With another Canadian derailment taking place in Saskatchewan this week, safety concerns about rail transportation are becoming a prevalent topic among provincial governments. Companies like Enbridge, with their proposed pipeline to BC, the Northern Gateway, are looking to take advantage o
f the situation, emphasizing that the alternative to their pipelines will be increased oil transport by rail. Having faced great opposition for their pipelines from activist groups and provincial legislatures, are the recent Canadian derailments the tipping point for the obstacles blocking the creation of new pipes? Ultimately, the alternative to their methods are CN Rail’s movement of oil from Alberta’s sands by rail. Considering the advantage in efficiency of pipelines, alongside the new safety concerns, it appears that the change will be favoring pipelines. As an added point, this places activist organizations in a bad spot, as they can’t keep denying the pipelines if their advantages show them as the best possible method for oil transport; continued resistance could equate to a fight against the Canadian oil production and shipping entirely – a fight that cannot be won. So, if you can’t stop oil, do you face the dangers of the past in rail, or do you try and embrace the speculative future of pipelines? Pick your poison, nation.
Image: Aftermath of recent Lac-Megantic, Quebec derailment.