Northern Gateway Pipeline 2

The federal Joint Review Panel assessing the Northern Gateway pipeline has issued 199 preliminary conditions yesterday that need to be met for project approval. The panel must list conditions before deciding whether the pipeline can proceed.

The conditions included $950 million "in liability coverage in the event of a catastrophic oil spill. Among the other requirements, Enbridge must undertake rigorous pipeline inspections every two years to check for cracks, and have specially equipped tugboats accompany tankers out of Kitimat Harbour in northern B.C. The company must also have a plan for monitoring the pipeline's effect on the environment and submit plans for monitoring species at risk, including proposals for caribou habitat restoration. ...

The parties involved have until the end of May to comment or propose additional conditions as part of their written final arguments. They will be discussed during final oral arguments on the project in Terrace in June.

'I take it as a sign that the [National Energy Board] is getting the message that people are really concerned about this pipeline—Ben West, ForestEthics Advocacy ...

The conditions will set in stone many voluntary commitments the company has made in response to public concerns in British Columbia, where conservation groups have targeted the Northern Gateway with protests.

Ben West of ForestEthics Advocacy said the conditions won't sway project opponents.

"I take it as a sign that the [National Energy Board] is getting the message that people are really concerned about this pipeline," West said, pointing out that no other pipeline project has had so many conditions put forward by a review panel.

"I don't think it's going to change much in terms of how the public feels about these pipelines. The safest option is just not to build this pipeline."

Final hearings on the project are slated to begin next month. The panel has until the end of the year to submit its report and recommendation to the federal cabinet."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/04/12/bc-northern-gateway-cond...

Any list of conditions will not guarantee a spill cannot happen and the dangers associated with a catastrophic spill are so great that Northern Gateway must be prevented from getting underway.

''

Enbridge seemingly has no doubt whatsoever that the project will go ahead.  They have consultants designing all the pumping stations and ordering the equipment and materials required.  The NEB is just going to rubberstamp the project, with a few meaningless concessions to try to appease the public.

People on the ground are going to have to be the ones who stop the project because the feds most certainly will not.  After all, they represent their constituents (oil companies) and not the general population.  It appears they are perfectly willing to write off most of BC in 2015, because even some / most of the Con supporters I know in BC are dead set against this project because it offers BC absolutely no benefits with far too much risk.

The following article surprisingly says that the Liberals would likely be forced to say no to the pipeline despite all its waffling on its five demands that the Liberals says the pipeline must meet to gain their support. However, it does say that the federal Cons would lose big time if they try to force it down BC's throat. 

The Liberals and the NDP would like to say their positions are vastly different, but they both appear to be heading in the same direction. If the NDP wins, it will be “no” either by word or by deed. Environment critic Rob Fleming says the NEB hearing might be a nice venue for outlining his party’s opposition to the project, but the main focus of an NDP government would be to set up a B.C. environmental review. And they can: In 2010, the Liberal government signed an agreement with Ottawa giving away responsibility for examining Northern Gateway and several other energy projects. But that agreement includes an escape clause allowing B.C. to give 30 days’ notice to terminate the agreement. But the NDP still oppose the project. “The Liberals have surrendered the right to really say ‘no,’ ” Mr. Fleming said. “If B.C. is headed to disagree with Ottawa, it needs to have its own legal process.”

Still, it makes for an oddly undefined debate about the top environmental issue on voters’ minds. Eric Swanson is running a parallel No Tankers campaign for the Dogwood Initiative. He says the NDP have been more clear and consistent in their opposition to Northern Gateway than the Liberals. But, given the mood among voters in B.C., it doesn’t matter which method the next premier takes to get to ‘no.’ “If the Prime Minister tries to force an unwanted project on B.C., he is going to lose pretty big out here. That’s the main power the next premier has.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/northern-gateway-ap...

Adrian Dix has all but ended the possibility of a twinning of the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline to Vancouver both in his comments and a new television ad. In the ad he says that " 'British Columbians are not willing to trade our coast and wilderness for an oil pipeline and risky oil tanker traffic'. ...

