Why we don't need another oil pipeline to the BC coast or a revival of Keystone
There is a sophisticated conversation going on that attempts to reconcile the concerns of First Nations, mining interests, energy producers, environmental groups and East and West. Let's not ruin it.
On Monday, BC Premier David Mr. Eby released a video on social media in which he described the Alberta pitch for a new pipeline to the Pacific as “fictional” and “non-existent.” He said B.C. has better projects that should be prioritized as part of Ottawa’s plan to fast-track major new infrastructure.
He is right.
Those better projects include phase 2 of TC Energy’s liquified natural gas (LNG) facility in Kitimat, British Columbia and the Red Chris Mine Expansion in northwestern British Columbia, both of which have already been sent to the Major Projects Office for further study.
The LNG project will double the liquefied natural gas production capacity in Kitimat for export, mainly to Asian markets like Japan, South Korea, China, and India, where coal still dominates electricity production. Canadian produced LNG has 35–40% lower lifecycle emissions than coal, making it a useful transitional fuel for decarbonization.
In March 2022, TC Energy signed agreements to sell a 10% equity stake in the Coastal GasLink pipeline which supplies gas to the Kitimat facility, to two Indigenous-led entities, CGL First Nations Limited Partnership and FN CGL Pipeline Limited Partnership. These partnerships represent 20 Indigenous communities along the 670-km pipeline route from Dawson Creek where the wellhead capture takes place to Kitimat, BC where it is liquified and shipped for export.
The second BC project that has already been sent to the Major Project Office for further study is the Red Chris Mine Expansion in Northwestern British Columbia. This is a copper mine expansion which will boost Canada’s critical mineral supply chain for use in power transmission, solar panels, and electrified infrastructure.
The Tahltan First Nation plays a central role in the Red Chris Mine Expansion both as a rights-holder and as a strategic partner. Tahltan businesses are engaged in site services, logistics, and environmental monitoring.
Meanwhile, separate from the BC-Alberta dispute, carbon-removal startup Deep Sky Corp. plans to build a $500-million direct-air-capture plant in southwestern Manitoba, one of the world’s largest facilities designed to counteract the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Montreal-based Deep Sky announced Thursday that it is developing a project that will absorb 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, dwarfing its newly operational demonstration plant in central Alberta.
Deep Sky will start with a $200-million phase that will remove 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year for injection underground in the region. Construction will start in 2026, the company said. It will add the rest of the facilities in stages.
The company is in talks with municipal and Indigenous leaders, as well as other stakeholders, to determine where it will locate the plant. It is focusing on the Pipestone and Two Borders areas southwest of Brandon, Man.
The company said it has garnered the support of the Dakota Grand Council by working with the Dakota Nations of Manitoba, and it has signed a declaration to explore investment and partnership opportunities with the group.
The Manitoba project along with the two BC projects, show the way resource development that involves First Nation’s land should be done.
It is also worth noting that Deep Sky is announcing the venture as Canada becomes a focus for decarbonization due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration canceling billions of dollars in incentives for green technology in the US. The Alberta Pathways decarbonization project, which I have discussed in past posts, is also riding this Trump created wave.
So the two BC projects and the two decarbonization projects suggest the kind of nation building projects that Canada needs and the kinds of initiatives the Major Projects Office under Bill C-5 should facilitate. All four projects show a respect for the environment and three of the four have an indigenous ownership component.
In contrast, the second pipeline to the BC coast makes absolutely no sense but that is not stopping Premier Smith. On Tuesday, Smith fired back at B.C. Premier Eby’s dismissal of her government’s pipeline push, describing his comments as “un-Canadian and unconstitutional”.
On a trip to Ottawa to lobby for the pipeline, here is what Smith demanded Mark Carney do:
Approve her proposal to build a second pipeline from Alberta to the northern coast of British Columbia that has no private sector sponsor and no declared route. This, just 18 months after the TMX pipeline to the BC coast opened, 100% paid for with federal tax dollars. TMX is currently operating at 85% capacity.
Sweep away a raft of important federal environmental laws Smith claims to be responsible for the lack of private sector interest in the pipeline, including the emissions cap on oil and gas, the Impact Assessment Act and the ban on large oil tankers off the B.C. coast;
Push it through over the objections of the government of B.C., environmental groups, and the affected First Nations groups.
And Carney has to commit to doing all this in time for the pipeline to be included on the second list of “major projects” receiving federal backing, to be released in mid-November.
Oh, one more thing: If Carney does not agree to every line of her ultimatum, it will place the unity of Canada at risk.
Premier Smith’s approach to this second pipeline underscore the immaturity of her petro-politics. A sophisticated conversation has developed in Canada around LNG as a transitional fuel, carbon capture, nuclear power, the importance of critical minerals for energy storage and EV batteries, and the involvement of First Nations when these projects impact their land. These conversations have involved mining interests, NDP and Liberal premiers, the Carney government, First Nations groups and even the Ford PC government in Ontario (new nuclear at Darlington and the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario).
But the Smith proposal and the apparent revival of the Keystone XL pipeline (which represents a massive doubling down on the long-term expansion of oil by adding another 890,000 barrels) is not part of this nuanced and constructive conversation because they represent only one stakeholder, the oil industry. They are divisive because they make no attempt to find common ground between otherwise opposing interests that have long stalled important projects.
The projects under Bill C-5 are supposed to be projects of national interest. The Smith and Keystone Pipelines are not in the national interest and must be rejected.