• 2 minutes California to ban gasoline for lawn mowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, off road equipment, etc.
  • 6 minutes China and India are both needing more coal and prices are now extremely high. They need maximum fossil fuel.
  • 11 minutes Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.
  • 1 hour GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 10 hours Monday 9/13 - "High Natural Gas Prices Today Will Send U.S. Production Soaring Next Year" by Irina Slav
  • 1 min "A Very Predictable Global Energy Crisis" by Irina Slav --- MUST READ
  • 4 hours Two Good and Plausible Ideas about Saving Water and Redirecting it to Where it is Needed.
  • 1 day Did China cherry-pick the factors that affected the economic slow-down?
  • 3 hours "Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change" - Zero Hedge re: Bank of America REPORT
  • 6 hours Are you aware of Oil Price short videos on our energy topics?
  • 11 hours Is China Rising or Falling? Has it Enraged the World and Lost its Way? How is their Economy Doing?
  • 14 hours NordStream2
  • 4 days U.S. : Employers Can Buy Retirement Security for $2.64 an Hour
  • 410 days Class Act: Bet You've Never Seen A President Do This.
  • 4 days Forecasts for Natural Gas
  • 4 days Australia sues Neoen for lack of power from its Tesla battery
  • 4 days Nord Stream - US/German consultations

Panel Rejects Washington Oil Terminal

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

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News