On the other hand expanding the refinery would go down well with California as they are seeing much of their refinery capacity being closed and are having to import more and more refined and raw products every day. Vancouver would be a short haul and a stable supplier.
Pipelines, energy and natural resources
- Thread starter QV
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,116
- Points
- 1,260
lol, I know that money has no allegiance but building a new pipeline to the coast to only see it be ship to California is different than a new pipeline to the US mid-west or Texas how?
I understand that the oil to Texas sells at a discount to what is shipped via TMX now. But is the goal to diversify away from the US or obtain a higher price for our product?
- Reaction score
- 2,737
- Points
- 1,140
Push more oil to Asia and we can do both. With the oil glut America is having, I don't see the need to push more oil into the US market. Add Venezuela poised to export more heavy crude to the USA, yeah, pipelines to the pacific.
you will obtain a higher price. Oil from Texas has to go through Panama to get to California. There is no pipeline. Kinder is talking of one from the midwest but so far, nada. California, at least until a new line is constructed would be no different as a customer than say Japan.
- Reaction score
- 2,737
- Points
- 1,140
is western gateway in the works in the USA?
Sure, sell the oil if its at the proper price point, but I think the priority should be on encouraging Asian nations to buy the bulk of it.
Last edited:
Build pipe to pacific tidewater. Let the ships load up with purchased oil, and said where they may. If Californian imports want to offer a better price than Japan or Singapore, cool, fill your boots (or boats?) But at least the option is there, so that if later on the U.S. builds an east west pipeline to fuel California from Texas, by simply asking two bucks a barrel less, now we’re selling to Asia again.
The end state I care about is diversity of export market options. We’ll do fine once we have access to the pacific market with more volume. If it still ends up being sold to the U.S. based on price signals, that’s fine. They won’t have us over a barrel dependent on them though.
It is but all the normal participants are ganging up against it just like here. Even money probably on which gets built first but with Trump's hate on for California it could easily be ours.
- Reaction score
- 7,019
- Points
- 1,160
Over a mountain range or two, under the strait, over another mountain range, only to be confronted by hippies throwing homemade soap at you. I imagine the sea state on the west coast of the Island would demand a large, sheltered, deep water harbour.
- Reaction score
- 7,019
- Points
- 1,160
We should any concerns the US neighbours would have the same weight I am sure the US gives Canadian locals over nuclear subs operating in the waters.
Say this again, but slowly.
- Reaction score
- 6,772
- Points
- 1,260
Considering that the route from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay goes through US waters almost from the start, I don’t think this a concern.
- Reaction score
- 7,019
- Points
- 1,160
My former financial guy's two daughters live there and he has visited them a number of times. He describes a town full of cottage artisans, and mainstream society escappees; and one of his daughters makes homemade soap to sell to tourists in the summer.
As a former partner once described a similar arts community in Haliburton County: the long skirt, beaded, hairy armpit crowd.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 46,945
- Points
- 1,160
Oh, they sell the soap. Gotcha.
- Reaction score
- 924
- Points
- 910
The consultation was "done"...but that's only the first part of the duty to consult. The second part is where I understand it fell apart as the crown was unable to show they had reviewed and considered the consultation work done. My understanding is the consultation package was basically recieved by the Federal Gov't and they rubber stamped it as "adequate".
For example there was a band in BC that didn't like the proposed original route. They provided two alternative routings - avoiding the area of their concern - back to the company one of which was quickly discarded as a viable option as it would have been a major detour. The second viable option apparently wasn't even looked at by the federal government who rubber stamped the original route as approved. Same corridor route overall but local adjustments needed.
This small scale adjustment is what consultation is supposed to find out - what is the issue, what is the significance, what alternatives exist. And the crown has to consider not just the original discussion but also any alternatives, and more importantly document that they did so.
The above example was told to us as a very clear example of how flawed the government approval was and was a professional warning to ensure that each decision made has at minimum notes if not a clear explaination to the approval in case of future challanges. Not so much the consultation work done but the government review was done piss poor and hastily with no documentation. And that was a big reason why it was overturned.
The chest beating between provinces/municipalities/federal was absurd - agreed - and once the federal gov't owned the project the big stick came out and swatted the chaos apart. But I've seen that on multiple projects in the past where local gov't's or provincies puff out their chest and then suddenly everything happens due to the right folks talking/reminding where the power lies.
Similar threads
