasonable price.  Some are still current.

I freely admit that I mostly smoke English & Oriental Mixtures and occasionally Flake. Burley I have never cared for. Therefore I make no apologies that the list is totally idiosyncratic and I do not attempt to describe each tobacco. There is plenty of information on the web about each one.


1: Dunhill –
All made in England by Dunhill, The Murrays, then McConnell and back to Murrays. The stuff mad today in Denmark is nowhere near the same
Mixture 965
Early Morning pipe Tobacco
Standard Mixture (medium or mild)
All are English mixtures.

2: Garfinkles ‘
Ridgeway  - made for them by Balkan Sobranie
Oriental Mixture

3: Sobranie of London
Black & White – Balkan –a legend and rightly so
759 – Balkan – same again
The new Balkan Sobranie by JF Germain & Son is reasonably close to the original. With a few years of aging it gets closer. Albeit they did a very poor job of reproducing the original artwork.

4: Barney’s – the Made in UK only!
Punchbowl – a full English
The Ideal Tobacco –An English with slightly acidic tang.

5: Sullivan & Powell Burlington Arcade
Sullivan’s Special Mixture
OX

6: Simms
Royal Air Force Mixture –English
Medium Mixture

7:  John Cottons’
Smyrna
N0. 1& 2

8: Samuel Gawith
Medium Virginia Flake
Balkan Flake


9: McClelland’s
Frog Morton – all of them
Red Cake
Most of their Flakes

10: Wellnauer Swiss Made
English Mixture
Superb and unusually has Virginia bright along with the normal
Latakia, Perique & Orientals’.

11: Rattrays – English Made
Black Mallory
Red Rapperee  - German made is also good
7 Reserve – German mad is also good

12: Dobie’s 4 Square
Any of he original English Made mixtures

 13: James Fox – originally English Made now made in Germany and reasonably close to the originals
The Squire’s Mixture
Provost Mixture

14; Bells 3 Nuns – the UK original only

15: Escudo Navy De Lux – UK Made. The A7C Peterson version currently made I do not care for but some do.

“Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good. “

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
American Politician, Presidential Advisor , US Ambassador & last intellectual in US politics. 1927-2003

Be Well
Smoke Well
Best Maxim

Maxim Engel
http://www.pipes2smoke.com
http://www.cubancigars4u.com
tel: toll free 1-888-782-1410

Best regards,

J

A view of the NEB and the Kinder Morgan decision from the West Coast

Hello:

Here is an article a friend forwarded, actually it's an open letter from Robyn Allan, an economist, that I thought was interesting.  Personally, I am fascinated by the ideology of the West Coast, they are so different from you and I so this is an excellent POV about the NEP, it's processes and the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain  pipeline looping project to deliver more oil to the Burrard Inlet which is Vancouver harbor. 

Enjoy:

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 by Robyn Allan

Economist Robyn Allan withdraws from Kinder Morgan review

Robyn Allan has withdrawn as an intervenor in the federal government’s review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and oil tanker expansion project, detailing her reasons for quitting in a scathing letter to the National Energy Board.

Allan is former President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, was Vice-President Finance for Parklane Ventures Ltd., and Senior Economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

Here is the full text of her letter to the secretary of the NEB:

May 19, 2015

Dear Ms. Young,

I am withdrawing as an expert intervenor from the National Energy Board review of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. After dedicating professional expertise for more than a year, pro bono and in good faith, I have concluded that withdrawal is the only course of action. Continued participation endorses a broken system and enables the pretence of due process where none exists.

The review is not conducted on a level playing field. The Panel is not an impartial referee. The game is rigged; its outcome pre-determined by a captured regulator. The NEB’s integrity has been compromised. Its actions put the health and safety of the Canadian economy, society and environment in harm’s way.

The NEB has unconscionably betrayed Canadians through a restricted scope of issues, violated the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice, and biased its decision-making in favour of Kinder Morgan. These are discussed below:

1.     1. Restricted Scope of Issues

(a) Review is not of the Pipeline System Once expanded, the Trans Mountain system will consist of two pipelines, related storage facilities and a three-berth marine terminal at Westridge dock. The cumulative impact and risk of this entire system is of concern to the public, but not to the NEB. The Panel has excluded from its assessment the impact and risk of the sixty year old legacy line, existing terminals and storage tanks—these are outside the scope of its review.

