Kinder Morgan What's next?

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Now, what about the Caisse de Depot, eh! How do we prey them lose from KM?

Europe's biggest bank retreats from the oilsands

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/20/news/europes-biggest-bank-re...

NorthReport

Kevin Taft on what turned Rachel Notley from crusading critic to big oil crusader

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/19/opinion/kevin-taft-what-turn...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

I wonder how many Canadians are aware of the connections between their current prime minister and the oil industry. And as the Straight’s Charles Smith has mentioned, how are Quebecers feeling these days seeing Justin branding himself as the representative for Big Oil?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Émile_Trudeau

NorthReport

Unfortunately Canada's Big Oil Rep Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn't abide by much in the way of progressive economics. Big Oil Rep Trudeau can't even provide fresh drinking water for Canada's First Nations people. How much longer he can continue to sucker and deceive Canadians remains to be seen. 

Finally, a breakthrough alternative to growth economics – the doughnut

 

Instead of growth at all costs, a new economic model allows us to thrive while saving the planet

 @GeorgeMonbiot

Wed 12 Apr 2017 06.00 BSTLast modified on Tue 28 Nov 2017 02.10 GMT

  •  

street boy collects stones in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

 

 ‘Billions of people still live in the hole in the middle’: a street boy collects stones in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Photograph: Jan MoellerHansen/BarcroftImages

So what are we going to do about it? This is the only question worth asking. But the answers appear elusive. Faced with a multifaceted crisis – the capture of governments by billionaires and their lobbyists, extreme inequality, the rise of demagogues, above all the collapse of the living world – those to whom we look for leadership appear stunned, voiceless, clueless. Even if they had the courage to act, they have no idea what to do.

The most they tend to offer is more economic growth: the fairy dust supposed to make all the bad stuff disappear. Never mind that it drives ecological destruction; that it has failed to relieve structural unemployment or soaring inequality; that, in some recent years, almost all the increment in incomes has been harvested by the top 1%. As values, principles and moral purpose are lost, the promise of growth is all that’s left.

 Old economics is based on false ‘laws of physics’ – new economics can save us

Kate Raworth

You can see the effects in a leaked memo from the UK’s Foreign Office: “Trade and growth are now priorities for all posts … work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled down.” All that counts is the rate at which we turn natural wealth into cash. If this destroys our prosperity and the wonders that surround us, who cares?

We cannot hope to address our predicament without a new worldview. We cannot use the models that caused our crises to solve them. We need to reframe the problem. This is what the most inspiring book published so far this year has done.

In Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, Kate Raworth of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute reminds us that economic growth was not, at first, intended to signify wellbeing. Simon Kuznets, who standardised the measurement of growth, warned: “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.” Economic growth, he pointed out, measured only annual flow, rather than stocks of wealth and their distribution.

 Eight men own more than 3.6 billion people do: our economics is broken

Mark Goldring

 

 

Raworth points out that economics in the 20th century “lost the desire to articulate its goals”. It aspired to be a science of human behaviour: a science based on a deeply flawed portrait of humanity. The dominant model – “rational economic man”, self-interested, isolated, calculating – says more about the nature of economists than it does about other humans. The loss of an explicit objective allowed the discipline to be captured by a proxy goal: endless growth.

The aim of economic activity, she argues, should be “meeting the needs of all within the means of the planet”. Instead of economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive, we need economies that “make us thrive, whether or not they grow”. This means changing our picture of what the economy is and how it works.

The central image in mainstream economics is the circular flow diagram. It depicts a closed flow of income cycling between households, businesses, banks, government and trade, operating in a social and ecological vacuum. Energy, materials, the natural world, human society, power, the wealth we hold in common … all are missing from the model. The unpaid work of carers – principally women – is ignored, though no economy could function without them. Like rational economic man, this representation of economic activity bears little relationship to reality.

