• 4 minutes China - EU: Xi Says Cooperation Is Mainstream In Their Ties
  • 8 minutes The Mining Industry Has Had It Easy For Far Too Long
  • 11 minutes Lawsuit-Happy Councilor Wants to Take Big Oil to Court
  • 15 minutes U.S. Shale Output may Start Dropping Next Year
  • 3 hours Dutch Populists Shock the EU with Election Victory
  • 51 mins Venezuela Says Russian Troops Land to Service Military Equipment
  • 2 hours Trump to Make Allies Pay More to Host US Bases
  • 9 hours Multi-well Pad Drilling Cost Question
  • 19 hours U.S.-China Trade War Poses Biggest Risk To Global Stability
  • 2 hours Public Companies that attended OPEC "THREAT DINNER" at CERRAWEEK must disclose any risks in their SEC Financial filings.
  • 4 hours 3 Pipes: EPIC 900K, CACTUS II 670K, GREY OAKS 800K
  • 2 hours England Running Out of Water?
  • 2 hours Read: OPEC THREATENED TO KILL US SHALE
  • 2 hours Mexico Demands Spain and the Vatican Apologize to Indigenous People for the Spanish Conquest
  • 1 day One Last Warning For The U.S. Shale Patch
  • 1 day European Parliament demands Nord-Stream-ii pipeline to be Stopped
  • 2 days Modular Nuclear Reactors
Morgan Stanley: Oil To Rise To $75 This Summer

Morgan Stanley: Oil To Rise To $75 This Summer

Investment bank Morgan Stanley sees…

Trump Will Eventually Overpower Maduro

Trump Will Eventually Overpower Maduro

The Maduro government of Venezuela…

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