Now, if only there was somewhere on that coast in Canadian waters that happened to have or be naturally a deep water port, & way less traffic, and didn’t have existing bridges that would either have to be redesigned or limit the height of tanker traffic…an already existing rail line, etc…like…
They have been loading ocean freight since Rupert was born . Nothing new .Now, if only there was somewhere on that coast in Canadian waters that happened to have or be naturally a deep water port, & way less traffic, and didn’t have existing bridges that would either have to be redesigned or limit the height of tanker traffic…an already existing rail line, etc…like…
Apparently the port of Prince Rupert just happens to be the third deepest in the world.Port of Prince Rupert - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
SeacansThe Port of Prince Rupert is Canada’s third-busiest seaport, behind Vancouver and Montreal.
Except where the Feds want the pipeline to (if it ever actually happens) ends up in Vancouver, a port that is extremely busy already & cannot have the large oil tankers in port whereas Prince Rupert is the better choice as it can accommodate the larger tankers. Besides, most First Nations approved of the route initially so there would likely not be the resistance that the Feds are talking about. It was already an approved route with everyone concerned involved & Trudy nixed it!!The federal government is eyeing a new oil pipeline route in southern British Columbia that some in Ottawa believe would face fewer environmental hurdles and less resistance from Indigenous groups than the northern route Alberta is proposing, two federal sources say.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed an memorandum of understanding in November, with the goals of unlocking Alberta’s energy sector and diversifying export markets in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war. The agreement laid the conditions for construction of a new oil conduit to the Pacific.
The MOU doesn’t say what path the pipeline will take. Ms. Smith has talked up a northern route that would carry Alberta oil to the Port of Prince Rupert, B.C. Her government is expected to propose such a route to Ottawa’s Major Projects Office this summer. An Alberta government source said the province expects that the federal government will designate the pipeline a project of national importance in the fall. We’ll have to wait and see.
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ustry-new-pipeline-national-security-federal/)
Alberta prefers a northern route for two main reasons. First, Prince Rupert is North America’s closest port to Asia by up to three days sailing – around 36 hours closer to Shanghai than Vancouver.
It’s also the continent’s deepest port, which would enable access for the large crude carriers that are favoured for transporting oil to Asia. The massive tankers can transport about two million barrels of the dense, heavy crude that comes from Alberta’s oil sands.
But the two federal sources say Ottawa leans instead toward a route that would run through the province’s south to the port of Vancouver. That pipeline could either run alongside the Trans Mountain pipeline or follow another path. In either case, the sources said, it would require a new terminal for loading oil onto tankers.
The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity.
Ottawa favours southern route for new Alberta-B.C. pipeline, sources say — The Globe and Mail
The line would terminate at the port of Vancouver, potentially avoiding some of the pitfalls of a northern route pitched by Alberta’s Premierapple.news
The only bands not in agreement are the ones not on the money route.
Not usually, but some products are. loading and unloading is challenging. There is also a fair amount of biofuel being exported in seacans rather than bulk. WE looked into this on the island about 12 years ago, but so far it hasn't really happened. The idea is to make pellets or bricks for power generation in Asia.There is some small production happening. I think the lack of pulpmills may make this more viable. I burned some of the bricks in the woodstove and it worked OK. They are much like prestologs, only it is pure compressed fiber, no additives. There is(was?) a portable unit made in a seacan, but it only produces about 4 tons a day.
She's absolutely correct! It should go the northern route!!Speaking to reporters, Smith noted that some opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX) project last decade focused on the increased tanker traffic tied to more crude shipments leaving the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, B.C.
Developing a new oil pipeline to the lower B.C. mainland, as some have suggested, would only increase the traffic at the Port of Vancouver, she noted.
“In a very congested port like that, is there an appetite for a doubling, once again, of that amount of traffic? So that’s why I am a bit skeptical that that would be the appropriate route,” Smith said in Edmonton.
On Thursday, Smith indicated Alberta still prefers a new oil export pipeline that goes to a deepwater port in northern British Columbia — not one to southern B.C.
Varcoe: 'A high-wire act' — Talks progress with Ottawa on energy pact, but premier prefers pipeline to northern B.C. — Calgary Herald
Danielle Smith indicated Alberta still prefers a new oil export pipeline that goes to a deepwater port in northern British Columbia — not one to southern B.C.
Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline is running at full capacity for the first time since the completion of a major expansion two years ago, but an executive said Wednesday that ongoing global turmoil makes predicting future capacity rates difficult.
