OTTAWA—On the day in 2014 when then-prime minister Stephen Harper’s government announced approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline project—without so much as a press conference—more than two dozen First Nations groups in British Columbia came out strongly against it.

“Anybody tries sticking shovels in the ground, there’ll be First Nations there to stop them,” said Art Sterritt, speaking for B.C. Coastal First Nations, at the time. “We are not going to lay down for this.”

Enbridge Inc. had been promoting Northern Gateway, which would have carried Alberta oil sands crude to a port on B.C.’s northern coast, since the mid-2000s. But, despite the Harper government’s tentative approval, the unpopular $7.9-billion project was scrapped by then-prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2016 after a court ruled the Harper government had failed to adequately consult First Nations.

Today, apparently unwilling to water down the upbeat talk about another pipeline to a B.C. coastal terminal, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith are circling around the fact that opposition to such an idea from those fearing a tanker spill in northern B.C. remains as fierce as ever.

Regardless of Smith’s fantasies about a northern B.C. tanker port, the only real option for a pipeline of this sort appears to be along the corridor already used by the Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver. It would avoid full-scale opposition to construction of an oil-spill-prone line through unspoiled territory in northern B.C., and relieve Ottawa of the need to moderate its northern tanker ban. And it would allow the proponent to take advantage of an existing brownfield corridor.

That doesn’t mean it would be cheap, or easy. The TMX project undertaken by the federal government to twin Trans Mountain ended up costing $34-billion and was bogged down by years of legal challenges and opposition from cities, First Nations, the B.C. government, and environmentalists. Expanding this conduit again—which would require building another tanker-loading terminal near Vancouver—could face similar opposition.

From Carney’s perspective, opening the way for an oil conduit to increase Alberta’s petroleum exports by an impressive one-third of current capacity makes a fair bit of sense economically. It comes at a time when the crumbling of this country’s traditional trading model with the United States demands radical action. And Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner is carrying a lot of weight with countries suffering in today’s increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment.

But, while Carney has compromised on many of the issues separating Ottawa and Alberta, the federal Liberals have taken the position that an Alberta-to-B.C.-coast oil line has to have a private sector proponent.

So far, none has stepped up. The Alberta government will be the proponent when Smith submits a pipeline plan to the federal Major Projects Office as of July 1, after which Ottawa intends to try to fast-track its approval.

Alberta officials sound convinced that a private sector proponent will come forward, with one talking vaguely to the media last week about possible interest from Asian investors.

But, given the cost and the likely regulatory and political issues, it’s a large risk for any company. And, as appeared to be the case in the demise of the Energy East pipeline plan in 2016, there may be other, cheaper options for increasing Alberta crude exports through TMX or the existing Canadian connection to the newly proposed Bridger route in the U.S.

The underlying reality of the Smith-Carney agreement last week is that, as with TMX, governments may have to pay for it if they want an additional pipeline for crude exports to Asia.

A new oilsands line from Alberta to the B.C. coast is a “pipe dream” unless it’s funded by taxpayers, Eric Nuttall, a senior portfolio manager with Ninepoint Partners, told the Calgary Herald after last week’s Ottawa-Alberta rapprochement.

It’s a similar situation with the Pathways project envisioned by the Oil Sands Alliance. The plan, which Carney says is a prerequisite to approval of a new pipeline, is a massive carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS) project to be built by oilsands producers. The federal government has provided generous tax credits for this project. And, last week, Carney agreed to lower the future industrial carbon tax. Despite all that, the Alliance doesn’t seem to want to take “yes” for an answer, responding that the overall regulatory and fiscal framework is still not good enough for the $20-billion CCS operation to be built.

In the end, the oil companies—despite the huge profits accruing from the Iran war-generated oil price hike—seem on the way to demanding more financial support from the federal and Alberta governments for this key emissions-reducing innovation.

As far as the whole pipeline-enabling deal with Smith is concerned, Carney, of course, feels he needs to show secessionist-minded Albertans that Ottawa is responding to the province’s aspirations. And last week’s agreement may help in that regard, but there’s still a very long away to go before someone puts up the $30-billion or more for the likely cost of a new pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast.

Les Whittington is a regular columnist for The Hill Times.

The Hill Times