While all manner of environmental catastrophes have been contemplated during months of hearings into Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline plan, the company itself raised the possibility of a disaster of a different sort on Monday.
During its closing oral argument in Terrace before the federal joint review panel, the company posed the threat of an economic nightmare if the controversial heavy-oil line from Alberta to the coast is not approved.
Lawyer Richard Neufeld (not the B.C. senator of the same name) said the risk-management issues that dominated the B.C. hearings should be considered in terms of the financial and economic risks as well.
The line would provide enormous protection against the economic risk of having a major Canadian industry dependent on a single market, he said.
He asked what would happen if the U.S. decided to stop importing Canadian oil. The heavy bitumen coming out of the Alberta oilsands has become particularly controversial in the U.S. as well as Canada.
The company said a move like that would be “an economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.”
The estimated $30 billion lost by the current inability to ship to more profitable markets offshore would be a “drop in the bucket” compared to the potential losses if the U.S. market was closed.
It’s a clever argument that plays on the worries about stranded Canadian oil. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver fretted publicly about that potential last month.
But both the government and the Opposition in B.C. appear serenely indifferent to the worries. Although Premier Christy Clark said she’s open to considering oil pipelines if five conditions are met, B.C. rejected the Northern Gateway proposal — in its current form — last month.
There was no sign Monday the company’s summation changed any minds.
B.C.’s final argument trashed Enbridge’s track record of spills and questioned the company’s contingency plans for spills or leaks in terrain that is much more difficult than the lands on which the firm’s pipeline currently run.
“ ‘Trust me’ is not good enough,” the B.C. submission stated.
It also discounted to some extent the economic argument in favour of the line, saying the revenues to governments are overstated because they don’t include the costs to government if such a line was built.
NDP environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert was also unmoved by the company’s final appeal.
He said the company feels it doesn’t need to answer questions and the attitude is: “Just approve it and you’ll see how good we are.”
But he said the project, perhaps slightly modified, could still be approved by the federal government.
The company wouldn’t be spending tens of millions of dollars on the idea without getting a signal that the line is possible, he said.
Some points from Enbridge’s appearance before the tribunal:
• Concern about wildlife impacts from a spill are overblown. They recover faster from oil spills than they do from other human interventions, such as logging or overfishing.
• The company rejected the B.C. government criticism, saying risk-assessment is the foundation of the whole proposal. “When people say the project hasn’t evaluated risk, what they mean is; ‘You haven’t looked at risk the way I want you to.’ ”
• Enbridge argued against prescriptive requirements, such as directives that it would have to have the capability to clean up X amount of oil in X amount of time. They wouldn’t be “helpful” and such standards are currently under review by governments. The review should play out before setting such requirements, Enbridge said.
• The company also said that shipping on the B.C. coast would be paralyzed if standards contemplated for tankers in the proposal were applied universally.
It’s being loaded with a “quite unreasonable” share of responsibility. The company is prepared to do its share, but other industries and government have to step up as well.
Closing oral arguments from all parties will run for a couple of weeks and the panel’s findings are expected by the end of the year.
The company can take heart that Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford have made up. But it will come down to the federal cabinet call next year.
