Federal Libs On Northern Gateway, Keystone XL

Den Tandt's pro-Keystone sentiments are standard issue,  but his bit on Liberal strategy seems sound:

All of which leads us back to the Liberals: They oppose the Northern Gateway project, because it lacks local community support and because its proposed route envisions sending hundreds of oil tankers down the narrow and pristine Douglas Channel, in B.C. But they support Keystone, because it has passed every local environmental and national governmental hurdle, and because of its strategic importance to Canada’s economy.

On a symbolic level, that bifurcation bridges the gap between Tories and New Democrats. It makes the Liberals look like grownups, and the other two parties implicitly like ideological outriders. And it places the Grits squarely in the sweet spot of Canadian politics, which is the pragmatic centre, heading into the 2015 election. 

I'd add a few other points as well.  Keystone XL is probably the easiest pipeline to support because, well, any spills from it  will wreck somebody else's country.  And of course it is the decision over which Canadian's have least leverage, so there is not much credit or blame to take whichever way it goes.  Note the LPC rationale, "lacking...community support", can be applied to Trans-Mountain or (Energy East) should the public relations ball get dropped there the way Enbridge did with Gateway.   The LPC positioning here: supporting a pipeline to the West Coast in general but without getting behind any particular project  seems similarly clever.

Northern Gateway: Welcome To Our Next National Unity Crisis

Depending how hard The Feds and Alberta push, it could get very ugly.  "The West" fragmented; B.C. NEP-ed; West-Coat  independence movements galore; The ROC forced to choose between beautiful B.C. and Alberta sludge miners.  I suspect that the Harper government won't push too hard, but they are betting the eventual construction date is so far beyond 2015 that this decision won't cost them.  I think it will, out in B.C. especially if the folks out there can swing a (non-binding) referendum.  You betcha this will be top-line news on election day 2015.  And Den Tandt is a kook if he thinks this decision will work to Harper's advantage in Ontario.  The polls out here side with B.C. over Alta. about three-to-one, and I doubt Jim Prentice has the rhetorical skills to change that ratio much.

Northern Gateway To Be Delayed?

“We've heard through the grapevine that the Harper government is going to announce a delay," said the Chief Phillip said to the hundreds of people gathered to protest the bitumen pipeline proposal.

"This is the rumour -- that it’s going to be a delay to allow for more consultation with First Nations communities. We know that if we take this matter to the court today, the Harper government will lose.” 

Delay pretty much means post-2015.  Otherwise it becomes an issue in the 2015 federal election.

Oil By Rail Just Got More Expensive

An account of the feds new rail safety improvements can be found here.  From it:

The federal government wants a three-year phase-out or retrofit of older tank cars that are used to transport crude oil by rail, but will not implement a key TSB recommendation that rail companies conduct route planning when transporting dangerous goods.

As well, certain tankers that Raitt said have "no continuous reinforcement of their bottom shells" will be removed within 30 days, by ministerial order. There are 5,000 of these cars in North America, she said, but could not give a figure of how many are used in Canada.

Raitt was speaking at a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday to announce the changes.

There are 65,000 of the more robust Dot-111 cars in North America that must be phased out or retrofitted within three years if used in Canada, Raitt said, adding, "Officials have advised us three years is doable."  She said she couldn't calculate the cost of the retrofits, but told reporters, "industry will be footing the bill."

Some rough cost estimates:

Retrofitting older cars can cost more than $70,000 each, while new tank cars cost well over $100,000.

If industry is indeed footing the bill, and if we assume about 1/10th of the total number of cars are operating in Canada, then we're talking billions in expenses over the next couple of years.  Which is to say that a standard argument for Keystone XL (and other pipelines)--block them and the product will just get to its destination by other means--is not necessarily true. Drive up the cost of hauling Alberta bitumen by rail, and you can probably drive down the total amount that gets out of the tar sands by that route. It becomes less economical, that is,  to get oil to market on trains if you're not allowed to immolate small towns along the route.

Justin Trudeau On Pipelines

From his interview with Calgary Metro News:

“Because of that I have been a strong promoter of the Keystone XL pipeline and also a harsh critic on the way the prime minister has approached pushing the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind, the only thing that has prevented Keystone XL from getting approved already in the United States – and what has allowed it become such a polarizing issue, with celebrities weighing in and all sorts of people having very strong opinions even though there is not necessarily all that many facts going around in many of the conversations – is that the prime minister hasn’t done a good enough job of demonstrating a level of commitment to doing it right and upholding environmental protections and regulations. That’s what President Obama has said many times – that he needs to see concrete action from Canada – and what we get is all words. So I’m very much a proponent of Keystone XL.

“For similar reasons, I’m not a proponent of the Northern Gateway Pipeline … which runs through the Great Bear Rainforest, which has spectacularly failed at getting community buy-in from First Nations communities and from local communities that could be potentially affected by it. And it’s not just an environmental argument, it’s also an economic argument. There are 20,000 British Columbians who make their living on the sea around Haida Gwaii and on the Pacific Coast. They would all be in peril – those jobs, those livelihoods – with a catastrophic accident, which, unfortunately, is all too capable.

