From what I understand currently, with the existing depth of that straight in southern BC, the big tankers can only be partly loaded due to the depth of that channel. It’s this or nothing.
Kelly McParland: How decades of Liberal indifference created Danielle Smith
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
I think what you are referring to is dredging in Burard Inlet to the WestCoast Transmission terminal. Currently the large tankers(can't remember the name) can only take 80% of capacity because of water depth East of Lions Gate Bridge. This has been kicked around for at least a decade. Not connected to the proposed Delta Port terminal, which is going to cause a shitstorm from the same oil spittter groups that oppose the Northern route(Pr. Rupert) In this, they have some valid points. All marine traffic for Vancouver and Puget Sound must go through the same narrow, crowded, and environmentally sensitive route. There is also the rather glaring tax grab involved. The lower mainland is largely NDPee territory, and each municipality, regional district, indian reserve gets to collect a bundle of tax money from the pipeline.
Wouldn't there also be a risk of undermining the footing of the historical Lionsgate bridge? Like say if they hit bedrock and had to blast, who knows what might happen next or as time passes.
I mean how many times in history have we noticed that they dismiss people's concerns because of 'the science'?
And when things go awry that's when we find out the science was paid for by those that could make money off of the proposition.
I mean how many times in history have we noticed that they dismiss people's concerns because of 'the science'?
And when things go awry that's when we find out the science was paid for by those that could make money off of the proposition.
Robert’s Bank would cause a shitstorm from Native and environmental groups throughout B.C. and Canada . Think of the Fraser River salmon .
The Port of Prince Rupert (located in British Columbia, Canada) ranks as the 25th busiest container port in North America. Within Canada, it is the third busiest (behind Vancouver and Montreal).
Wanna hear weirder? I asked Google AI if America oil tankers can transit the area that bans oil takers on that portion of the B.C. coast that bans Alberta (and in turn Saskatchewan) oil and oil pipelines from tidewater?
The announcement between Ottawa and Alberta came hours after B.C. struck a deal on a multibillion-dollar federal commitment for infrastructure projects in the province and no change to the federal “Canadian import/export” tanker ban off B.C.’s North Coast.
Ms. Smith said that after studying northern and southern route options, her government determined that a pipeline from the Alberta town of Bruderheim to a deep-water port terminal on B.C.’s southwest coast offered “the fastest, most cost-effective path to expanding Canada’s energy exports”….& the only choice not banned for “Canadian” oil for import/export on the west coast of Canada.
“Mr. Carney said the federal government will now refer the West Coast pipeline project proposal to its Major Projects Office, with consultations to begin immediately with Indigenous communities, provinces and territories. He said the government expects the decision on whether it will be a project of national interest will be made by Oct. 1. ”
An Alberta-Ottawa memorandum of understanding that laid the groundwork for the pipeline plan, signed in November, said Ottawa “may” consider adjusting a prohibition on tankers loading and unloading oil along the northern B.C. coast, & then the B.C.-Ottawa MOU was signed the day of the Alberta announcement.
Alberta proposes southern route for new West Coast pipeline — The Globe and Mail
The plan, which sidesteps environmental concerns in B.C.’s north, calls for the new conduit to be built by federally owned Trans Mountain Corp., working with Pembina Pipeline Corp.