Evidence of meeting #78 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tankers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Lobb.
Dr. Leach, I have some more questions about pipeline capacity. I understand you said earlier that pipelines are near capacity today. By my calculation, with the Liberal government's approval of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline, that will bring on an additional, roughly, 590,000 barrels per day. With the Trump administration's approval of Keystone XL, that's another 800,000 barrels a day.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
It's another 830,000 barrels a day.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
In my rough calculation, these pipelines that have been approved will allow for an additional 1.39 million barrels of oil a day to be exported from Alberta.
In June of this year, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, revised their latest growth forecast for oil sands and conventional oil production, saying that they expect oil production in Canada to grow from 3.85 million barrels per day of production last year to 5.1 million barrels per day in 2030. That's an additional 1.2 million barrels per day.
It would seem that the two new pipelines that the current government has approved will be able to handle much of the increase in oil production we will be seeing over the next 12 years.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Also, drop in the Redwater refinery, taking about 50,000 barrels a day out.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Yes.
In your view as an economist, is there the need for additional pipelines to be constructed in order to meet that increased production; or in the interim, are we at an adequate level?
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
As long as we see those two pipelines go ahead, our market is well served. I recently wrote in The Globe and Mail that building another project, Energy East being the example at that time, would lead to us overbuilding our pipeline capacity and to an inefficient transportation network.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
It's safe to say, then, that between now and 2030, if the projections hold correct, which is a big “if”, the moratorium proposed in this bill is a bit of a moot point, because that additional supply will be handled by the two existing pipeline proposals that have been approved.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
We are moving some by rail right now, though. I wouldn't want to say it's completely moot, because I'm sure CN or others might take some issue with that.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
My first question is for Mr. Lewis-Manning.
Do you have the number of vessels moving in and out of the ports on the B.C. coast?
5:25 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
I don't have that readily available, but the number of transits in the entire B.C. coast is in the vicinity of 10,000 to 12,000 annually. That's heavily skewed to southern British Columbia.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay.
Do you know what percentage of those vessels are carrying petroleum goods?
5:25 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
Broadly speaking, petroleum could be a number of products, from heavy oils to lighter, and then chemical products. It's a fairly low number. It's certainly below 10%.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
That's as a whole. Heavier oils would be even less, maybe 5%?
5:25 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
It would be significantly less. It would be in the vicinity of 3%, but I would need to confirm that.
October 31st, 2017 / 5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay.
My second question is for Ms. MacDuffee.
If the moratorium in the bill were to pass, I assume that this would just change the pattern in which vessels travel. Do you have a concern that the southern coast will be affected by a spill?
5:25 p.m.
Biologist and Program Director, Wild Salmon Program, Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Absolutely. I would say that this should apply to the entire coast, only I don't want to convolute the existing bill before you.
Even though we think of the north coast as treacherous and rugged in terms of navigational hazards, the problem with the south coast is the volume of vessel traffic, so risk is very high. We have, in some cases, more vulnerable and threatened populations on the south coast. If we just look at southern resident killer whales, the noise alone from increased traffic is a risk from, say, Kinder Morgan's tankers, but a spill that we've modelled can cover up to 80% of critical habitat. The chance of southern residents being in that critical habitat is high. The implications for just one population of killer whales on the south coast could be catastrophic.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much to the witnesses. It's been a very informative afternoon, so thank you, all, very much.
To the committee, thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
