top of page
Jordan C. & Matthew H.

Expansion of Trans Mountain Pipeline

The current Trans Mountain Pipeline carries crude and refined oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. The proposed expansion would twin the existing pipeline, which runs more than 1,000 kilometers between Edmonton and Burnaby, B.C. Although this project represents an opportunity to strengthen the Canadian economy, decreases the risk of transporting oil by rail, and could mend relationships with First Nations groups, some people argue that its potential dangers to our environment and future wellbeing outweigh these seemingly beneficial reasons.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would bring billions in new revenue. This new pipeline would connect the dock to Burnaby Terminal, on the far side of Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. The twinning of the existing pipeline from Edmonton would increase the full capacity of the system from 300,000 barrels a day to 890,000.

While there are currently only about four vessels carrying crude oil back out to the Pacific per month, an expanded capacity would mean a seven-fold increase in the number of oil tankers coming and going.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau asserts that Canada needs the expanded pipeline to get Alberta oil to lucrative markets in Asia. This is crucial in order to sell at prices closer to the going world rate. Canada isn’t currently getting a fair price for its resources because almost all of its energy exports go to the United States and producers often have to sell at a discounted price. Additionally, reducing the amount of oil transportation by rail could be safer as it is found to have 4.5 more incidents than pipelines do. This increased rate of accidents and spills causes 8 times more money to be allocated to rail-related issues.

Canada needs the expanded pipeline to get Alberta oil to lucrative markets in Asia.

Trans Mountain CEO Ian Anderson stated the cost of building the pipeline expansion has soared from an initial estimate of $7.4 billion to $12.6 billion. That cost also includes $1.1 billion already spent on construction by the previous owner of the project (Kinder Morgan) and $4 billion spent by the federal government to buy the project amid legal uncertainty in May of 2018. Those sums bring the total cost of taxpayers' investment in Trans Mountain to more than $16 billion.

Despite this expensive initial investment, Anderson reassures us that the project will be profitable because much of its capacity has already been sold to major oil producers like Suncor and Cenvous on 20-year contracts. He said the project will generate $1.5 billion a year in cash flow when it's fully operational. The federal government added that it would generate $47 billion in revenue for different levels of government over the first 20 years of its operation.



While many First Nations groups view the pipeline as a means to build a new relationship with Canada through economic reconciliation — as they could sustainably create their own wealth — the opposing sides argue that the land and its resources are far more important. Chief Lee Spahan of the Coldwater First Nation near Merritt, B.C emphasizes: "how is money gonna help you out when the water is gone? Or it gets contaminated? Are those groups gonna help us with that water?". Similar claims have seen First Nations groups take the government to court.

How is money gonna help you out when the water is gone?

During the first hearing in the fall of 2018, the government had predetermined the outcome in favor of building the project. However, in a more recent hearing last month (February 2020), the judges were less biased as they introduced new conditions to mitigate most concerns raised by First Nations. This led to a unanimous 3-0 decision by the court in favor of the project. The Federal Court of Appeal says the government’s decision to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion a second time is reasonable and will stand.


According to Kinder Morgan, the risk of a major oil spill on this route is small; a once-in-473-years event. However, if there were to be a “major” spill, it would be 3,000 times larger than the incident in 2015, where the cargo ship Marathassa discharged more than 2,800 litres of fuel into Vancouver’s English Bay.

The City of Vancouver, in its submission to the National Energy Board, tabled a report showing the risk of a marine oil spill in the 50-year life of the Trans Mountain expansion project is between 16 and 67 percent. This is not necessarily going to be a major spill, but with the increased traffic, there is a strong likelihood.


Other than the potential environmental risks, the Concerned Professional Engineers, a group with expertise in the bridge's design, notes that the Second Narrows Rail Bridge, which is 110 meters apart from the Ironworker Memorial Bridge has been knocked out of commission five times by cargo ships since its completion in 1925. Aframax-sized tankers are five times heavier than those cargo ships. Therefore, the group estimates that such a vessel could knock the rail bridge right off its foundations, carrying it into the Memorial bridge.

This controversial project is expected to be up and running by December of 2022. Although it will be rewarding for the economy, the dangers it poses on our environment and wellbeing, as well as our relations with First Nations groups may be substantial enough to cause greater harm in the future. The debate is certainly not over, there will continue to be opposing arguments, so the question remains: will the government continue pushing in favor of the expansion?



Works Cited :

Bartko, Karen. “Federal Court Dismisses Indigenous Challenge of Trans Mountain Pipeline

Expansion.” Global News, Global News, 5 Feb. 2020,

www.globalnews.ca/news/6505101/trans-mountain-expansion-indigenous-federal-court/

Hall, Chris. “One Step Forward, Another One Back: What the Trans Mountain Ruling Means for Trudeau | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 5 Feb. 2020,

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-mountain-pipeline-trudeau-kenney-1.5451926

Hunter, Justine, and Mychaylo Prystupa. “What the Trans Mountain Pipeline Will Mean for

B.C.'s Coast.” The Globe and Mail, 26 June 2018,

www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-pipelin

e-bc-coast/article35043172/

Kapelos, Vassy. “Cost of Trans Mountain Expansion Soars to $12.6B | CBC News.” CBCnews,

CBC/Radio Canada, 11 Feb. 2020, www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vassy-trans-mountain-pipeline-1.5455387

“Pipelines vs. Rail: Which Method Is Safer for Transporting Oil?” Canada Action,

www.canadaaction.ca/shipping_oil_pipelines_vs_trains_which_is_safer

Purdon, Nick, and Leonardo Palleja. “Trans Mountain Pipeline: Why Some First Nations Want to Stop It — and Others Want to Own It.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 5 Oct. 2019,

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trans-mountain-pipeline-first-nations-purchase-1.5279387

22 views

Comments


Subscribe

for the latest from

the Sentinel Sun!

The Sentinel Sun

sentinel sun ig logo.png
bottom of page