Daily BrewLac-Megantic train derailment is a stake in oil pipeline debate
The devastating train explosion in the small, unassuming Quebec community of Lac-Megantic has left a city and a country in a state of shock. Five dead, scores missing, the human tragedy that came from a runaway, unmanned train barreling into town and exploding as its massive cargo of crude oil caught fire has left Canada searching for answers.
Terrifying, harrowing and hard to comprehend, the Lac-Megantic train derailment has brought to the front a simmering debate over whether rail cars are the best way to transport volatile cargo – like the crude oil at the centre of Canada's latest tragedy.
When asked over the weekend about the safety concerns that come with transporting crude oil via train, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he would wait for the conclusion of a Transportation Safety Board investigation.
“We will conduct a very complete investigation, and we will act on the recommendations,” Harper said.
The use of railways in transporting oil across Canada, and the U.S., has been in the periphery of the spotlight these days due to the ongoing debate over cross-country pipelines. Both the Keystone XL pipeline, from Alberta's tar sands south to Texas, and a similar plan to build a cross-Canada pipeline to New Brunswick, are opposed by environmental groups who fear ecological disaster.
[ More Brew: Lac-Megantic still seeking clear picture in train explosion ]
Keystone XL is currently embroiled in a U.S. political standoff, and its fate will become clearer once President Barack Obama has staked his place in the debate.
The east-west pipeline between Alberta and New Brunswick, meantime, continues to receive support from both ends of the proposed tube, and the federal Conservatives. It would be capable of carrying 850,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
The burgeoning oil industry in Canada and areas of the U.S. have left transit strategies in a state of flux. National Geographic notes that North Dakota's shale oilfields, where the load at the heart of Quebec's disaster originated, has only a limited connection to pipelines. Like Alberta's tar sands, this means it relies heavily on the rail lines (to the tune of 800,000 barrels of oil per day).
[ Pulse of Canada: Will Lac-Megantic change your opinion on pipelines? ]
The argument made by pro-pipeline advocates is that, with more pipelines, less train trips would be necessary. South of the border, Quebec’s disaster is already being pointed to as reason to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Yes, (pipelines) can indeed split, yes it is possible for there to be an explosion in or of one. But by their very nature pipelines tend not to go through the centre of towns thus the danger to people will be minimised. Also by their very nature, railroads do tend to go through the centre of towns.
The devastation caused to the small Quebec community is tragedy enough. It doesn't need a larger stage or a taller body count to underline the danger. But it could have had one.
The Toronto Star reports that the train in question rolled through the heart of Canada's largest city just hours before the explosion. The 73-car machine left North Dakota passed through Toronto and headed on east to disaster in Quebec.
Rail industry consultant Greg Gormick told the newspaper that growing cities have brought once-isolated tracks into close contact with residential neighbourhoods. “We’re running with ancient technology,” he said.
Despite the concern, and the ongoing political debate over the construction of extensive oil pipelines, oil shipments via rail are on the incline. In a big way.
The Canadian Railway Association estimates that some 140,000 carloads of crude oil will cross the country this year. That is a mindboggling increase over the 500 carloads that were moved as recently as 2009.
President Michael Bourque wrote in a recent commentary that similar growth is expected over the next few years.
"[R]ailways have become a complementary option for moving crude to refineries located near tide water for access by ocean tankers and are not currently served by pipeline (the Irving refinery in New Brunswick is an example)," he wrote.
The New Brunswick refinery in question happens to have been the destination for the cargo on board the derailed train.
Bourque also notes that "99.9977% of all rail dangerous goods shipments reach their destination without a release caused by train accident."
Like passenger air travel, the vast majority of trips are completed safely and without issue. Attention isn't given to the ones that end safely, just those that end in catastrophe.
Despite several notable derailments over the past year, the Transportation Safety Board says fewer rail accidents are reported each year.
What mode of transport is best for crude oil? The debate is long from over, and the result will eventually be a combination of track and pipe. It is the ratio that will be debated, and the details.
But don’t expect oil-laden trains to stop in their tracks.
Want to know what news is brewing in Canada?
Follow @MRCoutts on Twitter
