Syn – Canadian oil has been shipped to Washington state for more than 40 years. And much more to come. From your own Seattle times:
http://seattletimes.com/news/local/exxo ... eline.html“As the population of Washington state grows, so does the demand for petroleum products. As that demand grows, so does the tanker traffic through the state's risky waterways. And as the traffic grows, so does the risk of an oil spill. There is an alternative.
Washington state doesn't have to import its crude oil by tanker. Instead, the state's refineries could be fed through an underused pipeline from Canada that is already in place. The pipeline, which crosses the border at Sumas in Whatcom County, was Washington's main source of oil in the early 1970s. Today, Washington can't buy much of the light crude oil it once got in abundance from Canada through the pipeline, because the supply is low. But there is a new and almost unlimited supply of another kind of oil, a very heavy and more expensive type called bitumen, which the Canadians would be more than happy to sell to the States.”
And the dynamics of Canadian oil moving through Washington state by rail. From your Association of Washington Tribes and the Coast Salish Gathering (AWT/CSG). The information on this site is for the exclusive use of tribal leaders, staff, and the invited guests of elected tribal leaders:
"Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Ecology published a map describing various crude oil-by-rail proposals in Washington and Oregon. Since then, Ecology officials have confirmed via email and telephone that the following volumes of crude oil-by-rail projected over the next few years are realistic. Total number of new train trips per year due to these unrefined oil-by-rail proposals exceed 5,000 transits per year! Each unit train of 100 cars each carries 3,000,000 gallons of crude oil (approximately 75,000 barrels)."
And one should remember that all that Canadian production being shipped out of Alberta to the US cross those rails that are moving oil from the Bakken to Washington State. So how difficult would it be to direct Alberta oil down those same rails that Bakken oil is moving? And did I catch a hint of “our Bakken oil ain’t as bad as Canadian oil”? From your own official “Washington State Government Website”:
"The Facility's principal purpose is to provide North American crude oil to U.S. refineries to offset or replace declining Alaska North Slope crude reserves, California crude production, and more expensive foreign crude-oil imports. The crude oil handled by and shipped through the facility will largely offset other sources of crude oil used by U.S. refineries that choose to source a portion of their crude through the Facility. In accordance with current federal law, crude oil extracted in the United States generally cannot be exported to foreign countries. The facility they refer to is a 360,000 bopd rail terminal at the port of Vancouver, WASHINTON STATE."
And note the plans to bring more Canadian oil in via tankers along your pristine coastline. And make note: this plan doesn’t require anyone’s approval to lay a new pipeline: just increase capacity of an existing line. From your Spokesman-Review:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/d ... mean-many/SEATTLE – The number of oil tankers in Washington state waters could increase almost sevenfold under a proposal by a Canadian pipeline company to expand the amount of crude oil it sends to the Pacific Coast. Kinder Morgan Canada filed a formal application with Canadian regulators earlier this month to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline that carries crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands to the Vancouver, B.C., area. Under the proposal, up to 34 tankers a month would be loaded with oil at a terminal outside Vancouver, then generally travel through Haro Strait east of San Juan Island and the Strait of Juan de Fuca for export to markets in Asia and the U.S. That’s up from about five tankers a month now.
{BTW about 12% of the oil consumed in CA comes along the Washington coast via tankers from Alaska.}
And for my buddy Graeme: “It could start by stopping all subsidies, and rejecting Keystone XL.” And that says it all: you are certainly free to keep your head in the sand and pretend these dynamics don’t exist. Such as the fact that the 600,000 bopd planned to be transported across the Canadian border by the northern section of Keystone XL has begun being delivered to Texas last January thru the southern leg of Keystone XL. You’ve consistently ignored this DYNAMIC every time I explained it to you. By pointing out these changing DYNAMICS I’m providing you with ammo to battle those changes. Why do you insist on ignoring them? We all see you sitting there right now saying oil won’t be moved to the west coast because that would be bad for the environment. And yet everyone here sees those dynamics UDERWAY today. Just saying burning fossil fuels is a bad idea obviously accomplishes nothing as indicated by the fact that the world is burning more fossil fuels today then every before in history. In some cases you almost seem to be providing cover for the fossil fuel industry. My motivations for not wanting the Canadian production to be shipped to the Gulf Coast have been made very clear. And so has yours. But I don’t let my personal desires to cloud my picture of what is going on.