So Raworth begins by redrawing the economy. She embeds it in the Earth’s systems and in society, showing how it depends on the flow of materials and energy, and reminding us that we are more than just workers, consumers and owners of capital.

embedded economy

 The embedded economy ‘reminds us that we are more than just workers and consumers’. Source: Kate Raworth and Marcia Mihotich

This recognition of inconvenient realities then leads to her breakthrough: a graphic representation of the world we want to create. Like all the best ideas, her doughnut model seems so simple and obvious that you wonder why you didn’t think of it yourself. But achieving this clarity and concision requires years of thought: a great decluttering of the myths and misrepresentations in which we have been schooled.

The diagram consists of two rings. The inner ring of the doughnut represents a sufficiency of the resources we need to lead a good life: food, clean water, housing, sanitation, energy, education, healthcare, democracy. Anyone living within that ring, in the hole in the middle of the doughnut, is in a state of deprivation. The outer ring of the doughnut consists of the Earth’s environmental limits, beyond which we inflict dangerous levels of climate change, ozone depletion, water pollution, loss of species and other assaults on the living world.

The area between the two rings – the doughnut itself – is the “ecologically safe and socially just space” in which humanity should strive to live. The purpose of economics should be to help us enter that space and stay there.

As well as describing a better world, this model allows us to see, in immediate and comprehensible terms, the state in which we now find ourselves. At the moment we transgress both lines. Billions of people still live in the hole in the middle. We have breached the outer boundary in several places.

Transgressing the boundaries model

 

 

 This model ‘allows us to see the state in which we now find ourselves’. Source: Kate Raworth and Christian Guthier/The Lancet Planetary Health

An economics that helps us to live within the doughnut would seek to reduce inequalities in wealth and income. Wealth arising from the gifts of nature would be widely shared. Money, markets, taxation and public investment would be designed to conserve and regenerate resources rather than squander them. State-owned banks would invest in projects that transform our relationship with the living world, such as zero-carbon public transport and community energy schemes. New metrics would measure genuine prosperity, rather than the speed with which we degrade our long-term prospects.

Such proposals are familiar; but without a new framework of thought, piecemeal solutions are unlikely to succeed. By rethinking economics from first principles, Raworth allows us to integrate our specific propositions into a coherent programme, and then to measure the extent to which it is realised.

I see her as the John Maynard Keynes of the 21st century: by reframing the economy, she allows us to change our view of who we are, where we stand, and what we want to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/doughnut-growth-ec...

NorthReport

What happened? Business Organization spokespersons, a week ago,  suggested that businesses were totally supportive of Kinder Morgan. Now, not so much!  Did the sky fall or were these so-called business spokespersons shading the truth. Oh, my!

Canada: Businessmen divided over Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in British Columbia

https://www.indiablooms.com/world-details/USN/15324/canada-businessmen-d...

Rev Pesky

Without trying to put too much of a damper on the above article (Businessmen divided), there are roughly 400,000 small businesses in British Columbia, of which 400 signed this letter. That would be 1/10th of one percent.

The British Columbia business community may be divided, but certainly not down the middle.

 

Martin N.

Ernie's Ice Cream Shed and Mountain Kayaks have righteousness on their side. 

Small business owners and home- based business owners ok but 'business leaders' is not just a stretch, its a leap of faith.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Time to put a stop to KM is now Going ahead amounts to little more than insanity!

NorthReport

Your BS is tiresome and hopefully for your sake your math is not your strongpoint 

Just curious though what you are doing posting here on a progressive board

Rev Pesky wrote:

Without trying to put too much of a damper on the above article (Businessmen divided), there are roughly 400,000 small businesses in British Columbia, of which 400 signed this letter. That would be 1/10th of one percent.

The British Columbia business community may be divided, but certainly not down the middle.

