The debate over oil pipelines has hit a new high 鈥� or more correctly, a new low 鈥� in the wake of the fatal train derailment and explosion in the Quebec community of Lac-M茅gantic on Saturday.
The author of an opinion piece in one of Canada鈥檚 national newspapers correctly pointed out Monday that when it comes to shipping oil, pipelines are statistically safer than railways.
But then she took the argument a step too far by stating if the oil on board the tankers involved in Saturday鈥檚 disaster had been shipped 鈥渢hrough pipelines, instead of rail, families in Lac-M茅gantic would not be grieving for lost loved ones today.鈥�
It is a breathtakingly callous comment to make as the death toll rises and the community continues to search for missing residents. It is an argument that seems just a hair split away from suggesting that anyone opposed to pipelines must be supporting train derailments.
But expect to hear similar statements in the weeks ahead based on the premise that if you must ship large quantities of oil over long distances, the most efficient and safest method is by pipeline.
If we, for example, need to ship Alberta鈥檚 bitumen to New Brunswick through the proposed Energy East pipeline, it will be much safer to do it by pipeline than by rail car.
That鈥檚 an argument supported by statistics, just like the statistics that say if you must travel a long distance, it is much safer to fly on a commercial jet than drive in a passenger car. That doesn鈥檛 mean planes don鈥檛 sometimes crash spectacularly or pipelines don鈥檛 occasionally spring a catastrophic leak; it just means that if you must ship oil and if you must travel, pipelines and planes are the safer option.
But what if you don鈥檛 have to fly? And what if you don鈥檛 have to transport large quantities of oil across the continent? This is where the pipeline-is-better argument starts to break down. The argument only makes sense if you believe we absolutely have to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of bitumen every day from Alberta to be upgraded in New Brunswick for shipment overseas.
Alberta, of course, has to ship oil to generate income. Same with the oil sector. Both argue that the Alberta-based industry is the economic engine of Canada.
However, a lot of 91原创s aren鈥檛 convinced we need to build more pipelines to ship more Alberta bitumen to Asia. They don鈥檛 see the environmental risk being worth the economic reward, especially if that reward is enjoyed largely in Alberta.
Just look at the antipathy of many British Columbians to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would pump Alberta鈥檚 bitumen to the West Coast for shipment overseas.
There鈥檚 an irony here. The reality is that if people try to prevent the shipment of more Alberta bitumen to market, they鈥檒l likely be much more successful stopping yet-to-be approved pipeline projects than they will be shutting down the already-approved method of shipping oil by rail car.
We already ship a lot of oil by rail in this country. In fact, in the past five years we鈥檝e seen a massive increase in oil shipped by rail in Canada. In 2009, we had about 500 carloads of oil on the tracks. This year, we鈥檙e expecting to see 140,000 carloads.
If the Lac-M茅gantic explosion were to spur protests against the shipment of oil, those protests might turn out to be more successful against the Energy East pipeline and thus leave oil companies with no alternative but to transport more oil by rail car.
The fact remains pipelines are statistically safer than rail.
But another fact is that no matter how many pipelines we build, we鈥檒l also always be shipping oil, or other potentially dangerous substances, by rail.