What the NEB is considering is the impact of the “Project” which only includes the incremental, new, facilities. It is treating the expansion as if it is not part of a larger, and much more vulnerable system, but as if it is being constructed on a stand-alone basis.

It is a well-known aspect of prudent risk analysis that aggregate risk—the risk of the entire system everywhere along that system—is the relevant scope, not a self-serving limitation that restricts the scope of the review to half the system’s potential transport capacity, much less than half the system’s aggregate risk, and less than half its potential negative consequence.

This dangerous limitation in scope is how Kinder Morgan successfully argued that its existing Emergency Management Plan (EMP) documents “are not relevant to the Board’s consideration of the Project…Trans Mountain notes that although BC considers the EMP documents for the existing system to be relevant for the Board in considering this Application, the Board itself has never taken that position.”^[i]

The Panel agrees, “the EMP (Emergency Management Plan) documents relate to the existing facilities that are not the subject of the present Project application…Whether Trans Mountain is meeting its obligations with respect to its EMP for the existing facilities is a matter for the Board to consider outside of the hearing for this Project. The safe operation of the existing Line 1 facilities under current operating conditions is out of scope for this hearing.”^[ii]

At the Northern Gateway proceedings the Panel relied on similar polluted logic to conclude that the Kalamazoo oil spill was irrelevant to informing the Board of the risk, and cost, Enbridge’s project posed to the Canadian public interest.^[iii]

(b) Review Restricted to Applied-for Capacity not Designed Capacity The new pipeline is designed to carry 780,000 barrels a day of oil (for total system capacity of over 1.1 million barrels a day), but the Panel is restricting its review to the applied-for capacity of 540,000 barrels a day.^[iv]

When Kinder Morgan comes forward to request NEB approval to increase throughput to designed capacity it will not fall within the definition of a designated project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. An NEB Act section 52 review will not be required. The impact of an almost fifty percent increase in capacity on Line 2, including the marine traffic it triggers, will never undergo proper scrutiny.

(c) Review Excludes Socio-economic and Environmental Effects of Bitumen Exploitation, Upstream and Downstream Activities On April 2, 2014, the Board released its List of Issues. Intervenors were offered no opportunity to comment. The Panel excluded economic, environmental and social impact activities that are of significant concern to Canadians. In particular, the Board “does not intend to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of the oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.”^[v]

This means the Board will not consider:

(i)   greenhouse gas emissions from the production of diluted bitumen shipped down the pipeline and from its use in foreign markets;

(ii) environmental impacts of tanker traffic beyond a 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit;

(iii)              risks and costs of climate change;

(iv)              crowding out of economic activity and the erosion of quality of life in British Columbia as English Bay and Burrard Inlet become oil tanker parking lots for Alberta’s heavy oil;

(v) the opportunity cost to the Canadian economy when raw bitumen is exported to foreign markets for upgrading and refining at the expense of value added, job creation, and economic wealth generation in Alberta; and

(vi)              the cost to the Canadian economy of a condensate import dependency. Roughly one of every three barrels intended for Trans Mountain’s expansion consists of imported condensate from the US, much of it brought into Canada on Kinder Morgan Cochin. The expansion is pitched to Canadians as a Made-in-Canada heavy oil export strategy when it is in no small part a US condensate export strategy, making its way to foreign markets via Trans Mountain pipeline and our marine waterways.

The Board received Notices of Motion from the City of Vancouver and Parents from Cameron Elementary School in Burnaby requesting expansion of the List of Issues. Ten Intervenors supported the motions, including the Intervenor Robyn Allan.

The Board argued that,“Oil sands projects, including expansions, have and continue to be subject to provincial environmental assessment or combined provincial and federal assessment. This supports the conclusion that the CEAA 2012 does not require the Board to include in its environmental assessment activities that have been so assessed.”^[vi]

The Board provides false assurances. The Board has accepted Kinder Morgan’s supply forecasts in Volume 2 of its Application. These forecasts include production volumes from some projects that have not received regulatory approval, therefore it is not possible that the environmental costs of these projects have been considered. The NEB attempts to lull Canadians into the delusion that they have.