 

NorthReport
Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

Your BS is tiresome and hopefully for your sake your math is not your strongpoint 

Just curious though what you are doing posting here on a progressive board

Let's deal with the math first. According to the posted article, some 400 businesses signed a letter opposing the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Are we good so far? I think so, because here is a quote from the article:

In a recent development, 400 businessmen signed an open letter, urging B.C. premier John Horgan to continue his opposition to the expansion.

So, moving on, I ask myself, I wonder how many businesses there are in British Columbia? As luck would have it there is a BC government document that answers that question:

Small business profile BC

Around 98 per cent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses. In 2016, there were approximately 396,100 small businesses operating in the province...

It's true I did round that number up a bit, but it's also true that the number may have grown that much over the last two years in any case.  

Now, using my much vaunted math skills, I divided 400 by 400,000 and get 0.001 as an answer. That would be 1/1000th. Multiplying by 100 to get percentage, I arrive at 0.1, or 1/10th of one percent. Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect that amongst those 400,000 businesses you could find 400 that believed Jesus Christ wore plaid Jockey shorts. To state that businessmen are 'divided' in this case is just pixie dust.

Now, as to your second point. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious to those who wish to deceive, and there is nothing progressive about trying to deceive. Reality may be unpalatable, but there is no substitute for it.

In the end, if you ignore reality, you do nothing more than deceive yourself, and make your case look ridiculous to those you want to influence.

NorthReport
voice of the damned

Hey, over the weekend, someone posted an article from Maclean's, arguing against government support for the pipeline. I replied by criticizing the article for its neo-liberal assumptions.

I can't seem to find these posts now. Does anyone happen to remember which thread this was posted on? Also, given that(as far as I can tell), it is no longer possible to search for posts on babble, could I suggest that all stuff about Kinder Morgan be confined to one thread, rather than spread out over several?

(And that would include Billyard as well. If he wants to promote a blog-post about something that's already being discussed elsewhere, he should do it as part of the existing discussion.)

voice of the damned

And the most recently posted Maclean's article focuses largely on the attitude of Alberta's politicians, not the science behind Kinder Morgan(which the writer wants to build). When he does get around to the science...

Get a grip. One of the reasons that you are having so many problems getting pipelines built is that American environmentalists targeted the Keystone XL pipeline, warning that unlocking all the carbon in Alberta’s oil sands would be like exploding a “carbon bomb,” pushing us over the brink into global climate meltdown.

I can see why you are frustrated, because this is three quarters nonsense. Before Andrew Weaver became leader of the B.C. Greens, when he was a University of Victoria climate scientist, he crunched the numbers and found that burning all of Alberta’s oil sands “would be almost undetectable” on a global scale.

But, like it or not, the oil sands are a symbol for North American environmentalists. It is in your long-term best interest to change that, to remind policy makers that the lowest hanging fruit is coal, not oil. Calling for the army to beat up grannies protesting in Burnaby won’t help you convince reasonable environmentalists that you are not their biggest problem. If you were smart, you would try to bring the temperature down, not up.

Is that bit in the second paragraph true, about the tarsands being almost entirely benign as far as climate goes?

And is it also true that the only reason anyone thinks the tarsands are so awful is because of lies being spread by Americans? I somehow think if it was Americans going around telling the world that the Canadian health-care system was a Stalinist gulag, and Canadian right-wingers were repeating this meme to justify privatization, Canadian progressives would be screaming in outrage.

Or is the writer full of BS, but North Report just posted the article because it seemed to be anti-Alberta?

NorthReport
NorthReport

Energy minnow Bahrain just found 80 billion barrels of oil, as much as Russia’s entire reserve

http://ottawacitizen.com/commodities/energy/update-2-bahrain-says-new-di...

NorthReport

Tax Season Is Our Governments' Wasteful Gift To Big Oil

Not only are these subsidies utterly useless from an economic point of view, they are destructive to the environment.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gerard-montpetit/taxes-fossil-fuel-subsidi...

NorthReport

Mixed results in poll over Trans Mountain pipeline debate

https://globalnews.ca/news/4160935/mixed-results-in-poll-over-trans-moun...

