A northern route to Sarnia for Alberta heavy crude might have potential, but don’t bet the farm at Hardisty yet
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s announcement in Calgary yesterday of a “potential east-west pipeline” while accompanied by her Ontarian counterpart Doug Ford sounds more like a bit of brightly coloured pre-election confetti than an actual plan.
Both Conservative premiers have been encountering a little more skepticism lately than they’re used to, so they may see their mutual performative pre-election pipeline pact as a pipedream that will fly with voters long enough to finesse their way through another vote, even if it has less chance of impressing potential private-sector investors.
And as Ms. Smith might say, who needs investors when you can always raid a public sector pension plan or two? (Some details may remain to be worked out.)
“After signing an agreement last year to work together with Alberta and Saskatchewan to build new pipelines through an economic corridor from Alberta to Ontario, the Government of Ontario has unveiled a potential route of a new 3,300-kilometre oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Sarnia, Ontario,” Ms. Smith said in a “statement,” which looked a lot like a press release.
“The Northern Shield Energy Corridor would pave the way for Alberta’s barrier-free access to domestic refineries and markets in eastern Canada,” the statement continued cheerfully. “Greater access to open water ports will allow Alberta to serve its growing list of customers overseas, ensuring Canada captures the full value of its energy resources.”
Indeed, in the news conference, Ms. Smith went further, enthusing about how “there is also an opportunity to eventually use this corridor to reach the Atlantic Ocean, which would allow Alberta to provide reliable energy to our nation’s European allies.”
Well now, let’s think about this. On the plus side from the two premiers’ perspective, building an all-Canadian bypass through northern Ontario might be expensive, but it could well be politically popular because it avoids the aged and insecure Enbridge Line 5 to Sarnia through Wisconsin and Michigan – which has been increasingly perceived as a dangerously weak link since U.S. President Donald Trump executed his pro-wrestling heel turn on Canada.
And while the Great Lakes may have a certain amount of open water, Great Lakes ports are not going to be much help with customers overseas, and the prospects of extending the line onward to New Brunswick and eastern Canadian seawater remain minuscule.
There are just too many hurdles along the way. For example, Quebec. Plus, the Irving Family won’t want the stuff Alberta ships as long as they can access sweet Middle Eastern crude by sea, which should be possible again soon now that the United States has basically ceded control of the Hormuz Strait to Iran. The Irvings are never going to use their own money to retool their St. John refinery to process Alberta heavy crude unless they have to.
What’s more, there’s another reluctant province between agreeable Saskatchewan and anxious Ontario, so one could say it’s a little bold of the government of Ontario to say it’s unveiled a potential route. At least, the word potential is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew says bluntly such megaprojects must start with Indigenous partnerships, not with “consultation” after the decision’s been made.
And since Ms. Smith’s promise her eastern front “would accelerate the Alberta government’s goal to double oil production, moving an additional 500,000 barrels of oil per day and the potential for future expansion up to a total of 800,000 barrels per day,” it may yet prompt some opposition in a world where global climate change is also accelerating.
So, we’ll see about this pipeline. My advice would be don’t bet the farm at Hardisty just yet.
Ms. Smith’s claim in her statement that “this project is about making Canada stronger” and “a new west-east pipeline will connect Canadian energy with Canadian consumers” has a rather nostalgic sound.
It was almost as if she were channeling the Elizabeth May of a decade ago. (“I am a strong proponent of expanding our refineries – especially building a large and environmentally best-technology refinery in northern Alberta,” the Canadian Green Party leader said then.) Or even the late Pierre Trudeau’s promise of security of supply and independence from the world market for Canadians – which some Albertans with long memories will recall provoked threats to let those “eastern bastards” freeze in the dark!
Oh well, any old port in a storm!
Corb Lund ponders seeking judicial review of Elections Alberta petition rejection
Meanwhile, in a news release yesterday, musician and reluctant environmentalist Corb Lund indicated he is reviewing a legal response to the rejection of his “Water Not Coal” citizen initiative petition by Elections Alberta.
Mr. Lund “is meeting with lawyers over major concerns about procedural fairness and reasonable application of legislative guidelines in Elections Alberta’s validation and verification methods following last week’s announcement,” the release said, raising the possibility of filing for judicial review within the next 30 days.
“After being briefed by my lawyer/scrutineer that was in the room during the count, I have some real issues with the way this was handled,” he was quoted saying in the release – a significant observation since this was the first time the government employed a new provision allowing it to deploy a Justice Department lawyer as a scrutineer.
“Albertans have spoken loud and clear, delivering their voices to government via this petition about their firm opposition to coal development in the headwaters of our Rockies,” he said. “We can’t allow thousands of Albertans to be disenfranchised.”
If Mr. Lund proceeds with legal action, though, he will fine the United Conservative Party Government will try to drag out the proceedings, to increase costs and render the matter moot.
Asked about it at her pipeline news conference with Premier Ford, Ms. Smith patronizingly urged Mr. Lund to “work together on some of the issues that have been raised.”
“We’ve already addressed them in substantive ways,” she claimed breezily, leastways as far as “future developments” go. “There may more that we can do, but we’ll continue to have that conversation.”
Right. But it sure sounds as if nothing is ever going to be allowed to stop that Australian billionairess’s open-pit plan. Under the circumstances, one imagines, Mr. Lund is unpersuaded.
