Dear Editor:
As an engineer who has worked in the petroleum industry for 25 years, I am exasperated that polarized groups cannot co-operate to make the increase in capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline an environmental positive. Let me provide some basic data.
Tied to the Trans Mountain pipeline are five refineries with a total capacity of more than 600,000 barrels per day. However, the current Trans Mountain pipeline capacity is approximately 300,000 barrels per day.
How does the non-Trans Mountain oil get to the refineries? This additional oil traditionally came by ship (remember the Exxon Valdez) from Alaska but now that the land-locked oil from the Alberta Oil Sands is sold at a discount to world prices, rail transport is being used. Historically, rail transport has had more safety and environmental risk than pipelines (Lac-Mégantic is a recent example).
If the Trans Mountain pipeline was expanded to meet the demand of the refineries in the Vancouver and Puget Sound area, both the rail and ship transport options could be minimized or eliminated. This would greatly reduce environmental risks, and reduce the overall cost of transport and energy. This is because pipelines are generally more cost effective and safer than rail and marine alternatives.
The problem: Trans Mountain is likely concerned that the refineries will not use the expanded capacity and wants the ability to export by ship to protect their investment. Refineries likely want options for the source of their crude to protect their investments. The desire to protect their investments may be impeding agreement on the low risk, low cost option.
Another problem: There is a lot of Alberta Oil Sands oil and it needs a way to market. My view is that ship transport to global markets via the Pacific is not the right answer. The right answer is to keep the oil in North America with the development of the Keystone and other land pipeline options.
All interested parties should forgo their polarized positions and promote the lowest risk, most economical alternative. This is: n expand the Trans Mountain pipeline but only to the capacity of the local refineries (doubling not tripling the capacity); n restrict ship transport of crude oil in Burrard Inlet and maintain the ban on the export of crude oil from U.S. ports, and n restrict rail transport of crude oil.
Glen Parker
North Vancouver
