In the weeks since Kinder Morgan’s announcement that it was suspending all “non-essential spending” on the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, we’ve seen yet another round of concerns about a spike in the shipping of oil by rail.

The argument goes that failing to build Trans Mountain means that excess oil from Alberta will just be shipped to markets by rail — a more costly option with the potential for fiery spills and explosions in the middle of communities, like what happened in Lac-Mégantic back in 2013.

But there are two major issues with such analysis: 1) there’s not enough rail capacity to substitute for pipelines; and 2) transporting oil by rail wouldn’t be nearly as unsafe as it currently is if government updates its rules and enforcement.

Ignoring such realities may allow for convenient pro-pipeline mythmaking, but not for reasonable fact-based debate.

“Governments and industry uses it to fearmonger a little bit to justify pipeline capacity expansions,” said Patrick DeRochie, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence. “But if they were actually concerned about mitigating the risks of oil by rail, there are some pretty clear and simple steps they can take.”

Here’s a breakdown of what’s actually going on.

IEA predicts rail exports could nearly triple by 2019

In February 2018, the most recent month that we have data for, Canada shipped a daily average of 134,100 barrels of oil to the United States on trains. While not an insignificant amount, it was nowhere close to the historical high of December 2014 — when oil-by-rail exports hit 175,600 barrels per day (bpd) due to pipeline constraints.

Such figures don’t include oil that’s shipped by rail across Canada. A recent Globe & Mail article reported that more than 150,000 barrels of oil are moved daily on British Columbia’s railways. Much of that ends up being exported to the United States.

To put such numbers in perspective, Alberta produced an average of 3.4 million barrels of oil per day in February. So rail shipments represented only five per cent of the province’s output.

The concern is that those numbers will rapidly rise in the near future, well beyond the December 2014 threshold.

“It’s real and people have been predicting it,” said Bruce Campbell, former executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and author of an upcoming book about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. “As production keeps increasing, there’s uncertainty about the pipelines, so there is that looming possibility.”

In March, the International Energy Agency forecasted that Canada’s oil-by-rail exports could increase to 250,000 bpd in 2018 and 390,000 bpd in 2019. Kevin Birn of IHS Markit told Reuters that exports could go higher than 400,000 bpd if pipelines face more delays.

To put all those numbers in perspective, the rosiest forecast would mean an increase of 266,000 barrels per day via rail. Meanwhile, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposes to add more than double that with 590,000 barrels per day of capacity.

CP and CN already facing major backlog of grain shipments

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, there’s already a total of 754,000 bpd in rail loading capacity in Western Canada, including 210,000 bpd at Kinder Morgan’s very own co-owned terminal in Edmonton.

So why on earth aren’t oil producers using that spare rail capacity? Well, for the very same reason that some are doubtful oil-by-rail is going to see any kind of major increase: there simply aren’t enough trains to go around.

DeRochie is skeptical about projections by the International Energy Agency.

“There might be a small incremental increase in the oil being shipped by rail, but we’re looking at the tens of thousands of barrels, which is nowhere near the capacity that pipelines would introduce to the system,” DeRochie said.

Canada’s two freight rail companies, Canadian Pacific (CP) and Canadian National (CN), are facing ongoing criticism from grain producers on the Prairies for critical delays that have left massive quantities of wheat and canola unable to get to markets. Grain shipments are ultimately the “bread and butter” of freight rail in Canada — and the companies are failing to adequately service even them.

Rail companies look for long-term shippers

Both companies have rebuffed calls from the oil industry to enter into short-term contracts to ship more crude.

In a January conference call with investors, CP Rail CEO Keith Creel said: “We understand crude is only going to be here for a limited period of time. We are looking for strategic partners with long-term objectives that allows us to have a more stable book of business.”

Meanwhile, CN Rail requires a minimum of a year-long commitment from shippers.

Most oil companies aren’t prepared to enter into long-term contracts and are ultimately banking on new pipeline capacity opening up in the near future. After all, oil-by-rail tends to be more expensive — Birn of IHS Markit recently told CBC News that rail adds about $3 to $4 per barrel in costs — so even the ability to ship backlogged crude to market isn’t necessarily worth it given current oil prices. But rail companies won’t spend on new trains and tracks without commitment.

This week, Bloomberg reported that Cenovus had signed an oil-by-rail contract to start in the second half of the year, seeming to confirm earlier statements by CN.

But workers at CP Rail are on the verge of striking, which could shut down shipping for weeks or months. CN Rail’s CEO has already stated that his company won’t be able to “pick up the slack” if it proceeds. While likely not a long-term issue, the potential strike action represents yet another source of unpredictability for oil producers.

