Assuming the source of the crude oil is the Bakken formation or maybe some from Wyoming, they are moving by rail to Vancouver/Portland area, transloading it to ocean going barges/small tankers, and then taking it to California presumably to refineries in the Bay area and/or San Pedro/Long Beach. Wouldn't it be cheaper/more efficient to just to deliver it to the refineries in California directly by rail? Williston, ND is roughly 1100 miles (someone else can chase down the timetables to figure actual rail miles) to Vancouver, WA; add another roughly 1100 miles by barge to San Pedro. Williston to San Pedro looks to be around 1600-1700 miles direct by rail. Is there really that much of a cost/fuel/environmental savings to pay to transload and barge vs rail only?

There is another proposed project slowly gaining ground to haul coal from the PRB to Boardman, Oregon (160 miles east of Portland on the Columbia River); transload to barges, move it down the Columbia through numerous locks to the Portland area, and then transload it again onto ocean going ships for export.

There was a proposal to build an LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon to IMPORT gas, build a new pipeline to south central Oregon where it would connect to two primary natural gas pipelines that run north/south and supply California. A natural gas pipeline was being built (now completed?) from SW Wyoming across northern Nevada then jogging around the corner to stay out of California to connect to the same pipelines in southern Oregon that Coos Bay was supposed to. Now the Coos Bay LNG terminal is now being planned as an EXPORT facility. (There has always been local opposition for an LNG terminal in Coos Bay. Another was gaining ground on permits for the Columbia River west of Portland, but I haven't heard much on it lately.)

It would appear that urban California is obviously a major consumer that suppliers can't ignore, yet California throws huge restrictions in the way of anyone wanting to do business in California - both to create a supply within the state or to import it. It seems now that businesses are willing to spend more money, be more inefficient, potentially impact the environment more, because they want to avoid the litigation and over regulation involved. This shifts the impact to other areas in surrounding transport corridors, though it now appears they are having to deal with local/environmental opposition in the urban areas there. The Boardman coal plan is an attempt to not run trains through Portland, though Spokane is already screaming.

The November 2016 ballot in California may have an initiative to divide California into six states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias http://www.sixcalifornias.com/ This could make things real interesting. For one, California goes from having two out of 100 US Senators (2%) to 12 of 110 or almost 11%. The way the new states have been proposed, it looks like all the "Californias" would probably be primary liberal, since the rural areas I would guess to be primarily conservative appear to be diluted by primarily liberal areas. Despite the Interstate Commerce Act, anyone care how this would impact the railroads traffic? I doubt this will ever happen because it separates the major urban areas putting their sources of water and power in another state.

Let the flames begin - but be careful as California is in a serious drought and could easily be converted to carbon.