NorthReport

 

Boo! Hoo!

I'm taking my ball and going home.

Here we go again!

The new Alberta alienation: Resenting East and West

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-alienation-pipeline-1.4623938

NorthReport

Most Canadians agree Kinder Morgan brought pipeline conflict onto itself: Angus Reid poll

Pipeline protestors have been largely unsuccessful at winning the hearts and minds of Canadians, according to polling data. But even pipeline supporters say Kinder Morgan could have done a better job gaining the public’s trust.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/23/most-canadians-agree-kinder...

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

 

Boo! Hoo!

I'm taking my ball and going home.

Here we go again!

The new Alberta alienation: Resenting East and West

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-alienation-pipeline-1.4623938

I'm rather saddened by all the discord and selfishness coming out of the woodwork from BC, Alberta and Quebec. Apparently any nationbuilding is impossible due to shortsighted nimbyism. Canada will be much diminished if Canadians can't pull together and other nations will surpass and replace us in the global order. We will become a nation in name only, composed of parochial, decining regions.

If patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, arrogance and hubris must be the refuge of the ignoramus.

NorthReport

The article was about Alberta alienation. Not BC nor Quebec.  As the polls state Kinder Morgan have contributed to this problem themselves. And there are alternate routes!

NorthReport

More stupidity from the Prairies.

Saskatchewan introduces law to allow control of oil, gas exports

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/saskatchewan-introduces-law-to-allow-con...

NorthReport

Canada's Dumb and Dumber: Notley and Trudeau

How Windmills as Wide as Jumbo Jets Are Making Clean Energy Mainstream

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/23/business/energy-environme...

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 

Boo! Hoo!

I'm taking my ball and going home.

Here we go again!

The new Alberta alienation: Resenting East and West

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-alienation-pipeline-1.4623938

I'm rather saddened by all the discord and selfishness coming out of the woodwork from BC, Alberta and Quebec. Apparently any nationbuilding is impossible due to shortsighted nimbyism. Canada will be much diminished if Canadians can't pull together and other nations will surpass and replace us in the global order. We will become a nation in name only, composed of parochial, decining regions.

If patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, arrogance and hubris must be the refuge of the ignoramus.

Just because Alberta is having a temper tandrum doesn't mean it's Canada's fault. If the situation were reversed, and it were BC that had oil and was trying to get a pipeline through Alberta, Alberta would never let it through. Alberta would put its own economic well-being first. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the situation were reversed, and it were BC that had oil and was trying to get a pipeline through Alberta, Alberta would never let it through. Alberta would put its own economic well-being first.

Would a pipeline to the coast not enhance BC's economic well-being?  I really thought the quarrel was over non-economic stuff.

Meanwhile, if Toronto's gridlock problems could be fixed by a new road going right through where my house currently is, guess what would happen to my house?  And by extension, me?  I would be expected to take one for the team.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If the situation were reversed, and it were BC that had oil and was trying to get a pipeline through Alberta, Alberta would never let it through. Alberta would put its own economic well-being first.

Would a pipeline to the coast not enhance BC's economic well-being?  I really thought the quarrel was over non-economic stuff.

Meanwhile, if Toronto's gridlock problems could be fixed by a new road going right through where my house currently is, guess what would happen to my house?  And by extension, me?  I would be expected to take one for the team.

Well, I think eminent domain is thought to carry a little more weight when it involves a responsibility under the direct control of the government(eg. regulating traffic), than when it's merely an economic benefit(in this case, selling oil). Especially when the immediate beneficiares are going to be a private sector corporation.

Though that does raise an interesting question. I remember the late 70s, when the NDP was still somewhat under the influence of wafflish economic nationalism, and Ed Broadbent used to go around saying "We want resources that are owned by Canadians, run by Canadians, and used by Canadians!"

