Trains carrying kerosene will be crossing town
It was reported earlier this month that Quebec was supporting a new airplane fuel terminal in Montreal East, meant to supply not only Trudeau but also airports in Ottawa and Toronto. Except for mentioning BAPE approval nothing else was said about environmental or public security concerns.
Now it becomes clear that most of this fuel is intended for Pearson Airport, so a stream of freight trains hauling tankers full of kerosene will be crossing Montreal east to west on their way to Toronto.
SMD 10:28 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
Some of the fuel will be sent to PET by a rented pipeline, called Trans-Nord. According to Metro, Trans-Nord: was built in 1952; is responsible for 23 of the 31 pipeline incidents identified by the National Energy Board since 2008; spilled twice in 2010; was recommended for closure in 2016 by two National Energy Board commissioners, since Trans-Nord Inc still hadn’t performed necessary infrastructure work as directed; and completely encircles Adélard-Desrosiers primary school in Montreal-North.What could go wrong?
Blork 11:08 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
I’m not crazy about pipelines, but I remain amazed at the level of opposition to them in Quebec. Quebec of all places! After all, the risks we’re comparing are (a) a pipeline spill vs. (b) catastrophic fiery explosions like we saw in Lac Megantic. Apparently Quebecers prefer the fiery explosions. WTF?
Jonathan 11:20 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
People are asking for more secure pipelines in this case, Blork. The article states that environmental groups are asking that regulations be strengthened and that the reliability of the pipeline be improved before it transports the kerosene.
Blork 13:12 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
Jonathan, I was speaking in general, not specifically to this case. Last week the CAQ-man (Premier Legault) was telling the other Premiers that “there is no appetite for pipelines in Quebec” which basically means Quebec would rather get trainloads of Saudi oil coming in from Eastern Canada than a pipeline of Canadian oil coming in from Western Canada. Plus anytime you mention “pipeline” around here people automatically go into “no pipelines” mode whether or not they can even articulate their opposition to it.
It’s become some kind of ingrained reaction, and it surprises me after Lac Megantic, because I would have thought that even would have turned people against rail shipping of oil products.
walkerp 14:05 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
We don’t want pipelines or oil by rail. We want to get off fossil fuels altogether.
Jonathan 14:15 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
Thank you walkerp. I agree. I think we would rather no oil at all. Not by rail from eastern Canada, not by pipeline from western Canada. Not by sea from anywhere.
But considering that kerosene has to get to PET somehow we would rather have a method that is secure and just and considers there is little future for oil.
Blork 14:53 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
“We want to get off fossil fuels altogether.” I agree. But that’s not going to happen overnight. It needs to be phased out, and that will only happen if there’s a specific plan to phase it out. Just wishing it would disappear is pointless.
I don’t know where rail or pipelines fit in there; I’m only talking about perceptions of danger at this point.
Side note: a couple of months ago the Green Party announced a plan that on the surface seemed very anti-green; it involves (I think) pipelines and Alberta oil, which seems counter-productive, but the details (as far as I can tell, and I didn’t read up on it extensively) are very sensible. Instead of just complaining about Alberta oil and pipelines, which creates divisions in the population, they proposed a long term plan (30 years maybe?) whereby the oil would be extracted and piped around the country but on a declining production schedule all the way to zero.
In the meantime, the profits from the oil will be used for R&D into sustainable energy.
Sounds like win-win, because in the short term, fossil fuels will be burned no matter what; whether we pull it out of Alberta or ship it in from Saudi Arabia. So instead of making Saudi princes even richer, why not keep Canadians working (and thereby complaining less about green policies) and use the money to invest in sustainable energy?
FFS, I feel like the Green Party has been spying on me, because I’ve been saying that for years. Alberta, instead of going all-in for oil only should instead think in terms of “energy.” They have the workforce and are well positioned in the energy sector already. Freakin’ use that leverage to invest in solar, wind, and other sustainable energy sources. Otherwise they will be dead in the water in 30 years time instead of being Canada’s “energy hub” for the future. Dumbasses!
walkerp 15:23 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
Fully agree with your final paragraph Blork. They have so much energy expertise in Alberta and they could be leveraging it to get a huge headstart on the future sustainable energy market. Instead, they are just doubling down on what is basically old (and destructive) technology. It’s fear of change at the local level and short-term greed at the political and business level. That’s modern-day conservatism for you. Dumbasses, indeed.
ant6n 17:21 on 2019-07-16 Permalink
There’s fewer co2 emissions in Saudi oil than tar sands, thise should indeed be shut down asap.