B.C.’s proposed regulations could curtail shipments

Add to those issues the fact that B.C.’s proposed regulations on the transport of diluted bitumen would apply to rail.

In its reference case submitted to the B.C. Court of Appeal this week, the B.C. government outlined regulations that would apply to pipelines transporting any quantity of liquid petroleum products, as well as rail or truck operations transporting more than 10,000 litres of liquid petroleum products.

The proposed regulations would require shippers to meet several spill response criteria to obtain a “hazardous substance permit” from the government.

‘Industry still seems to be running the show’

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that companies evade all these obstacles and oil-by-rail exports triple to more than 400,000 barrels per day by 2019.

There’s simply no reason that shipping oil on trains needs to be as dangerous as it currently is. As we’ve previously reported, there are a wide range of changes that could be introduced by the federal government to greatly reduce risk — amend the Railway Safety Act to restrict certain volumes of dangerous goods, accelerate the phase-out of existing railcars, increase the number of on-site inspections and improve public transparency.

But with the exception of minor changes, the federal government hasn’t moved to make rail transport of oil safe

“The industry is powerful,” Campbell said. “I’ve talked a lot about regulatory capture. Transport Canada, as far as I can tell, is still as dysfunctional as ever. Industry still seems to be running the show, and resources seem to be as wanting, to say the least. You’ve got a weak regulator with insufficient resources.”

The report of the Railway Safety Act Review is expected to be released soon, but Campbell is “almost positive” that it won’t lead to a fundamental rethinking of the system.

Shipping raw bitumen by rail eliminates costly diluent, reduces risk of explosions

There are actually many upsides to transporting oil by rail instead of pipeline.

It physically moves faster in unit trains than pipeline, and doesn’t mix with other grades of petroleum as it does with pipeline “batching.” Rail terminals are also quite low in cost — the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reported in 2014 that a typical unit train terminal ranges between $30 million to $50 million and can be paid off in five years or less.

There’s also the potential to ship raw bitumen by rail in a form known as “neatbit.”

As the name suggests, diluted bitumen that’s transported by pipeline requires diluent, a costly natural gas condensate that takes up about 30 per cent of volume in a shipment. Diluent also serves as the volatile component of the mixture, which can explode in a crash. Shipping bitumen by rail without diluent would save companies money and prevent the risk of explosions.

But it requires upfront costs to purchase heated tanker cars and special loading terminals. It’s effectively the same thing preventing the electrification of freight rail, which would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel costs: it just costs too much cash to get started, even though the payoffs would be enormous. Until the government regulates such activities, it likely won’t happen — and the safety of communities will continue to be at risk.

“The reality is that the stuff is going to keep rumbling through Canadians towns and cities across the country,” Campbell said. “While it’s doing that for the next five years or more, make it safer. There are things that can be done.”

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.

The National Energy Board (NEB) is a “captured regulator” that has “lost touch with what it means to protect the public interest.”

That’s what Marc Eliesen — former head of BC Hydro, Ontario Hydro and Manitoba Hydro, and former deputy minister of energy in Ontario and Manitoba — told the NEB Modernization Expert Panel on Wednesday morning in Vancouver.

“The bottom line is that the board’s behaviour during the Trans Mountain review not only exposed the process as a farce, it exposed the board as a captured regulator,” he said to the five-member panel.

“Regulatory capture exists when a regulator ceases to be independent and objective.”

The Trans Mountain pipeline was reviewed with what many consider a heavily politicized NEB process, one that Trudeau had committed to changing prior to issuing a federal verdict on the project.

That process included what Eliesen describes as gutted environmental legislation, the removal of “essential features of a quasi-judicial inquiry” including the cross-examination of evidence and the limiting of participation of intervenors in such a way it “predetermined the outcome in favour of the pipeline proponent.”

Eugene Kung, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that the hearings for the project were the worst he’s seen in almost 10 years of practising regulatory law.

But that doesn’t seem to be an accident. Eliesen — who withdrew as an intervenor from the NEB review of the Trans Mountain project in 2014 due to the “fraudulent process” — argues the problems go far deeper than just the Trans Mountain review, predominantly linked to the “revolving door” between industry and the board.

“This ‘modernization’ is some spinmaster’s term,” he said. “It’s about public trust and the fact the NEB has lost this trust to the Canadian public.”

Move of NEB Head Office to Calgary Arguably Compromised Independence

In 1991, the NEB’s head office was moved to Calgary, and legislation was changed to require all permanent members to reside in Calgary.