"So, my intent is to make sure we send Enbridge back to the drawing board for that. I am, however, very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved. And I hope that Kinder Morgan learns from Enbridge’s experience of short-cutting or going too light on community buy-in. Ultimately governments grant permits, but only communities grant permission.”

This is substantive,  and pretty good positioning.  Of course I would prefer than none of these pipelines go through, but I don't have to campaign for Prime Minister in Alberta.

Lets talk about them one by one

1) Northern Gateway.  Should this actually come to the point where somone tries laying pipe, we will have national unity issues on our hands--ie BCers going apeshit.  That would be bad for everyone involved.  Remember, in B.C. the hippies kick you.  So good on Justin for opposing it.

2) Keystone XL.  Naturally, I am against this project and think everyone else should be as well. That said: what I think, and what Justin Trudeau thinks, and really even what Prime Minister Harper thinks, doesn't mean a thing.  The Obama administration will do what it will on the basic of domestic political considerations.  I suspect they will reject the line, or punt  until after the 2014 mid-terms, but who knows?  Which is why Canadian politicians favororing or disfavouring the line are engaging in empty theatrics: Mulcair opposes a line he can do nothing about, Trudeau favours one he can do nothing about.  They might as well be for or against the sunrise.  It will happen, or not, in spite of them.  So, bottom line: I don't really care what their position is.

Although of course Justin is right about Harper's government fumbling the issue.

3) Kinder Morgan (Trans Mountain).  This is the most interesting of the three cases.  Opinion doesn't appear to have hardened on the West Cost for or against the line in the way it has in the case of Northern Gateway.   And while I personally would like to see it halted, should the First Nations in its path, and property owners around Vancouver, become amenable, I would defer to them.  And this appears to be the Trudeau position.  Now, should local opinion turn against the line, I would hope he will reconsider.

Driftpile First Nation To Enbridge: Who? Us?

Phony signatures on Enbridge's list of First Nations who've expressed support for the Northern Gateway pipeline?  The Driftpile First Nation is on the list, though they've gone to extensive lengths to express their opposition to the project.  Naturally, they are curious as to how this might have occurred.  And here, in another piece from APTN, we find out that about 20 BC FNs have signed "protocol agreements", and 20 more are "pending", of 138 FNs across B.C.  From the sounds of it, some of these were signed ages ago...in 2005 or 2008 while the pipeline project was in its infancy. And some of them may be entirely bogus.  So hardly a ringing endorsement from B.C.s aboriginal community.

A Brief Post On The State Of Northern Gateway

Roger Kingkdade is host of Kingkade & Kelly on News Talk 770 in Calgary:

Come get some, tar cowboy.

PS.  NEP = National Energy Program.

Canadians Are "Concerned" About A Lotta Stuff

If "a majority of Canadians say they are “concerned” about potential negative financial impacts on their families if proposed pipeline projects fail to get the go-ahead" is the best they can suck out of the results of the latest Ipsos-Reid poll, then I imagine the details are even worse news for team tar-sands.  I wonder if Ipsos asked a straight up-or-down question re approval/disapproval of the individual projects under consideration?

Come Get Some, Bituman Cowboy

If Harper says that he will not take no for an answer from the U.S. on Keystone — a project over its future he ultimately has no real control — should one not conclude that he will also not accept that provinces such as British Columbia, Quebec or Ontario throw roadblocks in the way on the pipelines that are on the drawing board to bring Alberta’s oil to the East and West coasts? In those cases the Prime Minister actually has the power to walk his talk.

Chantal's a smart lady, but she doesn't understand the ROC so well, and less and less as you go farther West.  If Harper's remarks are supposed to be a threat aimed at B.C. should they resist the construction of Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain, then he will have something between riots and a civil war on his hands if he tries to follow-up.  Going East, I'm not so sure.  These projects seem to be re-purposing existing pipe-line rather digging new ditches.  But threats out of Albertans will do the opposite than pave the way for them.

Oil Spilling, Redux

From Jansen, Sask.:

The oil industry suggests they will move their product by train if their pipelines don't get approved.  They should really be made to use safe rail cars.

Justin Trudeau Comes Out In In Favor Of Trans Mountain Pipeline

Justin Trudeau today told the Toronto Star's editorial board he's pro-Keystone and a West Coast pipeline is "a priority". #cdnpoli
— Kai Nagata (@kainagata) April 5, 2013

At least I think that is what this means, as Justin has given a pretty clear "no" to Northern Gateway.  Trans Mountain  has been flying mostly under the radar, and has a somewhat better chance of getting built than NG, for reasons I examine here.

Its Ethical...

 
...its from Canada, and its come to town with a few days to spill.