Dear Editor:
When it comes right down to it, the struggle against the construction of an oil pipeline is not only demanding, but it can be distracting as well. It can divert attention from an already existing
means of transporting oil through our communities: the railroad. Significantly, shipping oil by rail it doesn't require an assessment process, much less anyone's approval.
In point of fact, railway tanker cars are increasingly being used to ship oil. The CEO of Imperial Oil, Rich Kruger, recently put it this way: "While pipelines are the most efficient way to transport crude oil and petroleum products, other modes of transport such as rail will be needed. I refer to them primarily as kind of bridging agents until additional pipelines are in place and ultimately an insurance policy if pipelines don't come about."
To underscore the point, Imperial Oil (a subsidiary of Exxon Mobile Corp.) has investments in rail stock. Moreover, the company is constructing a rail terminal near Edmonton designed to handle 100,000 barrels a day initially but capable of expanding to 250,000 barrels a day. Its partner in the project is Kinder Morgan.
Shipping oil by rail, of course, triggers images of the July 2013 Lac-Megantic disaster.
And if time and geography tended to blunt its impact on our lives, the January 2014 derailment that dumped a large amount of coal into a Burnaby creek was a sharp reminder that rail accidents can happen anytime anywhere.
It should also remind us that the oil sands companies are a determined lot. Whether by pipe or rail or both, if it means going through our communities to get bitumen to market, that's exactly what they will try to do.
And that, of course, will likely give rise to yet another public-based struggle.
Bill Brassington, Burnaby
