Canada's east coast doesn't warrant a tanker ban. It must be ugly and uninhabited by wildlife . Or maybe the Liberals don't want to interfere with the profits Irving makes from importing oil from the middle east. Interfering with Alberta is OK, though.
It’s hard to agree on a set of facts, when many of the factual components are kept hidden from the casual observer.
I don’t think a pipeline here, or a pipeline there will change Canada enough to make a difference. What concerns me is our inability or unwillingness to hold certain parties to account in the execution of their respective job descriptions.
As is alluded to in the essay, what happens when the music stops and there aren’t enough open chairs?
We have laws still on the books to restrict the building of pipelines.
We have extraordinary regulations and review processes still in place designed to restrict the building of pipelines.
We have laws and regulations in place specifically designed to thwart private concerns from investing in and attempting to build pipelines.
We have nine robed wizards in Ottawa who make up rules designed specifically to restrict the building of virtually anything, including pipelines.
And, yet, we have politicians who go through the motions of wanting to build pipelines, without possessing either the willingness to expend political capital or the courage to proceed.
Canada, the True North Strong and Free,
Where the less you know, the better off you’ll be.
Joel’s take on this is perfect. Objectively, the north option would be the best, but for misguided politics. To his discussion I would add one more point. When pipeline routes are selected, the best meaning the safest, easiest to construct and most practical route is selected. The next pipeline along the route needs to take a lesser route. For the Trans mountain expansion most of the new pipe was laid in an existing easement. Yet for 1/4 of the route, for environmental, social or technical reasons, a new alignment was required for the expansion. The next pipe in the corridor will face even more environmental, technical and social constraints plus require a new easement affecting more land and landowners particularly in the Fraser valley where urban development is concentrated.
Joel’s discussion hinted that placing all of our pipeline eggs in one basket is a bad idea strategically. I agree, particularly in areas within the BC interior and coast where geotechnical risks are pervasive. And finally, the south route would be an additional burden on the 6000 landowners already affected by the existing pipelines (compared to approximately 1000 indirectly and 265 directly affected landowners along the Northern Gateway route).
If ship safety is a concern, the sheer number of vessels in and around Vancouver Harbour and the complexity of transit through the south islands compared to the dearth of both for the northern port, makes the northern port a much safer bet.
The north route, by comparison, as Joel indicated is no more environmentally sensitive; all areas along each of the routes are environmentally sensitive and critical wildlife habitat exists within each corridor. Current pipeline construction practices already include special measures to protect and restore those areas post construction.
While terminating the new pipeline at Deltaport is a change from threading a new pipeline through Surrey and Burnaby, it would affect a whole new group of landowners.
We in Canada have some of the most capable pipeline engineers, environmentalists and contractors in the world. I am confident they can build a safe pipeline along pretty much any route. But clearly the selection of the South route is only the best because it avoids confronting a small vocal privileged group to the disadvantage of a larger group of already affected landowners.
An essay that gets to the point. A well heeled and largely foreign funded propaganda campaign in Northern BC has convinced BC residents that the north coast is somehow off limits to economic development. BC residents, much like our California cousins are all about feelings and virtue signalling. Facts, the realities of paying for health care, education or standard of living cannot compete with feelings here in BC.
Unfortunately, politics *is* a big factor in major projects and policies. There's 2 choices: either accept the constraints forced by the current state of politics, or put in the work to influence the politics. Right now environmental activists have been winning the political battle on the north coast of BC: "The Great Bear Rainforest" was a brilliant piece of branding. They've also been able to spread a lot of fear to support their perspective thanks to the lasting memory of events like the Exxon Valdez oil spill. On top of that, BC is in the middle of a wave of Aboriginal political activism under the umbrella of reconciliation that involves land claims never properly resolved because of the racism and incompetence of 19th century BC politicians.
Right now, the response seems to be either to avoid the hard work of changing the politics or whining and sulking that the politics aren't simply the way people want them. Politicians are lazy and they're cowards, so that's a problem. I also agree that the situation feels unfair: the courts have made a mess of the issue of aboriginal title, and the environmentalists are playing a bad faith game because they won't accept *any* environmental impacts and reject the very notion of trade-offs and mitigations inherent to the review process. As a long-time engineer, though, my inclination is accept that the problems exist and figure out a way forward.