It’s a decision that Eliesen says was completely unexpected and ultimately a political move by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney; most other regulatory agencies are located in Ottawa to prevent being influenced by the industry in which they’re supposed to regulate (including finance regulators, even though Toronto is often considered Canada’s finance city).

If it was indeed politically driven, the plan seems to have worked.

More than two-thirds of the staff didn’t move to Calgary, and their positions were subsequently filled by former employees of the oil and gas sector. This has resulted in what some call a “revolving door” between the two; as Eliesen pointed out in his presentation, some former NEB chairpersons have been inducted into the Canadian Petroleum Hall of Fame.

“I’m not suggesting any nefarious activities,” he says. “It’s just that you adopt the headspace and the attitude of the energy industry of Alberta. When you have the legislation changed as well to ensure that all the permanent members reside in Calgary, then you have a major, major bias.”

It’s something he argues got worse under former prime minister Stephen Harper, who took full advantage of it in his final months (appointing many former industry veterans to key positions with the board, including Steven Kelley, who previously worked as a consultant for Kinder Morgan on the Trans Mountain project).

Even one of the five members of the NEB Modernization Expert Panel previously served as president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. That same person, Brenda Kenny, signed a 2011 letter to key cabinet ministers petitioning for regulatory overhaul.

“She is in a real conflict of interest,” Eliesen says. “She’s the last person to be on a panel trying to evaluate how to bring back to the public trust to the National Energy Board.”

How to Fix the National Energy Board, Canada's Captured Regulator https://t.co/mHjDbb2iRj #cdnpoli #EnergyEast #TransMountain @james_m_wilt pic.twitter.com/8So7hzWUQ1

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 10, 2017

Many Structural Changes Required to Fully ‘Modernize’ the NEB

Kung, who also presented to the expert panel on Wednesday, expressed concerns about the relationship between the NEB and industry. He says there are many structural ways that such capture can be fixed.

Currently, the NEB receives a majority of its funding from industry, something Kung suggests should be addressed.

Its “very important role” in data collection and forecasting (such as the exhaustive “Canada’s Energy Futures” reports) don’t currently consider climate commitments such as the Paris Agreement, with the latest NEB report imagining a “business-as-usual” world that features an increase of four to six degrees Celsius in average global temperatures. That’s another thing that Kung says needs to change in the modernization.

Patrick DeRochie — climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence — agrees, arguing that the NEB needs to better align climate and energy policy: “It’s not there right now. With this energy transformation we’re seeing for renewables right now, it’s not adequate. We need to bring that into the 21st century.”

(Conversely, Eliesen disagrees and suggests the NEB be solely a quasi-judicial agency and the energy information and advisory mandate be removed).

A key concern for Kung is also about NEB personnel. He acknowledges the board possesses technical expertise and that it’s tricky to find that kind of knowledge in people who haven’t worked in the industry at some point.

“But the way you can separate it structurally is making their role slightly different so they’re not making a decision, for example, about national or public interest,” he says. “Because that’s an impossible decision to make by a captured regulator.”

Proposed Solutions Include Replacing Board Members, Relocating Head Office

Eliesen proposed two major solutions to the review panel.

First, remove all current board members and replace them with people that reflect a broad range of background and expertise, not just the oil and gas industry. And secondly, relocate the NEB’s head office back to Ottawa.

These two decisions would create a firewall of sorts between industry and the board.

In addition, he suggested that environmental assessments be undertaken outside of the NEB, enforcement of pipeline safety be increased, and proponents be required by the NEB to provide alternative routes for pipelines.

Vancouver was only the third stop of 10 for the expert panel. The final “engagement session” in Montreal will conclude on March 29.  The panel is required to submit a report and recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources around May 15.*

It’s a timeline that DeRochie suggests has made the process “really rushed,” noting that some of the 12 discussion papers weren’t even posted on the NEB Modernization Panel website by the time the first engagement sessions started in Saskatoon. However, DeRochie presented at the engagement session in Toronto on Feb. 1, and said that he went in “kind of cynical” but emerged feeling like they “really did seem like they wanted to engage us and fix this regulator.”

“It’s either get this right or face a bunch of political and legal challenges to every single energy project moving forward,” he says. “I think all stakeholders — industry, government, indigenous communities and ENGOs — want to avoid that.”

* Update: Feb 9, 2017. This article originally stated the panel report was due March 31, as stated on the National Energy Board's website. However, the date has been updated to May 15, as stated in the National Energy Board's terms of reference for the review panel.

Images: Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr. Photo: Canada 2020 via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal cannot proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights and marine mammal safety.

