Saying no to pipelines increases emissions

The refineries on the East Coast will now import crude from countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Saying no to pipelines increases emissions

The environmental groups and anti-pipeline lobby hail the cancellation of the Energy East project as a victory for the environment, citing the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the construction of such infrastructure. Interesting philosophy which works against the environment they state they are protective of.

The refineries on the East Coast will now continue to import crude from countries such as Saudi Arabia. One must wonder how this is better for the environment? The refinery in Dartmouth, N.S. has a daily capacity of 320,000 bbls per day and probably berths the Aframax tanker which has a cargo capacity of 750,000 bbls, or roughly two days of supply. According to a paper written by WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs (2009), this type of tanker, which spends 80 per cent of its working life at sea, produces 46,460 tons of CO2 emissions per year. As these crude imports must involve more than one vessel, the total emissions created by this practice would depend on how the mathematical computation is completed.

We will have more oil transported via rail, which is more carbon intensive and more prone to accidents. Plus, we will have oil and natural gas imported into Ontario and Quebec via American-built pipelines. Which the environmental groups here never object to.

The environmental groups and anti-pipeline lobby have, by omission, allowed American oil to be transported via American pipelines for sale to Canadians, whilst drastically impairing the economy of this country. The oil and natural gas will still be purchased and used by Canadians, but we will not derive any economic benefit from this process.

Perhaps one of these groups can explain how increasing overall global emissions, for many years to come, is better for the environment of Canada?

Ian Kimm

Duncan