The President of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation brought a clear message to the Statehouse today: He has every hope of transporting tar-sands oil from western Canada in an existing pipeline that runs through the Northeast Kingdom. Currently, the pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal.
“Some have said we may have a reversal project,” Larry Wilson told the House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources Committee this morning. “We don’t have one at this time. We hope to have a project to revitalize our company and use these assets to provide for energy needs.”
(Wilson’s company actually has two pipelines on the same route; one is currently mothballed due to lack of demand.)
Wilson spent most of his testimony offering reassurances (or bromides, if you prefer) about his company’s safety record, maintenance procedures, and environmental orientation. He claimed that oil pipelines are built to handle flows in either direction, and that “pipeline companies routinely change the direction of flow.”
Wilson is trying to beat back proposed legislation that would require a fresh Act 250 permit for any substantial change in use of an existing oil pipeline. Under current law, it’s unclear whether a fresh permit would be required.
Wilson also sought to minimize concerns about the nature of tar sands oil. He never said the phrase “tar sands oil”; instead, he referred to “heavy crude,” and said his pipelines were fully capable of carrying any kind of oil, heavy or light. He denied that carrying tar sands oil would require heating of the pipeline or an increase in pressure.
But mostly, over and over again, he referred to his company’s “outstanding,” award-winning, diligent, constant, continuous dedication to safety and maintenance.
Funny thing. Thanks to US Judge Garvan Murtha’s ruling in the Vermont Yankee case, lawmakers must tread carefully when talking about “safety.” As with nuclear power plants, the safety of oil pipelines is solely a matter for federal regulators. More than one member of the committee expressed concern that, if they talked too much about safety, they might be providing evidence for a Yankee-style lawsuit. Would it sound too conspiratorial to infer that Wilson was hoping to drive the conversation onto safety, in hopes of building a trail of evidence for future legal action?
Wilson slammed the bill, saying “it seems discriminating to me.” I think he meant “discriminatory,” but we’ll go on. He argued that the pipeline industry is already heavily regulated, and added “If you tell me I have to secure permits I don’t need today, it seems unnecessary and difficult for me to move [oil] to markets.”
Environmental groups (scheduled to testify on Wednesday) plan to focus on global warming rather than concerns about oil spills. The extraction of tar sands oil is a very carbon-intensive process, and has been called “the dirtiest form of fossil fuel.” Western Canadian oil producers are looking for pipelines to major ports — through the central US and through western Canada to the Pacific — and the Portland-Montreal pipeline would provide a ready outlet to overseas markets.
(If, of course, states like Vermont don’t erect new regulatory barriers.)
The enviros’ larger goal is to make tar sands oil a financially unattractive proposition, in hopes of limiting production operations and the resulting carbon emissions.
If Wilson was hoping to kill or delay the legislation, he may have done his cause more harm than good. His frank admission that he hoped to reverse the pipeline certainly adds some urgency to Deen’s bill. And given the partisan makeup of the Legislature, Wilson can’t hope to prevail by appealing solely to the free-market crowd. Most lawmakers, IMO, will probably remain unconvinced by the practiced blandishments of a professional oilman.