CN Rail is considering shipping crude oil by rail from Alberta to Prince Rupert, BC, for export to Asian markets in capacities matching Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

According to the Canadian Press, "internal memos obtained by Greenpeace under the Access to Information Act show the rail carrier raised the proposal last March with Natural Resources Canada."

A briefing note for the March 1 meeting reportedly states that China-based Nexen Inc. is "working with CN Rail to examine the transportation of crude oil on CN's railway to Prince Rupert, B.C., to be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia."

A CN presentation paper attached to the briefing note assures that "CN has ample capacity to run seven trains per day to match Gateway's proposed capacity."

According to a 2013 report by Malcolm Cairns, an ex-CP Rail employee, a single tanker train can carry 63,000-78,000 barrels of crude. Going by that number, seven trains per day would bring CN's proposed capacity to 441,000-546,000 bpd, matching or exceeding Northern Gateway's starting capacity.

The market for shipping crude oil by rail has been steadily growing since 2009, during which CP Rail moved 500 carloads and CN moved none. Cairns' report states that in 2013, CN anticipates moving approximately 60,000 carloads of crude oil.

If undertaken, CN's proposal to ship bitumen crude from Alberta to Prince Rupert would significantly raise the volume of crude oil shipped by rail in Canada per year.

Map of CN Rail Routes in North America. Credit: CN Rail.

Greenpeace researcher Keith Stewart reportedly said that the CN proposal seemed to be a possible "Plan B" in the case that Northern Gateway is blocked, but raises "the same or greater risks."

The risks of transporting crude by rail were put into sharp relief by the derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, this July. The incident took a tragic toll, resulting in 47 deaths and about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment of Lac-Megantic, with the fire burning for four days.

Spokesman Mark Hallman denied CN made any project proposal, telling the Canadian Press that "no specific crude-by-rail project to Prince Rupert (was) discussed" at the March meeting with Natural Resources Canada.

Hallman did say that "the company will consider concrete crude-by-rail proposals, including any specific project to move crude to Prince Rupert," though there is currently "no infrastructure in place at Prince Rupert to transfer crude oil from train tank cars to vessels."

Hallman added that Natural Resources Canada asked for the March meeting, not CN.  

The documents obtained by Greenpeace confirm the federal government's strong interest in shipping oil by rail, at least before the Lac-Megantic derailment.

Cheadle reports that an undated memo for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says "NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to mutually understand how rail could be part of a solution to current market access challenges," and calls rail an "increasingly viable option." The memo also notes that CP and CN Rail "have indicated that the potential to increase rail movements of crude oil is theoretically unlimited."

Another memo for International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Dennis Lebel, then transport minister, claims that Transport Canada "has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars."

The memo observes that "transportation of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment," though "proposals to construct new infrastructure to support the activity" might, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The "Departmental Position" on shipping oil by rail was redacted from the memo.

"If the government or industry imagines they can use these regulatory loopholes to do an end-run around opposition to tar sands moving through those lands or waters, they will be in for a rude awakening," said Greenpeace's Stewart.

There has been strong opposition to the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines in Canada and the US. But the memo to Joe Oliver suggests that the federal government doesn't see this as too much of a threat to the industry's expansion, with "Canadian crude producers…unlikely to slow down production and [turning] to rail to ensure their product reaches market," should the pipelines meet with "difficulties."

The memo says that "there hasn't been a project to bring crude by rail to port for tanker export, however rail officials indicate that such a project is likely in future."

Top Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to give a speech to the British Parliament this Thursday, a coalition of environmental groups prepares to greet his arrival at Parliament in London with protests against the tar sands.

Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, that "Canada's bitumen production [from the Albertan tar sands] will likely be a popular topic during Harper's eight-day trip to Europe."

Harper left for Europe on Tuesday, along with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and International Trade Minister Ed Fast. The trip will end with the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland on June 17-18. At G8, the somewhat contradictory goals of championing the tar sands and touting Canada as a dependable leader in clean energy will likely be high on Harper's agenda.

The Harper contingent will also be looking to use the trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive which would label tar sands oil as high-polluting.

The European Commission hopes the fuel quality directive will help "cut emissions by a cumulative total of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020" by preventing tar sands oil imports into Europe, to reach the goal of a ten per cent cut in GHG emissions by that year. Canada has staunchly resisted the directive, claiming it unfairly targets tar sands oil over other fuels.

Fekete quotes Harper's spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, as saying that the Canadian government wants tar sands crude "judged on science and in fair comparison with other sources of oil," rather than "arbitrary standards." The Harper government hasn't addressed the fact that the EU directive is based on a Stanford University scientific study that confirms tar sands oil as highly polluting in "fair comparison" with other fuels.

It's also likely that Harper will try to meet with President Obama at G8 to discuss the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline linking tar sands crude from Alberta to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. Obama is set to make a decision on whether to approve Keystone XL by the end of the year.

But before G8 is Harper's London stop, where he will be the first Canadian prime minister to address the British Parliament since 1944. The UK Tar Sands Network, who are organizing Thursday's protest, note that addressing parliament is "normally reserved for the most highly-respected dignitaries," and that "Harper does not deserve this honour."

That Harper was bestowed this honour is unsurprising, considering that British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has been a loyal ally in Canada's push against the EU fuel quality directive. The UK Tar Sands Network cites this "destructive 'special' relationship" between the two countries as one of the reasons for Thursday's protest. They aim to show Harper that "there is huge opposition to tar sands in the UK."

Suzanne Dhaliwal, a Canadian citizen and member of the UK Tar Sands Network says "Harper may be coming here hoping to escape the multiple controversies dogging him at home, but the tar sands are a scandal of global proportions, because the industry's emissions could tip the world over the edge into runaway climate change."

"The Canadian government's campaign of misinformation against the EU Fuel Quality Directive is particularly outrageous," she added.

"They are actively trying to prevent Europe passing effective climate legislation by claiming it is arbitrary, unscientific and unfair. In reality, it is none of these things. It is non-discriminatory, based on solid peer-reviewed science, and covers all types of fuel. So we will be protesting Harper's visit, in solidarity with Indigenous communities and all those opposing the tar sands in Canada."

On their website and a Facebook page for the protest, the group raises concerns that the Harper government's "unprecedented lobbying campaign in the EU, with the energetic support of the UK government and British oil companies like Shell and BP" have stalled the fuel quality directive, and may entirely squash it.

In tandem with efforts in Europe, Fekete observes that Harper's government has also been "launching a public relations advertising offensive on American lawmakers in recent weeks — running ads in Washington D.C. newspapers, along with the launch of a new government website" to drum up US support for Keystone XL. The new government website announces that Canada is "one of the few major suppliers of crude oil…taking concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," and boasts a "world-class  environmental  monitoring system…founded on science and transparency."   

The website doesn't mention Canada's opposition to the EU fuel quality directive to reduce GHG emissions, or accusations that the Harper government is muzzling scientists from speaking out on climate change. The government will be spending 16.5 million dollars on tar sands advertising in the upcoming year.

But despite what Jess Worth of the UK Tar Sands Network calls "absolutely extraordinary and relentless" lobbying by the Harper government, the divide between Canada's advertised image as "world environmental leader" and its aspirations towards being the chief global exporter of high-polluting tar sands oil seems clear to those preparing to protest in London on Thursday.

Image Credit: David Hoffman / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.