The economics of moving oil by rail are already proven viable

On Monday (June 3rd) I wrote a post entitled, "Could this in fact be the real reason, for the BC Liberal government, to be declaring they will not agree to the Northern Gateway Pipeline proceeding"  



Journalist John Twigg

The post led to a number of people making comment about it on Facebook -- and to me personally by email.  One of the responses I received came from John Twigg, who has a long history in BC's political arena, as a commentator, and a journalist.

I asked if I could share his response and he agreed.  This is what He had to say:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your opinion piece below on the Northern Gateway pipeline situation, which was about the first thing I opened and read when I downloaded my email tonight because of the teaser reference to a railway outcome.

I could quibble in a few places but generally it's a thoughtful piece and something that was a pleasure to see coming from the perspective of an Interior conservative citizen. But there's always a but and it has to do with this line:

"I for one have to think that moving the oil through a pipeline would be far safer than it would be by rail car"

Did you do any research on that? Did you read any of my blog posts in the last year or so about the great potential for using rail cars to move Alberta bitumen - but to Prince Rupert rather than Terrace? Did you read any of the handful of other op-ed and news pieces about this concept? Do you recall seeing any tweets with links to industry and MSM articles on oil shipments by rail, such as happening now from southern Saskatchewan to Texas?

In other words, the economics of moving oil by rail are already proven viable and in the Alberta bitumen case they have the added huge advantage of infrastructure being mostly already in place! Namely that the CN Rail mainline to Prince Rupert is already at world-class standards and its running rights are in place and not subject to Indian Land Claims or Environmental Reviews - the only items needed are loading and unloading terminals and spaces for those are already readily available.

Safety? Perhaps you were influenced by the latest news of a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train plunging through a bridge near Sudbury, but did you hear any reports of dire effects? No, because rail car spills tend to not have catastrophic events like say the Kalamazoo spill, though of course accidents can still happen with rail cars carrying flammable materials.
But again one of the advantages of rail-car movements of Alberta bitumen is that they would need less diluent or perhaps even no diluent whereas the Northern Gateway would need so much diluent that they are (or were?) planning to build a small twin pipeline to carry diluent only from Kitimat back to Fort McMurray because it is so costly and scarce that it has to be extracted and re-used.

Now imagine if that diluent line was to have a bad break along with the bitumen line and they were to catch fire, which could happen in a variety of scenarios, and imagine it was near a major river or salmon-spawning-stream crossing - you and we would be talking about something far worse than Kalamazoo!  But a rail car or two carrying only bitumen going off the rails might not even break open let alone flow into a cold river....

I've recently learned that there's also a whole bunch of modern technology to prevent derailments, notably sensors that detect "hot boxes" when trains pass by, i.e. wheels that for some reason are over-heating.

Anyway, I think you should reconsider your assumptions about the northern oil pipeline, and furthermore your BC Conservative Party probably needs to review its blanket pro-pipeline policy too because it's obvious to most B.C.ers in almost all parties that the Enbridge pipeline proposal has numerous flaws (the worst feature IMO would be the use of Douglas Channel for large oil tanker ships because the navigation is hazardous and the environment pristine, but I also worry about the diluent pipeline crossings being too hazardous too, i.e. not worth the risks).

I can understand why you and many other people would assume that pipelines are better than railcars because they are safer and more efficient, because for one reason that is also the industry propaganda line, but actually with bitumen the railway would actually be a faster mover than the pipeline and maybe even more energy-efficient than would be a pipeline too, as well as safer. And if you consider the huge costs and risks and delays of building a new pipeline you can see that the railway solution begins to make a lot of sense. (It may be more labour-intensive too, which in these days of high unemployment would be a good thing.) 

Could this in fact be the real reason, for the BC Liberal government, to be declaring they will not agree to the Northern Gateway Pipeline proceeding

Let me begin today's Conservative Thoughts blog post with the following:

"Under our feet lies as much energy as Alberta has in its oil patch. It is in the form of natural gas, a cleaner alternative to oil or coal, in the Northeast corner of British Columbia ... our goal is to have a Liquefied Natural Gas industry that will add value to our abundant natural gas resource by shipping it by sea to Asia ..." ~~~ 2013 BC Liberal Election Platform

 

I'll come back to this shortly.

 

With the Final Hearings and Questioning Phase yet to be held, by the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel, the BC Liberal government Environment Minister, Terry Lake, has already announced "Our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings." 

 

For those unaware ... there are still twelve days of hearings yet to be held in Terrace from June 17th and 28th.  Would it not seem to be in BC's best interests to wait for them (the hearings) to conclude before coming to that decision? 

 

BC needs a provincial government that is prepared to work with and for British Columbians, to implement policies that take full advantage of our natural resources, our geographic position, and our hard-working residents.  

 

Yet despite that, and just two short weeks after the provincial election, both Premier Christy Clark, and Environment Minister Terry Lake, are both showing the Liberals are going to be a failure in that area.  

 

Our province has suffered ongoing interprovincial population loses since Christy Clark first became Premier two and a half years ago.  With Environment Minister Terry Lake's announcement Friday, the people of BC can except that trend, officially documented and recorded by BC Stats, will continue. 

 

Once again, this government, led by Premier Christy Clark, is about to betray the hard working men and women of the Peace River and Northern BC, by rejecting the Northern Gateway development, before the Review Panel completes its duties. 

 

It's one thing to criticize, but what are your expectations; what will satisfy your government?  Both Terry Lake and Christy Clark can't simply say they are opposed.  What is the government's real position; and what outcomes do you need to have met, so that they can be realistically addressed. 

 

In a story on Saturday (June 1st), in the Kamloops Daily News, they state:
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Diana McQueen issued a statement saying the two provinces have a shared commitment to both protecting the environment and economic growth. 

She has no legal leg to stand on, and she is simply posturing to try and regain the support of an electorate that is rapidly choosing to support other options

Alberta Premier Alison Redford and BC Premier
Christy Clark.  Clark is on attack mode with
both Redford and the Federal Government

I hope Premier Christy Clark is aware of the applicable Constitutional Provisions, that would apply to Principle 5, which she said must be addressed if, “… we are to consider support for such pipeline developments in our province.”

That principle (#5) was that, “British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of proposed heavy oil projects that reflect the risk borne by the province.”

Now it should be noted that the two Constitutional Provisions, which apply in this and any other similar case, state that:

 … the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

 10. Navigation and Shipping

Additionally there is the following: 

Export from provinces of resources (Authority of Parliament)

92(A)2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.

Marginal note: Authority of Parliament

92 (3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.

The exception to the above would be for pipelines which lie completely within the borders of a single province; these are regulated by that province's regulatory body.

Neither has experience, achievement, knowledge, or prominence in the field of the environment, ecology, or engineering

CTV political commentator Craig Oliver

On Friday January 6^th Craig Oliver posted his thoughts on the proposed northern oil  pipeline in an opinion piece entitled “Craig's Take: The politics of pipelines”.

In reading this piece, I think one would be hard pressed not to note he appears to be opposed to the pipeline, especially given the choice and selection of some of the descriptive words he used.  He also had this insightful comment:

“Even such luminaries as American actors Robert Redford and Kevin Bacon are joining in the opposition to the all-Canadian pipeline, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper says raises some serious questions about foreign political interference.”

Merriam-Webster defines luminary as:

… a person of prominence or brilliant achievement