I don't have any issues with the land portion of this project but the loading terminal and the safety of marine transportation is a very serious concern. It doesn't happen very often but if it only happens once, and only once, that's all that it takes to make our local ecosystem a mess for decades. My liberal MP wrote a letter to the federal minister of natural resources a few weeks ago and stressed the concerns of his constituents. This decision has shown all of us how much they care about the needs and wants of the BC coastal people. I'm going to write a letter to my MP to voice my concerns and provide some high level short term and long term alternatives. talking in isolation on the Internet forums and chat rooms is not going to mitigate the risks.Yes, huge oil tankers have been plying our waters for 60 years already, and no, there have been no serious incidents yet. But just one single major spill would cause untold havoc on our coast. Most of the heavy fractions would sink to the bottom, releasing hydrocarbons into the environment for decades.
"The globalization of the oil sector has increased movement of these products in recent years. Refineries are no longer located predominantly in regions where demand is greatest. The United States, for example, has been refining a growing surplus of diesel fuel that it exports to Europe and Asia." Apparently only the Americans can "refine it here" and then ship to Global markets including Europe and Asia. Why a dead end street for us?Oil refineries are highly automated continuous-process chemical plants. They're physically large but there aren't that many operator jobs involved. Maintenance and shutdowns are the main uses of labour. The international oil industry mostly ships unrefined crude so there is little access to transport suitable for refined petro products. The "refine it here" concept is a dead end street.
Sounds like things are changing and the Americans have found transport for diesel, good to know. They too have more refinery capacity than their domestic market needs. Falling oil consumption is the reality for the foreseeable future in OECD countries, although gloabl oil demand is projected to expand due to growth in India and China."The globalization of the oil sector has increased movement of these products in recent years. Refineries are no longer located predominantly in regions where demand is greatest. The United States, for example, has been refining a growing surplus of diesel fuel that it exports to Europe and Asia." Apparently only the Americans can "refine it here" and then ship to Global markets including Europe and Asia. Why a dead end street for us?
Adding more VLCCs to that already crowded mix isn't to be taken lightly. Thirdly, Burrard Inlet is a very confined space for VLCCs to operate. The Second Narrows has a navigable channel barely 150 m wide and can generate currents of up to 6 kn.
Can't disagree but the same arguments can be made for any raw material. Why mill logs here if the US or the Far East has excess capacity and a better marketing infrastructure system already in place? I guess the way I look at it is that if we follow that thought process we will never develop a manufacturing economy but be condemned to shipping raw materials out of our country and importing the finished product back.Oil refineries are highly automated continuous-process chemical plants. They're physically large but there aren't that many operator jobs involved. Maintenance and shutdowns are the main uses of labour. The international oil industry mostly ships unrefined crude so there is little access to transport suitable for refined petro products. The "refine it here" concept is a dead end street.
There's a time for raw log sales and a time to restrict them. In the period after the GFC, raw log sales to Asia kept Canadian loggers working. Milling lumber at normal levels was pointless because the US home construction industry had all but collapsed. Was it wrong to find alternate outlets for those logs? Of course not, it kept the forest workers working. Today we have the opposite situation, lumber prices are high because of strong demand from the north american construction boom, and profit margins are good because of the sales in USD/expenses in CAD leverage. How many logs are going offshore unprocessed? Precious few, because there's better money to be made milling them here. As well, fibre supply is limited due to reductions in the annual allowable cut to offset the "use it or lose it" overcutting permitted during the pine beetle infestation. That's been the cause of several recent sawmill closures - the mill had insufficient log supply attached, and there is excess milling capacity in BC.Can't disagree but the same arguments can be made for any raw material. Why mill logs here if the US or the Far East has excess capacity and a better marketing infrastructure system already in place? I guess the way I look at it is that if we follow that thought process we will never develop a manufacturing economy but be condemned to shipping raw materials out of our country and importing the finished product back.
As a country we were lazy and looked for a quick buck! By shipping our unfinished resources out of the country we never had to develop a means to finish the product nor the infrastructure to move it to market.
You are probably right however, as far as oil goes that ship has sailed! Pun intended.
Lawyers, BCR.problem is that our 'elected' politicians are like puppets in the hands of big corporations. They have 4 years on average to make the most out of their 'power' otherwise they'll have to live like ordinary working class citizens. I like to see how Gordon Campbell and S. Harper are making it these days. Working 8-5, 5 days/week like average citizen and trying to make the ends meet?? I doubt it...
Lawyers, BCR.
Harper is now employed as a lawyer working on trade deals - giving our governance away
There's a time for raw log sales and a time to restrict them. In the period after the GFC, raw log sales to Asia kept Canadian loggers working. Milling lumber at normal levels was pointless because the US home construction industry had all but collapsed. Was it wrong to find alternate outlets for those logs? Of course not, it kept the forest workers working. Today we have the opposite situation, lumber prices are high because of strong demand from the north american construction boom, and profit margins are good because of the sales in USD/expenses in CAD leverage. How many logs are going offshore unprocessed? Precious few, because there's better money to be made milling them here. As well, fibre supply is limited due to reductions in the annual allowable cut to offset the "use it or lose it" overcutting permitted during the pine beetle infestation. That's been the cause of several recent sawmill closures - the mill had insufficient log supply attached, and there is excess milling capacity in BC.
The forest industry has quite a few export options available and they exercise them according to market conditions and prices. Export of oil from western Canada reserves has considerably fewer options, that's why I consider the two industries to be a poor example for comparison.