Kelly McParland: How decades of Liberal indifference created Danielle Smith

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
32,077
11,626
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The short answer is no. It is not so much the port itself, it is all the other marine traffic, including whales. All ships for Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle use Juan de Fuca Strait. From a security point of view, that is putting all your eggs in one basket. Alberta oil producers would probably be better off contracting out ship loading to Louisiana or Alaska than deal with the BC government and coastal native bands that are opposed because they are not on the pipeline route and don't get any free money for a pipe that doesn't cross their land.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
29,147
8,527
113
B.C.
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.
They have been loading ocean freight since Rupert was born . Nothing new .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,624
4,188
113
Edmonton
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.
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!!
 

Taxslave2

Senate Member
Aug 13, 2022
5,594
3,027
113
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 only bands not in agreement are the ones not on the money route.