Environmental groups were quick to celebrate the NDP announcement Monday, including noted environmentalist Tzeporah Berman, who in 2009 tore up her NDP membership card because of the party's promise in that election to cancel the carbon tax.

'I am going to be supporting Adrian Dix and the B.C. NDP in this election. I'm going to be volunteering for David Eby in my riding,' she said in an interview Monday, applauding the party's position on both Kinder Morgan and Enbridge."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Adrian+casts+doubt+plans+Kinder+Mor...

Kara wrote:

Enbridge seemingly has no doubt whatsoever that the project will go ahead.  They have consultants designing all the pumping stations and ordering the equipment and materials required.  The NEB is just going to rubberstamp the project, with a few meaningless concessions to try to appease the public.

People on the ground are going to have to be the ones who stop the project because the feds most certainly will not.

Enbridge is spending vast amounts of money on their campaign to convince BCers, so that does not suggest confidence to me. This week I participated in an online survey by Hill & Knowlton basically on how Enbridge can sell the project to the populace. Their plan of attack seems to be environmental. They completely missed the economic argument.

Pipelines do not create jobs; they export them. We need to get this message out on the ground as much as we can.

CBC News and Power and Politics are reporting that an inspection of Enbridge pump stations for its pipelines has found that it is breaking National Energy Board (NEB) safety regulations at 117 out of 125 pump stations. Of the 125 stations, "only eight of its pump stations complied with the board's backup power system regulation. On top of that, Enbridge disclosed that 83 of its pump stations were missing emergency shut-down buttons." 

On Power and Politics, the reporter on this issue said the Enbridge defence for these violations was that the NEB never told them about the regulations. However, "In the case of backup power, that rule has been on the books since 1999. The emergency shut-down button has been a must since at least 1994. ... [Enbridge spokesperson Graham] White said Enbridge's non-compliance is a problem of interpretation. He said that the NEB has changed the way it interprets the backup power regulation."

The NEB said it had not inspected these stations before but now that it has found these problems it will be checking the stations regularly. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/05/pol-enbridge-breaks-neb...

What a relief! If Enbridge only knew about the regulations governing it for up to 20 years, it would have followed them. This news story should inspire great confidence in Enbridge and its regulators among Canadians in general and especially BCers, who are awaiting a decision on whether Northern Gateway goes ahead. 

jas: I certainly hope you are right that Northern Gateway does not go through.  However, given the amount that Enbridge has spent already for this pipeline, I'm not as confident of the project being shelved as you are.  Enbridge must have had some confirmations from the government to have committed that amount of money already.  I think the only way the project is going to be stopped is by consistent public pressure, protests and interference.

Christy Clark's LNG fantasy pipedream will never produce anything near her 'trillion dollar' boom. Now thanks to the Russia-China pipeline deal, it may be an economic disaster as the counted on much higher Asian energy prices drop as supply increases. When coupled with China's own fossil fuel production, as well as Australia's and Indonesia's (see below), most of which will be exported to Asian nations, prices will drop and supplies and carbon dioxide levels will increase well above the 400 ppm carbon dioxide level we just passed this week.

At the same time, energy prices will be driven up in this province due to the building of the LNG plants because "Much of the long term electricity load is contingent on the development of the proposed LNG projects on BC's Northwest coast. If the LNG export facilities are built, the demand for electricity in the Province could exceed 25% of the existing BC Hydro load (based on an estimated 4 LNG plants at approximate use of 4,000 GWh/year each. For context, the current BC Hydro load is approximately 60,000 GWh/year). This will make BC voters even more unhappy. 

http://www.bcenergyblog.com/

Quote:

The desire for Russia and China to boost trading ties is making China Russia’s priority market, as European demand for Russian oil decreases. Russian state-owned oil major Rosneft is tripling supplies to China to 1 million barrels a day. China is increasingly becoming Russia’s priority market, with Moscow looking to further boost ties, as European demand for Russian oil decreases. ...

Russia has been steadily increasing its oil exports to Asia as European oil and gas markets shrink due to the economic downturn. Around 15% of Russian oil exports are heading east, thanks to the new pipelines to China and to the Pacific coast. 

