A federal review panel has started deliberating on recommendations on the Northern Gateway pipeline, a $6-billion proposal to traverse B.C.’s midsection en route to Kitimat. Its recommendations will go to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet by Dec. 31, with a political decision anticipated early in 2014.
Harper already has labelled the project “a strategic imperative” for Canada, enabling exports of Alberta crude to Asian markets.
But whether the PM will opt to overrule both B.C. government conditions and B.C. public opinion is another matter. Remember, Conservatives elected 21 of B.C.’s 36 MPs and want to hang on to them in the 2015 election (especially if Justin Trudeau’s leadership translates into a Liberal resurgence in Ontario).
Harper doubtless was relieved last month to hear of a U.S. National Academy of Sciences finding that diluted bitumen — the stuff shipped from the oilsands — is no more corrosive on pipes than conventional crude. That’s important, suggesting pipeline failure is no more likely to occur when what’s being shipped is the goopier product from Alberta.
Environmentalists have promoted the notion that transporting Alberta bitumen is a much higher risk enterprise.
The fear of leaks and spills has been a significant factor in B.C.’s opposition to Northern Gateway. And it didn’t help that, last month alone, the Kinder Morgan pipeline through the province experienced two oil spills.
Enbridge, of course, is trumpeting the motherlode of economic benefits its project would bring to B.C.: 3,000 construction jobs over three years; 560 long-term jobs and $1.2 billion in tax revenues over 30 years.
You can bet the company will be spending summer and fall negotiating assiduously with the province to satisfy Premier Christy Clark’s conditions for a pipeline go-ahead.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is expected soon to deliver his long-awaited decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, to connect Alberta’s oilsands with U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
The latest hint on the future of the $5.3 billion project came in late June as Obama quixotically straddled the fence while referring to the pipeline’s prospects in a speech in Washington, D.C.
Proponents and opponents were quick to interpret the remarks in support of their own side. But there’s no question that Obama is sounding increasingly militant about greenhouse gases.
And certainly, it was telling that the president, who surely understand the different connotations of “oilsands” and “tarsands,” chose to use the term “tarsands” in relation to Keystone.
Not a good sign for pipeline proponents.
There’s no denying that both Northern Gateway and Keystone XL, while holding a promise of financial benefits, entail risks.
With the affect of climate change being felt more widely — it has been mentioned as a cause of recent flooding in southern Alberta — people are bound to view pipelines with increasing apprehension.
No surprise then, pipeline proponents, such as the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, have launched big-ticket ad campaigns. Also, the feds are spending $16.5 million this year on ads touting “responsible resource development.”
But spin isn’t enough.
Pipeline companies cannot do much about greenhouse gas emissions. But they can give the public greater confidence by upping their game on safety, ensuring spills are rare occurrences and that cleanups are quick, effective and fully insured.
Last Wednesday, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver travelled to Vancouver to announce that Ottawa henceforth will require companies to have $1 billion on hand to cover oil spill costs.
This is the sort of initiative the pipeline companies themselves need to start initiating.
Original Article
Source: vancouversun.com
Author: Barbara Yaffe
No comments:
Post a Comment