Premiers Pumping for Petroleum Sales in Asia
BY BARBARA YAFFE-VANCOUVER SUN, February 24, 2011
As time goes by, it appears more certain that Canada will find some means of moving petroleum from the oilsands to the coast of B.C. Asian markets are hungry for our oil and Canada is keen to diversify the market for oilsands oil beyond the U.S.
A letter this week from three provincial premiers (in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan) to Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggests, for the politicians at least, business concerns will take priority in the struggle by environmentalists, fishermen and aboriginal groups to thwart shipment of oil from Alberta to the Pacific Ocean.
These premiers all have heard the arguments of environmentalists and the Opposition MPs who are calling for B.C.'s northern coastline to be protected, they've seen the showing strong public support for a tanker moratorium in Pacific waters and still they wrote their letter. The missive expresses unequivocal support for Enbridge's Northern Gateway project which entails construction of a new pipeline network from Fort McMurray to Kitimat, B.C.
The letter demonstrates that the trio of politicians are prepared to take the flak for their pro-business position. Though it will be most interesting to see if new premiers in B.C. and Alberta take the same position as outgoing Gordon Campbell and Ed Stelmach, both on their way out.
"It's a lot easier for two outgoing Premiers (lame-duck) to take a pro-business stance against the wishes of the general public when they know they'll never face those voters again," says Andrew Frank, of the Oil Free Coast Coaliton.
The premiers know that economic factors often trump environmental concerns when people need jobs. By the way, it's worth noting their letter amounted to preaching to the converted; Harper has refused to join the stampede for a ban on tanker traffic off B.C.'s coast.
It's pretty clear that the federal Conservatives will thwart Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Joyce Murray's bill, tabled in December, that seeks to impose a tanker ban. The government has a majority in the Senate that would likely kill the bill should it pass third reading in the House with support from all the opposition parties.
The Western premiers quite legitimately point out that moving oil to the coast is necessary for the economic development of their provinces. Further it would be inconsistent to ban oil tankers off B.C.'s coast when tankers freely operate, for example, in the St. Lawrence Seaway.
That said, the Northern Gateway Project in the final analysis may not be the preferred option for the politicians.
In recent months two other initiatives have been discussed for moving crude to the coast, intiatives opponents may find more palatable.
* CN and CP are talking about teaming up to provide "a pipeline on rail" that would carry the oil to the coast, eliminating need for construction of a new pipeline corridor across a huge swath of land in northern B.C.
* Kinder Morgan is proposing to expand an existing pipeline corridor -- the Trans Mountain Pipeline -- from Edmonton to Vancouver, again eliminating need for a whole new pipeline
Eric Swanson, speaking for the Dogwood Initiative which has been mobilizing against Northern Gateway, says his group -- which advocates for local community control over resource development -- has not yet developed any formal response to these two proposals.
But he pointed out that any plan that ultimately takes petroleum for shipment through northern B.C. waters would be unacceptable, including the rail proposal. Though he acknowledged such a project at least would eliminate need for a disruptive northern pipeline installation.
With respect to the Kinder Morgan proposal, he observed that the oceanic shipping presumably would be carried out through Vancouver, where there is a local oil-spill response team and oil traffic already takes place there. But he emphasized that, in the absence of full details, no position has been taken by his group on the Kinder Morgan proposal.