In 2013 Russia plans to increase its oil supplies to China by 1 million tonnes via the Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline. From 2015 to 2017 Rosneft reportedly plans to send 7 million tonnes of oil to Asia by sea, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta referring to unnamed sources. ...

China is also looking to increase its natural gas imports. With a new head of the People’s Republic it may now become easier for the two nations to reach an agreement on natural gas pipelines through Siberia, after six years of bargaining over prices. A contract stipulating terms for Russian gas supply is expected to be signed in June this year and a long-term contract will also be on the agenda, head of Gazprom, Alexey Miller said.

http://rt.com/business/china-become-russia-biggest-oil-client-667/

Quote:

China and Australia top a global list of planned oil, gas and coal projects that will act as "carbon bombs" and push the planet towards catastrophic climate change, a Greenpeace report warned on Tuesday.

The Point of No Return study, by consultancy firm Ecofys for Greenpeace, calculated that the 14 giant fossil fuel projects would produce 6.3 gigatonnes of CO2 a year in 2020 – as much as the entire United States emits annually.

The largest contributors will be China's five north-western provinces, which aim to increase coal production by 620m tonnes by 2015, generating an additional 1.4bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. Australia's burgeoning coal export industry, already the largest in the world, is in second place due to its potential growth to 408m tonnes of shipped resource a year by 2025, resulting in an annual 760m tonnes of CO2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/22/china-australia-carbon...

Northern Gateway Pipeline Crew Evicted By Gitga’at Nation May 16, 2013

Two days after the Liberal victory in the BC election, Enbridge was testing First Nations resolve against the Nothern Gateway pipeline. Enbridge found it that that resolve was still strong. 

Quote:

HARTLEY BAY, B.C. – Members of the Gitga’at Nation say they have evicted a Northern Gateway Pipelines crew from their territory on the north coast of British Columbia as it tried to conduct oil spill response surveys.

The small First Nation of Hartley Bay says the crew showed up to carry out work on the project that has not been approved, and that the Gitga’at continue to oppose.

Coun. Marven Robinson said the band received a fax informing them that the crew would be coming to conduct an oil spill response survey.

The letter had no contact person, telephone number or email. They showed up without an invitation in the middle of the annual seaweed harvest that sees most band members camped out along the shoreline about 20 kilometres from the town, Robinson said.

http://boereport.com/headlines/news/flash-northern-gateway-pipeline-crew...

Today the Vancouver Sun has a ten page Special Report section entitled Shipping Oil - Pipeline Economics, by the pipeline industry of course. The first page article is entitled "Energy trade key to Canada's Economy". On the back cover are two maps of Canada, one showing oil flowing in one direction only - to the US, the other showing 15 arrows pointing in every direction and a comment that not only could it mean much more oil exports but could increase the price for Canadian oil from $85 to $110 a barrel. If you like Christy Clark and Harper fantasies where the hero (the oil company) and the heorine (the Canadian public) live happily ever after you can read the lead article "Energy trade key to Canada's Economy" at

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Energy+trade+Canada+economy/8448405...

The brainwashing continues. 

B.C. rejects Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/31/bc-northern-gateway-rejected.html

Good news although it probably does not mean much because the BC government would likely cast aside 4 of their 5 conditions if the only one they really care about - increased revenue sharing - was addressed.

I have heard through the grapevine that this week, Enbridge has been reading the riot act to the consultants working on Northern Gateway regarding speaking with the press.  From what I understand, anybody working on the project is required to refer all questions to the Enbridge press officer.  That requirement certainly is not unusual (rather it is the norm) but one would have thought Enbridge would have at least been able to compose a proper NDA to prevent this in the first place.  From this, I would infer that Enbridge feels like it is losing control of its message and is not happy about its dirty little secrets being leaked out.  The fact that Enbridge is becoming more worried about it should probably be seen as a positive sign because they are being forced to recognize that they are losing the PR war.

To quote a friend on Twitter: "This isn't the Christy Clark I didn't vote for!"

I noticed that the CBC also went to the lone Green MLA for comments and not the official oppostion.

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Don't worry, it's all good.  Today on CFAX1070 Andrew Weaver, newly elected Greenie, said that both pipelines will not be going ahead.

i think he'll look the fool then.