The Board also argues that it “is mindful that the environmental and socio-economic effects of petroleum exploration and production activities in Canada are assessed in other federal and provincial processes that involve those conducting those activities, and that the end use of oil is managed by the jurisdiction within which that use occurs.”^[vii] This spurious reasoning is nonsense since subsection 52 (2) of the NEB Act grants the Board “authority to determine what is relevant to it in fulfilling its mandate”.^[viii]

The duplicity of the Board becomes glaringly apparent when its reasons to exclude upstream activities, oil sands extraction, and downstream use are viewed in light of the Board’s decision on marine transport issues. The Board has no authority with respect to marine shipping, navigation, safety and spill prevention and yet, the Board included “the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur.”^[ix]

(d) Review Restricts Marine Shipping Activities Assessment to 12 Nautical Miles Strangely, the Panel has limited the assessment of marine shipping activities to 12 nautical miles, as if somehow environmental impact and spill threat cease beyond this limit.^[x] The Board is deluding us with this territorial limit. The environmental threats from oil tankers must be evaluated throughout the entire marine vessel trip. For example, Canada is a signatory to the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA)^[xi] requirements, which assist in reducing air pollution from ships, but the boundary extends to only 200 nautical miles. Once past this point, tankers shift to much dirtier, and more environmentally challenging fuel sources, most notably Bunker C—the same oil that spilled recently in English Bay.

If the Board is purporting to assess the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities then the full atmospheric and spill threat of oil tankers transiting to and from Westridge must be included, not just the incremental tanker traffic within an arbitrary limit of 12 nautical miles.

1.     2. Compromised Principles of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

Much has been written about the Panel’s unprecedented exclusion of cross examination and how this undermines the integrity of the review process. The Intervenor, Robyn Allan, formally requested that it be re-introduced into the hearing schedule.^[xii] Numerous Intervenors sent in letters of support. The Board rejected the request siding with Kinder Morgan, the beneficiary of the Board’s decision.

The Board assured participants that two rounds of written requests would be sufficient to test the evidence. The Board’s assurances are without merit. The first round of information requests resulted in Intervenors formally petitioning the Board to compel Kinder Morgan to answer thousands of questions, but the Board granted only 5% of them. In the second round, the Board compelled Kinder Morgan to answer less than 3%. Separate Information Requests, required because of late TERMPOL and Seismic reports, have experienced similar, unsatisfactory, responses from the Board.

The absence of oral cross has turned this public hearing into a farce, and the written information request process into an exercise in futility.

“For two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo-American system of evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination as a vital feature of the law. The belief that no safeguard for testing the value of human statements is comparable to that furnished by cross-examination, and the conviction that no statement (unless by special exception) should be used as testimony until it has been probed and sublimated by that test, has found increasing strength in lengthening the experience.”^[xiii]

The Board was advised by the Department of Justice that the absence of oral cross is a failure of the process pointing out that beyond any doubt cross examination “is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”^[xiv]

The Board claims to be an independent regulatory tribunal guided by the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It is a court of record and has a duty to act fairly. The NEB has failed in upholding these responsibilities.

1.     3. Biased Decision Making

One of the fundamental features of our market system is that the risk borne by shareholders is balanced against the financial reward they expect to receive. This risk-reward trade-off sends appropriate market signals and supports a more efficient and effective allocation of capital.

In an unprecedented decision—the Firm 50 decision—the NEB violated this important principle by allowing Kinder Morgan to amass $136 million to pay for the pre-development costs related to the Trans Mountain expansion project. This fund was not accumulated through shareholder, at risk, capital, but through a pre-approved surcharge on shipper tolls.^[xv] Ultimately, this cost is borne by the Canadian economy and public through foregone tax revenue and—as Kinder Morgan told the NEB during the Firm 50 Hearing—higher oil prices.^[xvi] In contrast, there is no risk to Kinder Morgan’s shareholders for the pre-development phase of its project.

Not only did the NEB undermine the market system by granting Kinder Morgan a fund to push through its project, it has knowingly stacked the deck in favour of the Proponent. The NEB did not ensure concomitant financial resources would be available to Intervenors during these same NEB proceedings.

The NEB socialized project approval costs onto the backs of Canadians while it knows the project’s vast financial returns—some $850 million a year—will be privatized into the pockets of Kinder Morgan’s US based investors.^[xvii] When the Intervenor, Robyn Allan, requested the Board compel Kinder Morgan to reconcile inconsistencies between the economic benefits claims in its application against what it has told its shareholders in Texas—that it intends to siphon away close to a billion a year from the Canadian economy while paying almost no Canadian corporate taxes—astonishingly, the Board concluded this is outside the scope of its review.

