Why does Canada Import Oil at All?

This article and many others to follow are meant to provoke balanced discussions through respectful consideration of all sides of a story. All may not be as it appears. Group think can be the barrier to innovation - be careful of accepting potentially one-sided, manipulated information at face value.

"I need to stop at the gas station on my way to the anti-pipeline protest."

Strong opposition to pipelines in parts of Canada, notably BC and Quebec, has been pervasive news for quite some time. The protester’s message as conveyed by popular media is generally objection along ideological lines. Carbon dioxide emissions are bad for the earth and we must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels is a common theme, as is the omnipresent environmental outcry that damage to the earth due to catastrophic leaks or spills is almost certain to happen. While hidden motivations behind many of the protests are slowly being examined and exposed, mainstream media certainly has a leaning towards propagating the 'no to pipelines' message.

If this is the essence of the protest, then let's consider whether construction of the proposed pipelines and terminals would actually result in increased emissions and/or an unavoidable environmental disaster. The simple answer is, of course not. Blocking Canada's access to the world market won't mean the world will suddenly be using less fossil fuels. Free markets don't work that way. Canada is only one supplier to the oil market. Canada could be a much more effective and profitable participant in the global oil market, but if Canadian energy supply is not available the gap in supply will certainly be met by other nations.

"It's always about the Exxon Valdez...why do the protesters still talk about the Exxon Valdez?"

Protesters often rely on apocalyptic descriptions of past tanker ship disasters, though no similarly-sized oil tanker spills have happened in North America since the Exxon Valdez, now almost 30 years ago. Post-Valdez, tanker ship construction and operation was thoroughly examined. Extensive changes to all aspects of shipping oil by sea were implemented. Mankind is good at learning from our mistakes. The risk of such a damaging spill occurring again have been drastically reduced. Oil spill response protocols, wildlife and shoreline protection, new technology and government legislative and regulatory frameworks has improved every aspect of marine safety measures.

Protesters still talk about the Exxon Valdez because there's been no accidents of this magnitude since. That, of course, is a very, very good thing...where's the positive, uplifting media reports on this disaster-averting fact?

I think it's safe to ascertain that 1) as long as the world demands fossil fuels, they will be supplied from the global market; 2) tanker or pipeline infrastructure-related accidents are extremely unlikely; 3) Canada has the capacity to be completely energy self-sufficient for decades (even centuries) while also being able to supply surplus fuel for sale on the global market.

What's Wrong with This Picture?

If you believe what you're told to believe, moving oil across Canada is bad. Yet unbelievably a huge portion of our daily oil consumption is provided by imported oil. We don't need to send our money offshore. We can create domestic jobs and keep our tax-generating money circulating within our borders. You could and should think it's deplorable that a small band of protesters have been so effective at preventing Canada from getting its energy bounty to market - but given the difficulty shunting the protests aside is evident that the people on the pickets are not the ones calling the shots. But popular opinion does matter, so let's change popular opinion.

It's Time to Think Rationally - Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion

What would a successful cancellation of the TMP expansion achieve? Consider these points:

• There will be increased imports of refined fuel from Washington to meet the local need, delivered on the water by barge. There actually will be an increase in traffic on the water in this scenario.
• The crude imported by Washington to produce the refined fuels being sent back to Vancouver arrives by tanker from Alaska and other offshore sources, including Russia. Washington State also receives oil by pipeline from Kinder Morgan. Strengthening this circuitous route to provide the energy enjoyed by BC's lower mainland does not meet any of the protester's stated concerns.
• Construction of a 14-kilometer pipeline (yes, a pipeline) and a marine terminal in Richmond to supply aviation fuel to the Vancouver Airport is already underway. Note that the aviation fuel arriving at the Richmond terminal gets there by barge and tanker from foreign sources. Although there is a refinery in the Lower Mainland, it can only produce 40% of the needs for YVR. The rest is imported from the US.

If the goal of blocking the Trans Mountain expansion was to reduce Canada's dependency on fossil fuels - the facts show this is not happening. The supply is being met by imports from the US, refined products arriving via tankers and barges from non-Canadian sources. In other words, Canadians are diverting money offshore needlessly, and in return Canadians get the "benefits" of lost jobs, lost tax revenue, and increased living costs.

If the goal was to reduce the possibility of an environmental impact, how is stopping outgoing tankers while increasing incoming tankers and barges reducing this possibility? Given the sublime safety protocols of the oil shipping industry, is this concern valid at all?

It's Time to Think Rationally - Energy East Pipeline Expansion

Canada can address the matter of energy self-sufficiency by expanding our pipeline capacity to the east. This expansion has been successfully blocked. So what did that do for Canada? Well, not offsetting 600,000-odd barrels of oil imported every day arriving both on tankers and, somewhat ironically, through pipelines from US sources means Canada has continued dependency on foreign imports to meet domestic energy needs.

Time to Reflect

Canada's energy independence would have an environmental benefit, reducing our emissions by 6.2 percent. We would absolutely realize an economic benefit, with billions in tax dollars made available for increased infrastructure and health care spending. The economy would also have benefited from increased capital projects jobs, and ongoing service and maintenance jobs. 

The thinking person will want to look further into the risk and likelihood of tanker and pipeline spills and accidents. The thinking person will also consider whether it’s sensible to NOT build infrastructure that adds prosperity to Canada, reduces our carbon dioxide emissions, and eliminates our dependency on foreign-produced, ethically questionable oil sources. All Canadians benefit from energy independency. We can actually take that statement to the bank.

(Many thanks to the authors of the linked articles for their diligence and reporting ethics)

Coming Up Next - Science is in chaos...and so is the world.