As much as I think that this is a wonderful and surprising announcement, I take it with a grain of salt.  The as yet unelected, and not yet premier of BC, is probably doing this as a public relations exercise, and not in good faith. 

B.C. Liberal's 5 conditions...

• Environmental review needs to be passed.
• World-leading marine oil spill prevention, response.
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response.
• First Nations opportunities, treaty rights respected.
• Fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits for B.C.

what these conditions might really mean...

• environmental review needs to be bypassed
• oil spills on the coast will happen, and the "response" should look like more than doing nothing.
• oil spills on land will happen, same PR "response" as the previous condition
• as we've seen from history, first nations treaty rights might be stolen with so-called "opportunites"
• BC Liberals and their corporate backers are looking for more of a share of the fiscal and economic benefits, regardless of the first four conditions

I don't find any of these so-called conditions acceptable.

Here are my "conditions" ...

• The existing pipeline needs to be shut down.
• Oil tanker traffic on the coast needs to be banned

No pipelines, no tankers, no problem.

Why Premier Clark said 'No' to Enbridge (dogwoodinitiative.org)

Quote:

The fight against Enbridge is not over. Ottawa could still attempt to force this unwanted project on an unwilling province. But for now, let’s celebrate.

Many Conservative and Liberal politicians, both federally and provincially, have argued that because Alberta and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan oil is unable to reach the coast it is being sold at a discount. According to this argument, if we could only get it to coastal ports via BC or the Keystone pipeline to the Texas ports on the Gulf of Mexico we could get the full price and become a much wealthier country. For example, in post #222, I noted that Enbridge claimed in a ten page marketing insert in the Vancouver Sun this week that getting the oil to ocean port could, in addition to enabling us to export much more oil, be a bonzana for all Canadians as it could raise the price of Canadian oil from $85 to $110 a barrel. The following article totally debunks this argument. 

The oil industry's argument is that it actually faces a double discount which explains why we get $85 a barrel instead of the $110 obtained by Brent (from the North Sea) or West Texas Intermediate oil that they often quote for international markets.

Quote:

If Canada could build more pipelines such as Keystone XL, it would reach tidewater ports where it would attract world prices, the so-called Brent and West Texas Intermediate prices. The second part of the discount comes from backlogs at U.S. pipeline terminals that can result in lower prices for some Canadian heavy crude oil. But is there any truth in the "double discount?" ...

Some [economists] call the claim "bogus." World prices are based primarily on quality and so Canada's bitumen, which has the lowest quality of the heavy oils, naturally fetches lower prices. Sending the oilsands bitumen to Gulf Coast refineries is not going to change that fact, they note.

"It just doesn't make any sense," Michal Moore, an energy economist at University of Calgary, said of the discount argument. "Anything that does not meet that quality standard is going to trade at a discount relative to Brent. All that discount means is that any refinery owner is going to pay less for something they have to spend more time and energy to upgrade. That's all it means." ...

Moore noted that Canada already tests international markets when it pipes thousands of barrels of bitumen daily to the Gulf Coast through existing pipelines. There is no indication this oil is attracting higher prices because it is reaching tidal waters, he said.

B.C. Energy economist Robyn Allan, who recently wrote a report on the pricing of Canadian oil, said, "the discount has been used by the federal and provincial governments to shadow out the fact that by shipping raw bitumen to U.S. refineries, Canada is also shipping jobs."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Claims+that+Alberta+undervalued+bog...

In other words, these politicians claims are aimed at satisfying the interests of the oil companies only, as the oil companies do not want to spend money building an oil refinery in Canada. Canadian refineries would create more jobs than the few jobs involved in supervising a finished bitumen pipeline, reduce the environmental effects caused as bitumen spills would be replaced by less damaging refined oil spills, and allow higher prices to be obtained for the oil while it is stil in Canada. Let me be clear that I am not supporting a Canadian mass oil production/refinery strategy but simply showing that the claims of the oil industry and its political hacks are false. Even by narrow economic measures, let alone environmental ones which in terms of climate change should be the primary focus of all people globally, they are not pursuing Canada's best interests. 

If they want the power to block NGP, why don't they terminate the freaking equivalency agreement??