By its actions it is clear the Board has no intention of considering the economic impact and financial viability of this application but for accepting Kinder Morgan’s bogus case in Volume 2. Refusing to compel Kinder Morgan to answer questions, the Board allows Kinder Morgan to pretend benefits exist where they do not. When Intervenors submit evidence on the economic issues the Board will give it little, if any, weight; it has already ruled meaningful critique is outside the scope of issues. This is a travesty.

The Board’s unfair approach is also reflected in its determination that the application was complete when it was not. This is most clearly illustrated by Kinder Morgan’s uncertainty over its route and the Board’s accommodation of Kinder Morgan’s lack of preparation inside the review process.

Although aware of the Panel’s violation of the public trust, Peter Watson, NEB Chair and CEO has not sought to rectify the broken process. The entire National Energy Board is perpetrating a fraud on the Canadian public.

Withdrawing as an expert intervenor is not only a form of formal protest against the broken system, it is also a reasoned decision considered in light of efficiency and effectiveness. Protection of our democracy and market economy is best undertaken outside the industry contrived, and controlled, NEB failed system.

The NEB is not a national energy board; it is a parochial board steeped in Calgary petro culture, run by corporate interests.

Industry bias began in the 1990s when the NEB moved from Ottawa to Calgary, leaving two-thirds of its staff behind and requiring permanent Board members to live in proximity to Calgary. Regulatory capture continued as the Federal Government and Board adopted the practice of offering Board and staff positions to people with energy industry backgrounds, at the expense of establishing a diversification of interests.

The Board abandoned prudent and sound economic and financial analysis when these led to decisions recommending projects be rejected because costs outweighed benefits. Rather than continuing to rely on Cost-Benefit analysis as a sound analytical approach, the NEB rejected it in favour of Input-Output analysis; a flawed and misleading substitute that presents impacts as if they are benefits and ignores known and reasonable costs.

The Board is charged with environmental assessment without appropriately skilled and experienced staff to undertake it. The Board does not have the expertise, or will, to understand complex corporate structures designed to minimize corporate taxes, siphon vast financial wealth out of the country, and leave Canadians holding the bag when major or catastrophic events happen.

I withdraw from this process in defence of the market system and a sound economy. I withdraw from this process in defence of sustainable economic progress that promotes resource development rather than resource exploitation.

The fight to protect the Canadian public interest must be conducted in an open and transparent forum, where those who desire to participate, have a right and opportunity to do so.

The fight to protect the Canadian public interest must include those issues that fully represent the Canadian public interest, not limit them—as the Panel has done—to a definition serving industry. We are being conned by the very agency entrusted to protect us. This must stop. The health and welfare of our economic, social and environmental systems are at stake.

Sincerely,  

Robyn Allan

cc
Intervenors
Kinder Morgan
Peter Watson, Chair and CEO, NEB

I hope you enjoyed that, please feel free to comment.

Best regards,

J 

Living in Peace - Listening to a Friend

Good Evening:

I have a good friend, we met five years ago and we have shared many cigars, shisha, coffees and conversation.   Mohamed, now a Canadian, grew up in Egypt and moved to Canada after a finishing school.  

Lately, with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, with all their outrageous despicable acts to both people and culture, the conversation became strained as everyone held back their thoughts, questioning the ability to speak their minds without offense and causing hurt.  We live in the west, Alberta, and the sense of community and friendship is a very strong bond, we all need to work and live together to survive and flourish.  Today we were having a smoke and talking about work, Mohamed runs an IT company, health, family - all of the issues we all face everyday. Then picking up his Blackberry  Passport, he passed it to me and said "I wrote a letter I would like you to read."  I took the Passport and read the following:

Can we ever live in peace? I want to live in peace and die in peace with the right to worship whom I believe in with a live and let live mentality, respect for everyone.

I am a Muslim and I believe in my religion, I believe in one God and I believe in his mercy, forgiveness, and I believe in his power, his retaliation, and I marvel at his creation. I also respect other people's beliefs and expect the same back.

