Not exact matches
Yet the risk of a
spill from the pipeline itself or from tankers offshore is overwhelmingly borne by B.C. Short of sharing royalty revenues
with B.C. — note how both the B.C. Liberals and their NDP opponents support plans for liquefied natural gas terminals, which would boost gas revenues in B.C. — there's no way for
Alberta or an Albertan prime minister to bring B.C. onside.
The array of claims around
Alberta's crude is wide and varied: on the one hand, anti-Keystone groups contend that dilbit — i.e. diluted bitumen, thick oilsand crude mixed
with light hydrocarbons that will allow it to flow through a pipeline — is more corrosive than other types of oil and sinks in water rather than floating, which makes it harder to clean rivers and lakes after a
spill.
Alberta's premier threatened trade retaliation against British Columbia for standing in the way of the pipeline, Canadian premier Justin Trudeau hinted that he could complete the project
with taxpayer money, and BC's premier dug in his heels, recommitting his government to defending the coast from the risk of an oil
spill.
According to a thirty - year - old law in the US, diluted bitumen coming from the
Alberta tar sands is not classified as oil, meaning pipeline operators planning to transport the corrosive substance across the US —
with proposed pipelines like the Keystone XL — are exempt from paying into the federal Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Numerous Canadians expressed outrage that the
Alberta government would spend taxpayers» money on a disingenuous act of greenwashing to support a project that will largely benefit corporations without creating much in the way of employment or economic activity in America, a project that comes
with significant environmental risks that will be borne by Americans (in the case of the inevitable
spills) and the rest of the world (in the case of increased greenhouse emissions).