• 5 minutes Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 11 minutes Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 17 minutes Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 1 min WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 5 hours Newspaper Editorials Across U.S. Rebuke Trump For Attacks On Press
  • 6 hours Mike Shellman's musings on "Cartoon of the Week"
  • 1 hour Permian already crested the productivity bell curve - downward now to Tier 2 geological locations
  • 11 hours Venezuela set to raise gasoline prices to international levels.
  • 54 mins WTI @ 69.33 headed for $70s - $80s end of August
  • 5 hours Batteries Could Be a Small Dotcom-Style Bubble
  • 18 hours Renewable Energy Could "Effectively Be Free" by 2030
  • 11 hours Scottish Battery ‘Breakthrough’ Could Charge Electric Cars In Seconds
  • 17 hours Corporations Are Buying More Renewables Than Ever
  • 6 hours Don't Expect Too Much: Despite a Soaring Economy, America's Annual Pay Increase Isn't Budging
  • 22 hours Again Google: Brazil May Probe Google Over Its Cell Phone System
  • 7 hours France Will Close All Coal Fired Power Stations By 2021
What Would A Hard Brexit Mean For British Oil?

What Would A Hard Brexit Mean For British Oil?

Despite nearly 14 months of…

Why Saudi Arabia Cut July Oil Production

Why Saudi Arabia Cut July Oil Production

Saudi Arabia’s oil production in…

Panel Rejects Washington Oil Terminal

oil storage

A panel has rejected a project for the construction of an oil terminal at the port of Vancouver in the state of Washington on the grounds that the companies behind the project had failed to convince them that the site was acceptable.

The panel’s chairwoman told media the members of the Energy Facility Evaluation Council had gone through more than a quarter of a million public comments on the proposed terminal, including notable opponents to the project such as environmental groups, tribes, and municipalities from the area.

The project was conceived by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. as a storage hub for oil transported by rail from North Dakota to the Washington coast, from where it will be loaded onto vessels that will take it to West Coast refineries. The facility was supposed to have a capacity of 360,000 bpd of crude.

The opponents of the project argued that all the benefits from the site will be reaped by California, and in the future by foreign markets, while all the risks will be reaped by local communities. Among these risks, according to an environmental study released last week, are spills, train accidents, and longer emergency response times caused by increased road traffic. Also, the study identified as risk potentially negative consequences for low-income communities and even the risk of an earthquake that could cause an oil spill in the port.

Related: U.S. Oil Has One Fatal Weakness

According to Tesoro and Savage, which set up a joint venture, Vancouver Energy, for the project, said they were extremely disappointed with the decision of the panel, with a spokesman saying that the panel "has set an impossible standard for new energy facilities based on the risk of incidents that the Final Environmental Impact Statement characterizes as extremely unlikely."

The final decision is in the hands of Governor Jay Inslee, and chances are against Vancouver Energy. This is the latest example of the major opposition new oil and gas infrastructure projects are running into on a regular basis in both the U.S. and Canada.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Bill Simpson on November 29 2017 said:
    Texas and Louisiana welcome oil and gas projects.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News