Joel, I’m not so sure that pipeline is actually going to happen and if it does it will be lumbered with numerous delays courtesy of consultations, environmentalist push back, regulatory burdens, the list is endless without overlooking the mandatory huge cost overruns attached to any type of government funded and backed development. Another question that comes to mind - is there a demand and market for this line or is the current structure capable of meeting that demand in terms of deliverability for years to come?
"the best route" and "the route we can get everyone on board with" are two different things. I don't think arguing about northern tanker bans is worth brain cells at this time. A line to Vancouver and a port in Delta is the one that will get BC on board, most FN co operation, and the quickest to get started. It will also cost less than a northern line (tens of billions less, I dont think people realize what a northern pipeline has to go through to get to the coast). This route will be. grand compromise and if oil is being pumped out of it in a few years, we should all take the win. I think Carney negotiated this very well, especially the "bribe" to help David Eby with his self inflicted Massey Tunnel problem. I have to question pro pipeline people if they really want a pipeline or is this just some way to keep smearing "The Liberals"; because the complaining is not slowing down even as each step plays out.
An interesting op-ed that overlooks two very important factors:
1) Pipeline right-of-way, and
2) First Nations rights and prerogatives.
Indeed, there is some linkage between the two, but let's start with right-of-way first.
The pipeline right-of-way that the new proposal will take is essentially the same one that was used to link the beginning of the TMX pipeline in Burderheim, Alberta to its terminus at the Westridge and Burnaby marine terminals in the Lower Mainland.
In between are the Yellowhead Highway (16 West) and the Southern Yellowhead Highway (5 South), before passing over the Coquihalla Pass onwards to Hope, then the TransCanada (1 West).
A new oil pipeline to Prince Rupert would be "all green field", as there is no existing oil pipeline there now.
Which brings us to (2). The First Nations that lie between Western Alberta and Prince Rupert (and also on the Hecate Strait and in Haida Gwaii) would have had a lot to say (much of it negative) about any right-of-way that transited their lands or resulted in heavy oil tanker traffic through the waters they claim.
- - -
In other words, this wasn't just about "weird Lotusland cultural norms".
Never underestimate the value of an existing right of way in Canada.
Any new route will have to go through extensive consultations with communities and Indigenous groups, which even under our current government's intention to speed things up, will take decades.
Twinning an existing route has benefits - using an existing right of way makes public and Indigenous consultations easier (note: not EASY, just EASIER); there is less physical prep work to be done - fewer trees to come down, rock to blast through, rivers and streams to figure out how to cross; the environmental impact will be easier to determine and adjust for.
In a land like Canada, that comes down to dollars... it will cost less to follow an existing route in both time and money. All the rest of the discussion is secondary to those facts. This applies not just to pipelines but to rights of way for rail, electricty transmission, and roads. All across Canada.
All correct. Of course, the incident that caused this tanker ban was the Exxon Valdez spill. However, even double-hulled oil tankers does not work with the indigenous population on the north coast or, to be fair, most others near or in Prince Rupert.
This is the case even if the prospects for safe transit are also enhanced by some serious tow vessels that would be assigned to each tanker until they are beyond the tanker ban limits.
BC, like most Canadian Government entities, seems to have policies and attitudes developed out of penis envy of its neighbor to the south - in BC’s case Californica. And so it’s busy Californicating Canada and especially Alberta. And like many if not most Canadians, defining itself as not American. 🙄
Canada's east coast doesn't warrant a tanker ban. It must be ugly and uninhabited by wildlife . Or maybe the Liberals don't want to interfere with the profits Irving makes from importing oil from the middle east. Interfering with Alberta is OK, though.
You make a grand point, Jerry.
The tanker ban is not in place to protect the coast; the tanker ban is in place to lock our natural resources in the ground, forever.
This is a smashing essay.
