Alberta Premier says pipeline prospects improving – by Kelly Cryderman (Globe and Mail – December 23, 2013)

The Globe and Mail is Canada’s national newspaper with the second largest broadsheet circulation in the country. It has enormous influence on Canada’s political and business elite.

CALGARY — Alberta Premier Alison Redford says that heading into 2014, she sees encouraging political signs in relation to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States, and North Americans are realizing that pipelines are a better means of shipping crude than rail.

In a year-end interview at her Calgary office, the Premier cited a broader recognition of the safety and environmental risks of rail, which has become the key transport alternative as Alberta oil sands and U.S. light oil production ramps up and pipelines are delayed.

Perhaps more than any other issues, pipeline approvals and market access have become her raison d’être as Premier. Since shortly after she took office in late 2011, Ms. Redford has made five trips to Washington to lobby for energy projects, including the controversial Keystone XL project that would take more landlocked Alberta bitumen to U.S. Gulf Coast markets and refineries – where producers believe it will command higher prices.

Environmentalists who oppose the pipeline say allowing TransCanada Corp. to build it would open the door to more oil sands production – and consequently increased greenhouse gases. They say the generally higher costs of rail means that form of transport will only ever be a supplement to pipelines, and a reliance on rail could reduce the attractiveness of development in the oil sands.

The Premier said her province’s crude can go on tracks, but it is not the best way.

“Rail was built to track rivers and to go through dense urban centres. That’s problematic if you’re increasing capacity,” Ms. Redford said, noting concerns about rail from British Columbia to Quebec, the site of the Lac-Mégantic derailment and explosion that killed 47 people last July.

She also pointed to a draft environmental impact statement from the U.S. State Department on the Keystone proposal that concluded the project alone would not have a major effect on development in the oil sands. It said oil sands producers would get their product to market by rail or other means.

But Ms. Redford said transporting oil by rail is more energy intensive than by pipeline.

For the rest of this article, click here: