{"id":54749,"date":"2018-09-06T05:06:14","date_gmt":"2018-09-06T09:06:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/huntsville.dopperonline.ca\/?p=54749"},"modified":"2018-09-06T07:44:36","modified_gmt":"2018-09-06T11:44:36","slug":"will-canada-ever-build-the-oil-pipeline-capacity-the-world-needs-hugh-holland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/doppleronline.ca\/huntsville\/will-canada-ever-build-the-oil-pipeline-capacity-the-world-needs-hugh-holland\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Canada ever build the oil pipeline capacity the world needs? ~ Hugh Holland"},"content":{"rendered":"

A reliable and affordable source of energy for transportation is vital to life for the world\u2019s growing population. The world\u2019s vehicle manufacturers are aggressively developing vehicles with electric motors to replace oil-burning engines, but there are many constraints. It will take two generations to replace the world\u2019s easiest applications and longer to replace the more difficult applications along with enough clean electricity to power them. How many readers are driving EVs now, and if not why not?<\/p>\n

<\/broadstreet-zone><\/strong><\/div>\n

Canada is home to the world\u2019s third largest proven reserves of oil. Based on current production rates, proven reserve\u2013life is 125 years for Canada, 81 for the Middle East, 21 for Russia, 19 for the USA, 19 for China, one year for the European Union, and 55 years for the entire world.<\/p>\n

According to the International Energy Agency, carbon emissions from producing Canada\u2019s oil sands product are about seven per cent higher than the average of other sources and seven per cent lower than some sources. The IEA says, \u201cThe difference in emissions is too small to be a factor in the sourcing of oil.\u201d<\/p>\n

Canada has the right and also the obligation to share our vital resource with the 185 countries that will need oil for the foreseeable future. Consequently, Canada must find the best ways to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from oil extraction and other sources and to transport our oil to the countries and people who need it. Given that pipelines are clearly the safest way to get our oil to markets that need it, what efforts have been made to date?<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. After eight years of engineering and analysis, the Harper government approved the Northern Gateway<\/em> Pipeline<\/em> to Kitimat BC in 2014. The project was opposed by First Nations and environmentalists citing the risk of passing through the narrow Douglas Channel, even though the same safety measures used successfully for decades in similar conditions on the coast of Norway were prescribed. In 2015, to appease opponents, the new Trudeau government abruptly cancelled Northern Gateway and locked in that decision with a moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the north-west coast of BC.<\/li>\n
  2. In 2013, TransCanada proposed the Energy East Pipeline<\/em> to idled refineries in Eastern Canada. In 2017, TransCanada cancelled the project in frustration. To appease environmentalists, the Trudeau government had added the meaningless requirement to forecast carbon emissions from the pipeline. That was seen as a sign of non-support since emissions come from burning the oil, not from moving it. The then mayor of Montreal sided with environmentalists about spill risk crossing the river. That was clearly solvable with a well-designed dual purpose bridge.<\/li>\n
  3. In 2012, Kinder-Morgan<\/em> tabled a proposal to upgrade and expand their existing pipeline from Alberta to the port of Vancouver. The Trudeau government supported that proposal on the grounds that the original pipeline had been operating successfully on the existing route for 60 years. But the probability of ever getting approval for that expansion is now in question.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    <\/broadstreet-zone><\/strong><\/div>\n

    Kinder-Morgan also became frustrated by endless delays, so the Trudeau government decided to reduce uncertainty around the expansion by buying the pipeline. But on August 30, 2018, The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the National Energy Board\u2019s analysis was incomplete because:<\/p>\n