So, let's suppose Broadbent had gotten his wish, and the entire Canadian oil industry was owned by the government, ostensibly for the benefit of the country as a whole. Would that give the goverment/industry more legitimacy in forcing people who don't want a pipeline in their area to accept one?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Which is why a new Crown corporation to mirror the activities of the US Department of Energy is a workable idea.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it's not just a matter of a crown corporation. look at what successive governments has done with trade.

..a crown corp under a progressive government wouldn't be searching for external markets. it would slowly develop the sands in a less damaging way for canada. it would include cleanup. it would build refineries in alta. at the same time have a real plan to transition away from non renewables. it would include undrip. imho.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Would a pipeline to the coast not enhance BC's economic well-being?  I really thought the quarrel was over non-economic stuff. 

A spill would be disastrous to BC's economic well-being. Between the salmon, tourism, and health impacts it is ridiculous to expect BC to accept oil spills that would cause so much damage. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Meanwhile, if Toronto's gridlock problems could be fixed by a new road going right through where my house currently is, guess what would happen to my house?  And by extension, me?  I would be expected to take one for the team. 

You aren't a city or a province. Even so you would still have recourse to the courts and your home could not be demolished until the courts said so. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A spill would be disastrous to BC's economic well-being.

Do any other tankers use BC ports?

Quote:
Even so you would still have recourse to the courts and your home could not be demolished until the courts said so.

Yes, the courts.  They were who I imagined making the decision, not me.

But why would the courts say "yes", if I say "no"?

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not just a matter of a crown corporation. look at what successive governments has done with trade.

..a crown corp under a progressive government wouldn't be searching for external markets. it would slowly develop the sands in a less damaging way for canada. it would include cleanup. it would build refineries in alta. at the same time have a real plan to transition away from non renewables. it would include undrip. imho.

Well I am glad you are thinking about it. You seem to have some very good ideas for it. My idea which is posted on another page, a "Canadian Energy Corporation" would currently be investing 10-15% hydrocarbons, and the rest sustainable. Every province would get funds for energy investments, whether they wished them to be hydrocarbons, sustainable, energy refits, etc. Because of the nature of the federation, we must allow the provinces to develop their energy resources in the best way that they see fit. The idea of the CEC is to bring energy to market, with no discrimination, and also consider food to be energy. The US Department of Energy does it, and we must compete with them. $80 or $100 billion to start in investments would make everybody happy. There would be enough for the pipelines they want in the Prairies, and there would be enough for sustainable energy elsewhere and building refits in urban areas. Wind energy has claimed a 20-year lifecycle, however I don't think there is going to be much investment in that until we can actually see it working for 20 years somewhere. There are a lot of moving parts in those things, and the bigger they get, the more they sway. I do not like the engineering consequences of that. Solar is viable, as you can get the cost back quite quickly after the installation. Large scale batteries are viable as Elon Musk has demonstrated in Australia, however we may still be a bit cynical for 20 years for the same reason as wind. Building refits give an instant, demonstrable, and everlasting energy savings. In many places in the US, they are allowing the savings on energy to pay for the capital investment through a lien on property taxes. The property owner should see no net increase in bills. This would create a massive number of  jobs.

We do need to invest in oil, somehow. There is an opportunity to extort the Americans for it, when they deplete their own supply. We should not be in a hurry to sell it off for a song.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the biggest us customer is the military. so i disagree. a progressive government would not feed war. but this talk about what can be done is already understood and not reality. since we don't have progressive governments the resistance is all we have to move to a better place. and the resistance does have alternatives. 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Do any other tankers use BC ports?  

Of course but it is more difficult to stop existing traffic and pipelines than new traffic and pipelines. The higher the volume the higher the risk. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Yes, the courts.  They were who I imagined making the decision, not me.

But why would the courts say "yes", if I say "no"?

Because the courts reference the law not public sentiment.

You would also have recourse to pressuring politicians but for that you need a critical mass. 