The Northern Gateway pipeline is far from dead.

Quote:

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of Northern Gateway's death are greatly exaggerated. ...

B.C.'s environment minister, Terry Lake, has chosen his "rejection" language very carefully. He is saying Enbridge did not satisfactorily answer questions as to how the company would deal with spills on the land and in the ocean. But Lake is giving his government ample wiggle room to one day approve the pipeline by adding the qualification, "as it was presented."

Again, when Lake said, "Our government does not believe that a certificate should be granted," he made sure to add "before these important questions are answered." ...

Enbridge has promised to make improvements, including spending an additional $500 million on the $5.5-billion project to increase the thickness of the 1,200-kilometre pipeline at river crossings. Clark's skepticism is understandable, given Enbridge's "Keystone Kops" reputation after spilling three million litres of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010.

But again, Clark is giving her government some wiggle room. In a recent interview with Maclean's magazine, she said even though she and Premier Alison Redford had a "very public disagreement about the Enbridge pipeline," the two hoped to meet soon and "everything is resolvable." ...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Northern+Gateway+pipeline+still+dead...

The following article suggests that the Harper Cons are desperately trying to woo First Nation leaders in B.C. because with only two years to go before the next election they now realize that the BC First Nations could throw up enough legal and blocade roadblocks to push the start of the Northern Gateway pipeline beyond the election date. 

Quote:

 

The Harper government is launching a blitz to convince B.C. native leaders to support oilsands pipelines to the West Coast. Those leaders said they will listen, but one said it appears to be a last-minute effort by the Harper government to fend off possible native lawsuits rather than the start of real consultation.

The steady stream of cabinet ministers and a team of top public servants from seven ministries - unprecedented, according to one native leader - will be in B.C. in the next few weeks, the apparent result of a consultant's warning that First Nations are determined to oppose the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipeline proposals.

That consultant, Vancouver lawyer Doug Eyford, was appointed by Harper in March. ...

Eyford's meetings with those who could be affected by the pipelines "have highlighted the importance of engagement between senior government officials and First Nations, covering all aspects of the government's plan for responsible resource development," wrote Serge Dupont, deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada.

Vancouver Island NDP MP Jean Crowder said Harper is scrambling to win hearts and minds in anticipation of the federal Joint Review Panel (JRP) decision on Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, due in December.

"He's only got two years left in his mandate. If he doesn't get cracking it isn't going to happen before the next election," she said. "The (Eyford) report's come to him and it says, 'you guys have blown it, you haven't built the relationship with First Nations.' Harper looks at the calendar and says, 'oops, I've only got two years left, and these things don't move quickly,' so now he's flooding the region" with top officials. But she said the response doesn't come close to meeting the Supreme Court of Canada's requirement to consult, accommodate and even compensate First Nations for projects that infringe on aboriginal title to land and resources.

Grand Chief Ed John of the B.C. First Nations Summit said he welcomes a push by Ottawa to consult more broadly on oilsands pipelines. But he said the officials shouldn't just stay in Vancouver, and should travel to areas like the north coast where there are concerns about possible tanker spills. He also complained that Harper, who is in Vancouver Monday on an unrelated matter, has never met with West Coast leaders on B.C. turf since being elected in 2006. "That's a fundamental reality of this government and this prime minister, they are aloof to the needs and interests of First Nations in British Columbia." ...

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said he believes the Conservatives are anticipating a rejection of Northern Gateway by the JRP. If that happens "we believe the Harper government would simply declare (Northern Gateway to be) in the national interest and overturn the Joint Review Panel recommendation," Phillip said. "At which time there would be a flurry of lawsuits ... and the Harper government would rely on the consultation record as part of their legal defence - that's possibly what's happening here."

But Grand Chief Doug Kelly of the Sto:lo Tribal Council ... said his people are anxious to get out of poverty and want to listen to economic development proposals, but added that some projects - he wouldn't identify them - should be rejected from the outset due to the potential environmental damage.

UBC's Christie said  ... "The feds seem to have thought they could rely on the JRP to satisfy, substantially, their duties to consult," Christie told The Vancouver Sun. "But now they see the resistance still there, and if anything as strong as ever, and are concerned that regardless of the extent to which they may have met their duties through the JRP process, this is headed to a major showdown in the courts, should they press ahead.