That was the conclusion of the “Report from the Ministerial Panel for the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project,” released to the public on Nov. 3 by the three members of the self-described “omissions panel” that was formed to make up for perceived flaws in the National Energy Board review process.

“Surprisingly, I think it did do its job,” says Patrick DeRochie, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“It’s kind of the icing on the cake of a fatally flawed Kinder Morgan review process. It shows the social, environmental and economic rationale for approving this pipeline simply doesn’t exist. The only viable option coming from this report is the rejection of Kinder Morgan by the federal government.”

The report — produced by the trio of Kim Baird, Annette Trimbee and Tony Penikett — was the culmination of 44 public meetings conducted during the summer, which included 650 direct presentations and 35,259 responses to an associated online questionnaire.

It was published on the same day that Kinder Morgan Canada president Ian Anderson appeared to question climate change by stating: “I’ve read the science on both sides and don’t pretend to be smart enough to know which is right.”

Review Panel Criticized For Lack of Clear Mandate, Hastily Organized Meetings

Critics had suggested the “review of the review” lacked a clear mandate, repeating the flaws of the original NEB process.

Such alleged faults included a lack of clarity on how the cabinet would use the report, a failure to conduct proper outreach to key participants including municipal and First Nations leaders, a lack of proper note taking and an alleged conflict of interest due to Baird’s previous business relationship with Kinder Morgan.

“And yet, their report reinforced what we’ve been hearing from British Columbians about this project,” Sierra Club BC campaigns director Caitlyn Vernon says. “How do you do this in the face of First Nations opposition and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You don’t. How do you do this in the face of Canada’s climate change commitments? You don’t.”

Report Pointed Out Major Concerns About Climate Change, Spills, Killer Whales

The 58-page report, submitted on Nov. 1 to Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, outlined concerns about the potential impacts of the new pipeline on upstream greenhouse gas emissions, oil spills, reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the endangered southern resident killer whales; it noted that “as the panel moved west, opposition increased markedly.”

It concluded by posing six incisive questions to cabinet, including “can construction of a new Trans Mountain Pipeline be reconciled with Canada’s climate change commitments?” and “how might Cabinet square approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and to the UNDRIP principles of ‘free, prior, and informed consent’?”

“The part that gave me real delight was the six questions that they framed, and seeing that, rather than attempting to gloss over or evade the issues, they addressed them square on,” says Karen Wristen, executive director of Living Oceans.

Ministerial Panel on #KinderMorgan Pipeline Actually Nails It https://t.co/GMcRh9LW7f #bcpoli #cdnpoli #Burnaby #TankerBan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 7, 2016

Trudeau Promised Review of Environmental Assessments Would Include Kinder Morgan

During the federal election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that the “modernization” of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency “applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.” In addition, the Liberal platform pledged to “restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments of areas under federal jurisdiction.”

Yet the National Energy Board recommended a conditional approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline — which would triple the amount of oil flowing to Vancouver — relying on the same processes that were implemented by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

That review didn’t include an assessment of upstream greenhouse emissions associated with the new pipeline or impacts on marine environments, and denied intervenor or commenter status to over 460 people. Serious concerns have been raised by indigenous communities including Tsleil-Waututh Nation and Squamish Nation over the quality and scope of consultations.

The review panel was formed as an ad-hoc substitute.

Vernon emphasizes the panel “did not remedy the flaws of the original NEB process.”

‘If Cabinet Takes the Questions Seriously, There’s No Way This Pipeline Can Be Built.’

The federal cabinet must issue its final verdict on the project by Dec. 19. Recent reports indicate Trudeau is leaning toward an approval.

Carr has suggested the new review panel will lend “credibility” to the environmental assessment process. However, there’s no clear understanding of if and how the report will be used by cabinet as it isn’t legally binding.

DeRochie says the review asked “key questions about the fundamental future of this country [that] have not been answered yet,” noting that his organization has been calling for a suspension of the process until the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have been “modernized” as promised.

He also emphasizes the conversation isn’t just about British Columbia, but pertains to national issues around credible review processes, commitments to reconciliation and the future of pipelines in Canada.

It appears that this review panel’s report will be the final assessment conducted prior to cabinet’s verdict. Many agree it poses questions that undermine the possibility of the Trans Mountain pipeline in its current form.

“If cabinet doesn’t take these questions seriously, approving this project would be abandoning any commitment to climate action, abandoning a commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, imposing a death sentence on the endangered killer whale and inviting the economic and ecological disaster,” Vernon says.

“If cabinet takes the questions seriously, there’s no way this pipeline can be built.”

Image: Justin Trudeau via Prime Minister’s Photo Gallery

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.