Hughes knows there’s more than one way to ship Alberta oil
When Energy Minister Ken Hughes talks about the oilsands Thursday in Vancouver, he’ll have a message for our coastal cousins: “Not all roads lead through British Columbia.”
Translation: If B.C. won’t transport bitumen, Alberta will find somebody who’s glad to do it.
Many Alberta Progressive Conservatives have lost patience with B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s antibitumen stance. After first cutting her some slack because she faces an election in May, they would now be happy to cast her offshore.
Clark hasn’t just voiced doubts; she’s hurt Alberta’s reputation to foster her own grand dream of a B.C. festooned by liquid natural gas projects.
And so, Alberta’s hunt is on for alternatives to the Northern Gateway pipeline or any other project that touches B.C. soil.
Potential takers already include Manitoba, where bitumen could be shipped from the Port of Churchill; and New Brunswick, whose premier is keen on a pipeline to carry Alberta oil to the superb deepwater port at Saint John.
Hughes says he’s interested in a plan to ship oil across Yukon to the Alaskan port at Valdez. He may have an announcement on that matter on Thursday.
“The pipeline there is only 50 per cent full and declining in volume,” he says. “Valdez has a deepwater port, it has a refinery, it has storage capacity.”
The minister even alludes to sending bitumen straight south into the U.S., and then to a northwest port for shipment to Asia.
Alberta officials are also talking to Quebec about re- versing a pipeline to take oil to the starved refineries of east Montreal.
Premier Alison Redford says that despite early criticism from Quebec’s environment minister, new Premier Pauline Marois was warm to the idea when they talked about it.
As for New Brunswick, it’s refreshing to see that the premier, David Alward, is not only devoid of condescension, but excited about getting western oil into Saint John.
Hughes notes Saint John is the only harbour on the North American east coast that can handle the biggest supertankers. It’s already Canada’s largest petroleum port.
Twisting the needle slightly, he adds: “And it’s also closer to India than the B.C. coast is.”
A diplomatic fellow, Hughes isn’t about to insult B.C. during Thursday’s oilsands conference hosted by the Vancouver Board of Trade.
He says that if that province wants a chunk of the business, via Northern Gateway or some other B.C. option, fine.
It still makes the most sense.
“We are, after all, joined by history, geography and family ties across the border. We’re friends, we’re neighbours. We will try to find ways to work together first.”
Then he adds: “It’s clearly important for Albertans and other Canadians to convey to B.C. and other provinces how important oil exports are to this country, and what a negative impact this differential, this oversupply, this glut of oil, is having on Alberta and Canada.”
“It’s not just Alberta’s problem. It’s Canada’s problem and has an impact in every part of Canada.
“B.C. is in the same boat as every other province on this one.”
The federal Conservatives, just as worried by revenue losses, seem fully behind the drive to work around B.C.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty mentions the same options as Hughes — Valdez, Churchill, Saint John.
He notes how crucial it is for the U.S. to finally approve the Keystone XL pipeline, although it’s no sure thing.
This bizarre internal oil blockade has become extremely serious. There must be solutions. It may be time to say, in the friendliest way possible, bye-bye B.C.