NorthReport
Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/04/23/comeau-ruling-about-more-than-beer-and-the-supreme-court-got-it-right.html

What does Comeau mean in practice? The Trans Mountain pipeline controversy is top of mind. If New Brunswick can control the quantity of liquor that flows across its borders, B.C. is now on stronger legal ground to limit the flow of Albertan oil to protect its coast. Comeau does not settle the issue, and Ottawa may yet claim the power to regulate interprovincial trade and transportation. That’s a fight for another day.

Finally someone else says it. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If our hypothetical Canadian Energy Corporation invested $8 billion, and was able to toll the flow at $2.00 a barrel, that would be $1.6 million a day or $584 million a year. The question is, could we get a 20-year amortization on that? If so, that would be a decent return for Canada and its provinces for the investment. We are expecting a 20-year lifecycle on renewable energy investments, so it is reasonable to expect the same for hydrocarbons. We could accelerate the cost recovery by taking a percentage of the differential between the floor price that we establish of say $50 a barrel and whatever it is. If we think the pipeline will only be of use for a shorter period of time, the tolls will have to rise appropriately.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 

Boo! Hoo!

I'm taking my ball and going home.

Here we go again!

The new Alberta alienation: Resenting East and West

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-alienation-pipeline-1.4623938

I'm rather saddened by all the discord and selfishness coming out of the woodwork from BC, Alberta and Quebec. Apparently any nationbuilding is impossible due to shortsighted nimbyism. Canada will be much diminished if Canadians can't pull together and other nations will surpass and replace us in the global order. We will become a nation in name only, composed of parochial, decining regions.

If patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, arrogance and hubris must be the refuge of the ignoramus.

Just because Alberta is having a temper tandrum doesn't mean it's Canada's fault. If the situation were reversed, and it were BC that had oil and was trying to get a pipeline through Alberta, Alberta would never let it through. Alberta would put its own economic well-being first. 

It must be quite frustrating that Alberta has so much resource wealth. Even though they very much share their prosperity with the rest of Canada, it is evident that the envy and jealousy of the rest of Canada will never diminish. The problem is simply that Canada's oil is under Alberta's dirt. 

If the oil was under Ontario or Quebec, there would be no issue but Alberta must be held up to ridicule and economic throttling because they just have so much that the rest of Canada does not.

NorthReport

Sorry bud, but when you make money your God as you obviously do, you reap what you sow.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/04/23/comeau-ruling-about-more-than-beer-and-the-supreme-court-got-it-right.html

What does Comeau mean in practice? The Trans Mountain pipeline controversy is top of mind. If New Brunswick can control the quantity of liquor that flows across its borders, B.C. is now on stronger legal ground to limit the flow of Albertan oil to protect its coast. Comeau does not settle the issue, and Ottawa may yet claim the power to regulate interprovincial trade and transportation. That’s a fight for another day.

Finally someone else says it. 

Comeau challenged sec 121 CA, not sec 92. It was a decision about bringing retail liquor into NB, in violation of specific limits regulations on the volume of liquor brought in therefore denying that province its taxation revenue.

Transporting products through a province ie: international trade falls under federal authority. That said, Comeau let the fox into the henhouse. Lawyers everywhere are smiling.

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry bud, but when you make money your God as you obviously do, you reap what you sow.

Yeah. You should see the view from my little island. 

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
A spill would be disastrous to BC's economic well-being.

Do any other tankers use BC ports?

Quote:
Even so you would still have recourse to the courts and your home could not be demolished until the courts said so.

Yes, the courts.  They were who I imagined making the decision, not me.

But why would the courts say "yes", if I say "no"?

 

Crude oil tankers from Alaska or elsewhere transit Juan de Fuca Strait to the state of Washington in American waters but directly past Victoria. Refined products travel through the Inside passage in Canadian waters bound for Alaska by both tanker and barge. Refined products are barged about BC and KM's crude exports by tanker from Vancouver harbour.

All in all, a lot of traffic.

Pages