This world we live in though, it's always people fighting for power for land for resources...etc. When there's enough to go around, enough beauty in the world that a lot of people don't get to see because of wars, war on terror, drugs, "jihad" and it's in quotes because I don't believe the likes of isis or the other guys that are using this word as a tool for recruitment to unwitting teenagers that are frustrated with how there's just a general hatred in the west towards Islamic belief, where now a days Islam has just become associated with terror - unfortunate.

 I also don't approve of how Islam has become associated with terror but instead of calling Jihad and fighting against whomever I deem to be an "infidel" for whatever reason I'd like to cook up and go commit suicide or atrocities against human life, cities, history and culture and then call it Islam???????? Really????? I just voice my opinion towards what I think is wrong with an open mind to discussion. And people eat islam=terror up as yeah, sounds right, either some will join and the others just generally retaliate against all Muslims with hatred or otherwise.

To anyone that can hear this, think about our kids, don't you want them to grow up in a world ready to be explored? Filled with beauty, opportunities and wonderful and unforgettable experiences? Even if you don't have kids, think about your opportunity to live in that world a world with respect, peace and just general happiness all around.

To racism, I say we're all different but all the same. Human emotion is human emotion, we all need earth to survive, share the resources, no race doesn't need to sleep or eat...etc. We all have more in common with each other than we have differences as different races.

Oh how I wish I can be free to go wherever I'd like on earth without being judged, prosecuted, or even recruited because I'm from a country, race, or religion. 

In the real world though, everybody thinks they're on the right and have just to absolutely force it on everyone else around them. Land has to be governed by a sect and for power and the idea of More people forget the day they live in, seeking a tomorrow with More, and it's just never enough. Never stops. But again I ask, what do I have to do with this? Can't I just live in peace performing my daily duties as a Muslim towards God and enjoying what the world has to offer just like anyone else.

Whether it's an order online from a US based company that's shipping from the US, to me shipping an electronic device to my aunt in the US where she has lived for at least the last two decades without any issues, there's always a hassle, always problems, always against my name, just my name. And I have stories. I'm afraid to leave the country I'm in just because of my name.  

I mean I'm outside right now and what a beautiful day it is today and looking 10 feet away from me birds digging little dirt holes probably to tuck into when the wind picks up but really, can't we just all have the chance to enjoy this and more. Work hard, contribute to society, no matter how much of an "outsider" you are, no one can just function alone or maybe there's a few but from trillions? Remember that! As much as each person is special there are trillions of us that have lived and that are living. So nothing gives you the right to judge the other guy next to you based on what they believe in or the race they're from. There are common rights and wrongs that we all agree on, can't we govern each other by those common rules. Our judgment is not up to us, whatever you believe in. 

Mohamed's eloquence on the ISIS issue and his yearning for sanity and understand touched me,  I have to share it so I asked Mo if I could put it in this blog for others to read,  Everyone needs to reconsider their thoughts about how we live searching for liberty and peace, transcending race, religion and prejudice   As a friend I can say he is a great guy, a good friend and a great citizen in our community - a brother.  

All the best,

J

Unite the Right!

Unite the Right - The program to defeat the NDP in Alberta

Good evening everyone, It's the close of day 2 of the ideological battle between the left and the right for the Province of Alberta.  We haven't had anything this exciting in decades, since the day Peter Lougheed led the forces of progress defeat the petrified control of the Social Credit Party. 

The results of Tuesday's election are now in the books, the NDP has a resounding victory over the right, the result of but not the acceptance of the socialist philosophy they push rather the rejection of the existing  market system we have lived with for years but rather, the rejection of an intellectually bankrupt and completely misled Conservative party.  Things started downhill with the floor crossing of the Wild Rosers and continued through the budget and the panic caused by the fall in the price of oil.  After a history of failed leaders starting with Stelmach through Alison Redford and ending with Jim Prentice, a man who did not have the stomach to deal with his team's disaster but rather acted like an Italian cruise ship captain, the Conservative brand is ruined.  

Now lets see how we can save the situation and get back the Alberta we love from the NDP. Let's start the revolution now and work to defeat the red hoards, they are arriving daily from B.C. sensing a feeding frenzy from our hard work and resource.  The question we face is how much damage will we have to sustain before we as citizens redeliver the Province to good hands.

To begin with let's start with a a good note about the NDP, after the votes were counted we had 55 new taxpayers in the province!

Good night from Calgary, Remember enjoy Calgary before the NDP burns it down.