A bump in petroleum imports helps fuel Port of Vancouver cargo record


petros
+2
#1  Top Rated Post
Funny, ironic, and hypocritical.

Imports of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the Lower Mainland increased significantly over the first half of 2018, helping to pad record cargo volumes through Vancouver’s port for the period, according to the Port of Vancouver.

Oil exports have increased in 2017 and the first half of 2018 from record lows in 2016, said port CEO Robin Silvester, but it was imports that drove its increase in cargo volumes.

“We’ve seen a 1.2-million-tonne increase (in petroleum shipments), and within that, 900,000 tonnes or so is inbound rather than outbound,” Silvester said, “and the inbound is almost all stuff we use as consumers.”


The port’s oil exports flow from Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Marine Terminal, which can also handle imports, but the port also has a handful of other import terminals, including the Parkland (formerly Chevron) oil refinery and nearby Shellburn terminal in Burnaby, and the Suncor and Ioco terminals in Port Moody.

Silvester said import and export volumes vary depending on market conditions and prices at the time shipments are made, but generally demonstrate how dependent the region still is on fossil fuels.

“In the absence of the Kinder Morgan (Trans Mountain pipeline expansion), what we’re observing is fluctuations of the local part of a global market that is mainly to do with consumption in the Lower Mainland,” he added.

Exports of petroleum products were also up 300,000 tonnes, Silvester said, with about half flowing to other domestic locations, such as Vancouver Island, and the other half as mostly crude oil to foreign ports.

Two tankers went to Asian destinations, one to Korea and the other to China, but most flowed to California refineries thirsty for new feed stocks to replace declining supplies from Alaska and attracted by relatively cheap Canadian heavy oil.


“Today, the majority of shipments leaving our Westridge Marine Terminal are going to the U.S.,” said Lizette Parsons Bell, a spokeswoman for the Trans Mountain expansion, in an emailed statement.

“The mix of products and destinations varies from year to year and is based on market demand,” said Parsons Bell.

An independent economist, Robyn Allan, said current market conditions make it attractive for California refineries to tap what they can from the over-subscribed Trans Mountain pipeline.

“It is a function of the fact it is relatively cheap,” said Allan, with the key Canadian heavy-oil grade selling at a US$26-a-barrel discount to the benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude price of US$64.89 a barrel.

In 2017, according to the Port of Vancouver, the port shipped 1.8 million tonnes of oil, or 12.6 million barrels, compared with 1.2 million tonnes, or 8.5 million barrels, in 2016.

depenner@postmedia.com
 
MHz
#2
BC would see a rise in money coming in, Vancouver would see a drop if the 'dangerous goods route' was moved to where the new port is proposed the rates this mentions would be doubled.
How close to capacity was it running at?
 
Hoid
#3
How is refined fuels for our own use the same as unrefined tar for Alberta's profit?

Fail.
 
petros
+1
#4
If you lived in BC you'd already be tanking up on oil sands or heavy oil.
 
Hoid
#5
Has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous analogy.
 
petros
+1
#6
You not really living in BC or that BC is already sucking the heavy oil teat?
 
Hoid
#7
That allowing heavy unrefined oil from Alberta to go through port province to export markets is not analogous with importing fuels for our own use.
 
petros
#8
It's nothing new. California is crying for heavy oil.

Are you wanting to export our light crude and consume heavy crude domestically?
 
Hoid
#9
Nobody is crying for dilbit.

Except Alberta - to sell it to someone for nothing.
 
MHz
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

How is refined fuels for our own use the same as unrefined tar for Alberta's profit?

Fail.

What makes you think the people of AB get to keep the money made from anything oil related. The industry is owned by international companies with their board rooms in foreign countries. The same ones that control where all that fuel will go.

Ft Mac is a dead project, it costs 4x the cost to extract and the product produced can be duplicated at Cold Lake and shipped using existing facilities. We aren't even allowed do develop uses for the clean sand that is left behind so why would we want yo cut our own throats by limiting the income?



The right of way opened up putting that first line in would be wide enough to add more lines as well as a tracks for heavy loads rather than trying to widen the trans-canada

The alternative would be the US moves it all and they have the option of closing the border anytime they want.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It's nothing new. California is crying for heavy oil.

The closest supply of that is Venezuela, now you know why they are short of that product, lol. (they can produce it at 1/4 of the cost and at 2x the volume)
 
Hoid
#11
The US can spool up shale oil any time they want and have no need whatsoever of alberta dilbit.

This was the reason it was so hard to the Keystone through - because it was so obviously not in the American national interest - as their laws said it must be.

The facts you point about about who actually owns and profits from Alberta energy is how it eventually got through.
 
petros
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Nobody is crying for dilbit.

Except Alberta - to sell it to someone for nothing.

California. They're running out of heavy oil and need feedstock for their heavy oil upgraders.

While definitions of heavy oil vary, nearly two-thirds of California crude has a gravity under 20 degrees. In fact, the state's oil fields are estimated to contain more than 40 percent of the country's heavy oil.
 
Hoid
#13
So I guess we're off the whole using a stupid analogy thing?

We seem to have arrived at the "California needs Alberta's dilbit because they have 40% of America's heavy oil" part of the comedy.
 
petros
+1
#14
Right in the OP.

Quote:

California refineries thirsty for new feed stocks to replace declining supplies from Alaska and attracted by relatively cheap Canadian heavy oil.

Please read what gets posted.
 
Hoid
#15
Please write something worth reading.
 
petros
#16
Complain to The Vancouver Sun who published the article.
 
Hoid
#17
So remind us again how this is hypocritical of BC?
 
MHz
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The US can spool up shale oil any time they want and have no need whatsoever of alberta dilbit.

The problems comes when you try to shut the wells down as the gas just starts finding its way to the surface through natural and man-made cracks in the rocks.
 
petros
+1
#19
Trade deficits and tanker traffic.
 
taxslave
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

How is refined fuels for our own use the same as unrefined tar for Alberta's profit?
Fail.

They are talking about tonage retard. It is irrelevent what the product is as long as it moves through the port. There is a huge market for dilbit everywhere except lala land. Most Lower Mainlaind dwellers are so simple minded they don't know where everything the consumers comes from or how it gets there. You being a prime example. Now off to school before you get a detention on the first day.