It’s hard to agree on a set of facts, when many of the factual components are kept hidden from the casual observer.
I don’t think a pipeline here, or a pipeline there will change Canada enough to make a difference. What concerns me is our inability or unwillingness to hold certain parties to account in the execution of their respective job descriptions.
As is alluded to in the essay, what happens when the music stops and there aren’t enough open chairs?
We have laws still on the books to restrict the building of pipelines.
We have extraordinary regulations and review processes still in place designed to restrict the building of pipelines.
We have laws and regulations in place specifically designed to thwart private concerns from investing in and attempting to build pipelines.
We have nine robed wizards in Ottawa who make up rules designed specifically to restrict the building of virtually anything, including pipelines.
And, yet, we have politicians who go through the motions of wanting to build pipelines, without possessing either the willingness to expend political capital or the courage to proceed.
Canada, the True North Strong and Free,
Where the less you know, the better off you’ll be.
Great essay, Joel.
Joel’s take on this is perfect. Objectively, the north option would be the best, but for misguided politics. To his discussion I would add one more point. When pipeline routes are selected, the best meaning the safest, easiest to construct and most practical route is selected. The next pipeline along the route needs to take a lesser route. For the Trans mountain expansion most of the new pipe was laid in an existing easement. Yet for 1/4 of the route, for environmental, social or technical reasons, a new alignment was required for the expansion. The next pipe in the corridor will face even more environmental, technical and social constraints plus require a new easement affecting more land and landowners particularly in the Fraser valley where urban development is concentrated.
Joel’s discussion hinted that placing all of our pipeline eggs in one basket is a bad idea strategically. I agree, particularly in areas within the BC interior and coast where geotechnical risks are pervasive. And finally, the south route would be an additional burden on the 6000 landowners already affected by the existing pipelines (compared to approximately 1000 indirectly and 265 directly affected landowners along the Northern Gateway route).
If ship safety is a concern, the sheer number of vessels in and around Vancouver Harbour and the complexity of transit through the south islands compared to the dearth of both for the northern port, makes the northern port a much safer bet.
The north route, by comparison, as Joel indicated is no more environmentally sensitive; all areas along each of the routes are environmentally sensitive and critical wildlife habitat exists within each corridor. Current pipeline construction practices already include special measures to protect and restore those areas post construction.
While terminating the new pipeline at Deltaport is a change from threading a new pipeline through Surrey and Burnaby, it would affect a whole new group of landowners.
We in Canada have some of the most capable pipeline engineers, environmentalists and contractors in the world. I am confident they can build a safe pipeline along pretty much any route. But clearly the selection of the South route is only the best because it avoids confronting a small vocal privileged group to the disadvantage of a larger group of already affected landowners.
An essay that gets to the point. A well heeled and largely foreign funded propaganda campaign in Northern BC has convinced BC residents that the north coast is somehow off limits to economic development. BC residents, much like our California cousins are all about feelings and virtue signalling. Facts, the realities of paying for health care, education or standard of living cannot compete with feelings here in BC.
Hey, BC, don't worry. Ottawa's Tewin housing development will make all mistaken plans look wise by comparison. Same political church. Different pew.
Unfortunately, politics *is* a big factor in major projects and policies. There's 2 choices: either accept the constraints forced by the current state of politics, or put in the work to influence the politics. Right now environmental activists have been winning the political battle on the north coast of BC: "The Great Bear Rainforest" was a brilliant piece of branding. They've also been able to spread a lot of fear to support their perspective thanks to the lasting memory of events like the Exxon Valdez oil spill. On top of that, BC is in the middle of a wave of Aboriginal political activism under the umbrella of reconciliation that involves land claims never properly resolved because of the racism and incompetence of 19th century BC politicians.
Right now, the response seems to be either to avoid the hard work of changing the politics or whining and sulking that the politics aren't simply the way people want them. Politicians are lazy and they're cowards, so that's a problem. I also agree that the situation feels unfair: the courts have made a mess of the issue of aboriginal title, and the environmentalists are playing a bad faith game because they won't accept *any* environmental impacts and reject the very notion of trade-offs and mitigations inherent to the review process. As a long-time engineer, though, my inclination is accept that the problems exist and figure out a way forward.
