Alberta’s plans for a new oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast that runs close to or alongside the current Trans Mountain were met with mixed reviews from environmental groups.
On the one hand, it does not require chopping down a giant swath of forest and lifting the moratorium on oil tankers docking on B.C.’s North Coast, as a northern route would.
But it’s still an oil pipeline that would be more than 1,000 kilometres long.
“The decision to uphold the North Coast tanker ban and not proceed with a northern pipeline is a huge victory for the many coastal First Nations, businesses and concerned residents who have spent years fighting to protect it,” said Flossie Baker of Sierra Club BC in an email. “However, Alberta and Ottawa’s pivot to greenlight a pipeline to British Columbia’s southern coast is a repeat of a dangerous and economically misguided decision: the infamously over-priced TMX pipeline.”
On Thursday, the federal government agreed to fund billions of dollars in infrastructure in British Columbia and to keep the tanker ban in place. And Premier David Eby committed not to oppose a pipeline in court.
Later in the day, Alberta announced its proposal for a new southern pipeline with the Trans Mountain and Pembina Pipeline corporations on board to help build it. The estimated cost is $35.2 to $43.7 billion.
The feds also promised a slew of new environmental protections for the coast and pledged to create a liability fund if anything goes wrong with the pipeline itself.
“This agreement puts in black and white specific commitments around the environment and climate that we would not have otherwise had the opportunity to get,” Eby said on Friday.
Eby said he shared the concerns of environmental groups about a new pipeline, but pointed out that the province doesn’t really have the power to stop it from getting built, as the fight over the Trans Mountain Expansion showed.
“Why we entered this agreement, in part, was to set out as many protections as we could get,” he said.
First Nations that potentially would have been impacted by a northern route expressed relief. This includes the Coastal First Nations alliance and the Gitxaala Nation.
But groups such as Climate Action Network Canada say it is the wrong direction, calling for clean-energy nation-building projects and increased adoption of renewables.
“That’s what Canada should focus on building—not another costly, divisive oil pipeline,” the network said in a news release.
West Coast Environmental Law expressed a similar sentiment. Supportive of keeping the tanker ban, but unwilling to accept the trade-off.
“Enough with the grand bargains – some things are too precious to sacrifice,” staff lawyer Anna Johnston said in a news release. “It is time for Alberta to recognize the environmental, legal and financial risks of any new oil pipeline and tanker proposal and stand down.”
At this stage, that does now seem to be what Alberta has in mind. It plans to fast-track the project, intending to begin construction as soon as Sept. 1, 2027.
READ MORE: Playing pipeline politics: B.C. left out of rumoured Alberta MOU talks