Dear Editor
I refer to BROKE’s open letter to MP Terry Beech published March 1, in the Burnaby NOW. My comments are from the perspective of a professional engineer, who testified frequently before the national and Ontario energy boards during a 10-year period. I held executive responsibility for pipeline systems and have worked in most sectors of the energy business for over 45 years.
In my opinion, many or most of the complaints against the NEB by opponents of Kinder Morgan’s project are because they have not previously been involved in and do not understand energy industry regulatory processes and the energy business.
Their claim that the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline project will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and endanger Canada and the world via global warming is based on fantasy, not logic and science. This claim assumes that if Canadians refuse to sell bitumen oil to, for example, China, the Chinese will not buy the commodity elsewhere. This is a ridiculous assumption; China will buy the commodity from another country, buying crude similar to the oil sands material we refused to supply, so as to match Chinese refinery configurations. There might be slight differences in world GHGs due to the crude's quality or the relative cleanliness of local production and transportation practices, but these differences are generally small on a "wells-to-wheels" basis. The only major change by stopping our oil sands development is the transfer of Canadian jobs and large government revenues to Venezuela or some other producer. World GHGs will stay basically the same.
Yes, you can argue Canada’s GHGs may rise slightly due to Canadian oil sands production, but there is no aerial fence around Canada. It is world GHGs that count. Hence, BROKE’s demand for consideration of “downstream” GHGs makes little sense. How do you find out what crude China will buy if we refuse to sell them bitumen, and do you seriously believe Venezuela (where I worked) is going to tell you the truth about the carbon footprint of their Orinoco production? How do you know that by refusing to supply China with our crude, you don’t force China to a dirtier crude, of which there are many?
As a Canadian, I find it sad that U.S. foundations pay Canadian ENGOs and protest groups to oppose Canada’s largest exports – oil and gas – but we seldom hear a word about the fact that the U.S. has roughly doubled oil production in the last 10 years and just started exporting crude from the U.S. to overseas destinations. Make no mistake – many Americans do not want us to have alternative markets for our oil and gas, and Canadian groups are helping them achieve that goal. Do we not remember what softwood lumber proved when we had but one customer? That is our position with oil and gas, Canada’s largest export.
Our ENGOs and some left-wing politicians claim that Canadian bitumen is the dirtiest crude in the world. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2014 report) puts the lie to this fable. Thirteen oil fields in California and six overseas have higher GHGs than our typical AWB dilbit. The “dirtiest” oil of all in North America is California Placerita crude and the dirtiest in the world is from Nigeria.
If, as BROKE claims, there has been “no meaningful consultation with First Nations," how is it that as of Dec. 15, 2015, Trans Mountain has received 30 letters of support from Aboriginal groups formally expressing their support for the project, as well as more than 100 additional agreements, including letters/memoranda of understanding, capacity funding and integrated cultural assessments?
BROKE complains that most of our oil sands dilbit is destined for export. This has been true since the 1960s. However, considerable volumes are upgraded in Canada and used in our own refineries, as is some bitumen. Do we complain if most of our other commodities (wheat, potash, other minerals, sulphur) are exported? Many of us rejoice in the jobs and export revenues resulting in taxes to support government services.
Personally, my view is that the BROKE “open letter” throws everything they can find at a wall in the hope that some will stick. There is not a word in their “open letter” about the benefits to Canada or B.C. from the Kinder Morgan project; the letter is 100 per cent negative. I am not impressed. See http://www.transmountain.com/project-benefits.
There are risks in any human endeavor, but if you took the approach of BROKE and their ilk, none of us would bicycle, drive cars, go on an airplane or cruise liner, or leave our house. Or have an economy!
John Hunter, North Vancouver