No , a testament to the abject economic ignorance of leftist BC.
No other rationalization
Joel, I’m not so sure that pipeline is actually going to happen and if it does it will be lumbered with numerous delays courtesy of consultations, environmentalist push back, regulatory burdens, the list is endless without overlooking the mandatory huge cost overruns attached to any type of government funded and backed development. Another question that comes to mind - is there a demand and market for this line or is the current structure capable of meeting that demand in terms of deliverability for years to come?
"the best route" and "the route we can get everyone on board with" are two different things. I don't think arguing about northern tanker bans is worth brain cells at this time. A line to Vancouver and a port in Delta is the one that will get BC on board, most FN co operation, and the quickest to get started. It will also cost less than a northern line (tens of billions less, I dont think people realize what a northern pipeline has to go through to get to the coast). This route will be. grand compromise and if oil is being pumped out of it in a few years, we should all take the win. I think Carney negotiated this very well, especially the "bribe" to help David Eby with his self inflicted Massey Tunnel problem. I have to question pro pipeline people if they really want a pipeline or is this just some way to keep smearing "The Liberals"; because the complaining is not slowing down even as each step plays out.
An interesting op-ed that overlooks two very important factors:
1) Pipeline right-of-way, and
2) First Nations rights and prerogatives.
Indeed, there is some linkage between the two, but let's start with right-of-way first.
The pipeline right-of-way that the new proposal will take is essentially the same one that was used to link the beginning of the TMX pipeline in Burderheim, Alberta to its terminus at the Westridge and Burnaby marine terminals in the Lower Mainland.
In between are the Yellowhead Highway (16 West) and the Southern Yellowhead Highway (5 South), before passing over the Coquihalla Pass onwards to Hope, then the TransCanada (1 West).
A new oil pipeline to Prince Rupert would be "all green field", as there is no existing oil pipeline there now.
Which brings us to (2). The First Nations that lie between Western Alberta and Prince Rupert (and also on the Hecate Strait and in Haida Gwaii) would have had a lot to say (much of it negative) about any right-of-way that transited their lands or resulted in heavy oil tanker traffic through the waters they claim.
- - -
In other words, this wasn't just about "weird Lotusland cultural norms".
Bruderheim,AB
Sorry. Typing too quickly. Thank you for the correction.
I tend to regard all of this as a power play by First Nations as to who controls the central and north coasts.
Never underestimate the value of an existing right of way in Canada.
Any new route will have to go through extensive consultations with communities and Indigenous groups, which even under our current government's intention to speed things up, will take decades.
Twinning an existing route has benefits - using an existing right of way makes public and Indigenous consultations easier (note: not EASY, just EASIER); there is less physical prep work to be done - fewer trees to come down, rock to blast through, rivers and streams to figure out how to cross; the environmental impact will be easier to determine and adjust for.
In a land like Canada, that comes down to dollars... it will cost less to follow an existing route in both time and money. All the rest of the discussion is secondary to those facts. This applies not just to pipelines but to rights of way for rail, electricty transmission, and roads. All across Canada.
All correct. Of course, the incident that caused this tanker ban was the Exxon Valdez spill. However, even double-hulled oil tankers does not work with the indigenous population on the north coast or, to be fair, most others near or in Prince Rupert.
This is the case even if the prospects for safe transit are also enhanced by some serious tow vessels that would be assigned to each tanker until they are beyond the tanker ban limits.
Wow! Some good points,common sense with a tinge of irony. Too much traffic in the South,I agree,it’s a Corolla
BC, like most Canadian Government entities, seems to have policies and attitudes developed out of penis envy of its neighbor to the south - in BC’s case Californica. And so it’s busy Californicating Canada and especially Alberta. And like many if not most Canadians, defining itself as not American. 🙄
Doesn't the most direct route from Roberts Bank to international waters require traversing US waters?
The existing TM RoW has spurs to refineries in Ferndal and Anacortes. Could this RoW support a line much of the way to Roberts Banks?