British Columbia and the federal government have unveiled a multibillion-dollar agreement that will maintain the northern oil tanker ban, eliminating the possibility of an oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.'s northern coast.
But the memorandum of understanding unveiled by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier David Eby in Vancouver on Thursday also acknowledges Canada’s agreement with Alberta on a trans-provincial oil pipeline, saying B.C. will be compensated for environmental risks if Ottawa imposes an oil pipeline on B.C.
“The prime minister was scheduled to head to Alberta later Thursday for a news conference with Premier Danielle Smith, where they are expected to make an announcement about plans for the pipeline to B.C.'s coast that Eby has long criticized.
“The MOU says B.C. "must share meaningfully" in the economic benefits of a new pipeline, with mechanisms to be discussed, including an annual royalty payment and an environmental response fund.
I’m understanding the above in that Alberta is looking for a new million barrel a day pipeline to the West Coast, not expansion of the already at capacity Trans Mountain by 320,000 barrels per day…to a port that’s already congested. The Carney/Smith announcement today will be interesting.
It is almost like Daniel Smith was pre-planning around some kind of backstabbing maneuver.
The Port of Prince Rupert is Canada’s third-busiest seaport, behind Vancouver and Montreal.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced Thursday that her government has a route – and builders – for a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, just hours after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a deal with B.C. to “make it possible.”
Carney said the route makes the most sense given the line already exists and serves as the "gateway to the world's fastest growing markets."
Smith said the Alberta government is partnering with the federally owned Trans Mountain Corp. and Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline to build and operate what has officially been labelled the West Coast Pipeline.
The Port of Prince Rupert is Canada’s third-busiest seaport, behind Vancouver and Montreal.
The Eby/Carney MOU included a commitment that Ottawa would uphold a tanker ban on B.C.’s northern coast and promises that Ottawa would take on financial risks for any potential environmental issues and spills should the pipeline be approved. It also promises that B.C. receive financial compensation for having the pipeline run through it.
Alberta's submission package says the terminal will need to be designed to accommodate large oil tankers and feature two new loading berths.
Eby’s understanding of the Eby/Carney MOU:
It would run from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to a terminal in Delta, B.C., just south of Vancouver. It would deliver more than one million barrels per day and see tankers ship it to Asian markets.
The main channel of the Prince Rupert channel is approximately 45 metres deep (with inner harbour drafts measuring 35 metres), making it the deepest natural harbour in North America. The Delta (Deltaport) channel to the existing container terminals dredged alongside depth is roughly 16 metres.
The proposed Alberta announced plan yesterday core routing and environmental terms are largely built around Premier David Eby's demands, marking a major compromise by Alberta. Eby successfully blocked a northern route and a repeal of the federal tanker ban, forcing Alberta to accept a southern route aligned with the existing Trans Mountain corridor.
Aside from the northern British Columbia coast under the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Canada does not have legal, geographically bound oil tanker bans on any of its other coastlines, including the rest of the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Canada, the St. Lawrence River, and the Arctic, and specifically the southern third of the B.C. coastline, or the northern third of the province of B.C. with that coastline owned by Alaska.
Apparently, they're going to "dredge" the strait (I forget the name of it) so that it can accommodate larger tankers. How much is THAT going to cost?A submission package shared by Alberta says the project will follow closely along the path of the current Trans Mountain pipeline.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced Thursday that her government has a route – and builders – for a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, just hours after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a deal with B.C. to “make it possible.”
Carney said the route makes the most sense given the line already exists and serves as the "gateway to the world's fastest growing markets."
Smith said the Alberta government is partnering with the federally owned Trans Mountain Corp. and Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline to build and operate what has officially been labelled the West Coast Pipeline.
The Eby/Carney MOU included a commitment that Ottawa would uphold a tanker ban on B.C.’s northern coast and promises that Ottawa would take on financial risks for any potential environmental issues and spills should the pipeline be approved. It also promises that B.C. receive financial compensation for having the pipeline run through it.
Alberta's submission package says the terminal will need to be designed to accommodate large oil tankers and feature two new loading berths.
Alberta submits plans and announces partners for new pipeline to B.C. coast — The Canadian Press
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced Thursday that her government has a
Eby’s understanding of the Eby/Carney MOU:
It would run from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to a terminal in Delta, B.C., just south of Vancouver. It would deliver more than one million barrels per day and see tankers ship it to Asian markets.
Is this including what’s already at capacity in the transmountain pipeline (?) or a separate standalone pipeline that in itself would deliver 1000,000 barrels a day?
View attachment 34971
It sounds like British Columbia is going to be rewarded quite handsomely several times over for this project.