"A last-minute push to try to win people over seems to be their response, after months of inactivity." 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Harper+government+woos+native+leade...

The Cons would like to find one or two First Nation leaders, ideally ones whose people are so desperate that they are willing to settle for some token compensation and job offers and maybe rewards for the leaders, so that they can say they have some First Nations support. This has already happened. For example, the Gitxsan B.C. First Nation band's chief negotiator Elmer Derrick negotiatged an an equity stake of at least $7 million in profit but the deal "officially collapsed, after chiefs voted to reject the deal on Tuesday."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/enbridge-pipeline-deal-wi...

Quote:

Enbridge has said they are engaging indigenous communities in designing the proposed pipeline, and have signed protocol agreements with some First Nations, including the Paul First Nation west of Edmonton.

But opposition from other indigenous groups has been staunch, and not everyone believes the pipeline will bring prosperity to the First Nations along its route.

http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/first-nations-leader...

 On its website, Enbridge notes that the Tl'azt'en First Nation signed another Protocol Agreement. 

http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-engagement/aboriginal-partners/

However, the Tl'azt'en First Nation has now rejected it as they are now listed as one of the 150 First Nations opposing Northern Gateway. 

http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/first-nations-who-oppose-enbridge

The Con government has asked CN to explore the possibility of sending oil by rail from Alberta to the BC coast, according to documents releasesed by Greenpeace. CN says it has the capacity to carry as much oil as the Northern Gateway pipeline. 

Quote:

CN Rail, at the urging of Chinese-owned Nexen Inc., is considering shipping Alberta bitumen to Prince Rupert, B.C., by rail in quantities matching the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline, documents show.

Internal memos obtained by Greenpeace under the Access to Information Act show the rail carrier raised the proposal last March with Natural Resources Canada.

“Nexen Inc. is reportedly working with CN to examine the transportation of crude oil on CN’s railway to Prince Rupert, B.C., to be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia,” states a departmental briefing note setting up the March 1 meeting.

An attached CN presentation paper notes that “CN has ample capacity to run seven trains per day to match Gateway’s proposed capacity.” ... The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude oil to Kitimat, B.C., has met fierce opposition from First Nations and environmentalists.

Greenpeace researcher Keith Stewart said the CN rail pitch has the appearance of a “Plan B” in case Northern Gateway is blocked, but that it raises “the same or greater risks.” The horrific Lac-Megantic, Que., disaster in July, which claimed 47 lives when a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, has focused intense scrutiny on the burgeoning oil-by-rail industry. Some 5.5 million litres of oil either burned or leaked into the environment in Lac-Megantic. The fire burned for four days.

A spokesman for CN Rail told The Canadian Press in an email that “no specific crude-by-rail project to Prince Rupert (was) discussed” at the March meeting with Natural Resources Canada.

The company “does not disclose publicly its commercial discussions with customers,” Mark Hallman said in the email.

“CN will continue to explore new opportunities to move crude oil safely and efficiently to markets,” Hallman wrote.

“The company will consider concrete crude-by-rail proposals, including any specific project to move crude to Prince Rupert. However, there is no infrastructure in place at Prince Rupert to transfer crude oil from train tank cars to vessels.”

Hallman also noted it was the government that asked CN for the meeting, not the other way around. ...

Opposition in Canada to the Northern Gateway and in the United States to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has keyed on stopping or slowing development of Alberta’s oilsands development.

The undated memo to Oliver, the natural resources minister, suggests that’s wishful thinking.

“Despite difficulties related to new pipeline capacity, Canadian crude producers are unlikely to slow down production and will turn to rail to ensure their product reaches market,” said the memo. 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/feds+rail+Prince+Rupert+same+quanti...

how are they getting it across BC?

and what were they doing with it in oregon if it was built in bellevue WA. it makes no sense to move it south unless they going to go south and across Idaho and up into AB and even then it's ??????????? they could've just gone across to spokane and into idaho unless they had to stay out of the mountains and go way south and around the mountain passes and up into  idaho and then montana.