Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
Sale ends in
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
save over $140
// //

The pipeline industry is fond of saying that it is to this century what the railways were to the past two – that its expansion binds the country together, and enables the sharing of generous natural resource wealth.

It has become clear, though, that the railways aren't ready to cede their position. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. enjoy growing economic might as long as proposals to build oil pipelines plod along without resolution and even as regulators and the public fret about the safety of shipping crude by rail.

The railways have been at the centre of a public crisis of confidence following a string of derailments and explosions, and now seek to ween the oil industry from the use of older tank cars that are prone to puncture and rupture by imposing surcharges for hauling them. These are the DOT-111 models built before more stringent standards were adopted in 2011. It's an alphanumeric designator that entered the mainstream following the deadly Lac-Mégantic, Que., disaster in July.

Story continues below advertisement

Last week, CP chief executive officer Hunter Harrison spoke about how, if it were up to him, he'd stop hauling this risky rolling stock altogether in favour of the new CPC 1232 design. But, Mr. Harrison said, he's bound by law to keep doing so because they are still allowed by regulators. Instead, he hopes that a levy of $325 a carload will be an economic disincentive to using the older models. It is not the railways that own most of the tankers, but the shippers, refiners and lessors.

CN has also called for crude shippers to phase out the old DOT-111s or retrofit them with outer shells and shields. The company said it, too, has changed its freight rates to provide an "economic incentive" to acquire new tank cars and fix up the old ones.

That sounds good. After all, who doesn't support safer railways?

Here's a question, though: Who benefits from the increased revenue?

There won't be a swift, wholesale changeover to new or upgraded cars. According to the Association of American Railroads, of which both major Canadian carriers are members, there are 92,000 tank cars carrying flammable liquids in North America and, of those, just 14,000 meet the latest standards.

New Brunswick's Irving Oil Ltd. has said it will have its entire fleet upgraded by April 30, and other refiners have made similar pledges, but there is already a backlog for new tank cars and the industry has complained about shortages. This means that the older cars will remain on the rails for a while, generating those extra fees.

Mr. Harrison maintained that the added charge is not a cash grab, but neither his company nor CN has said what they intend to do with the money. Clearly, it should not reward just their shareholders to the detriment of investors in oil companies that will bear those costs. Instead, it should go toward bolstering the safety of moving oil and other flammable materials by train between and through towns and cities, and to cleaning up after derailments.

Story continues below advertisement

For instance, another disincentive that the oil industry deals with today is Alberta's $15-a-tonne levy on carbon emissions. That kitty is used to fund technology to reduce the emissions, rather than getting funnelled into general revenue.

One possibility that may be under discussion with Ottawa is the development of a crude-by-rail liability pool, in lieu of forcing railways to carry massive amounts of insurance coverage, said Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace. A similar fund is in place for marine oil spills. The industry and government have been in talks about liability since the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

One thing's for sure: Oil shipments by rail show no signs of letting up, especially as opponents to TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline seek new ways to persuade U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to keep delaying a decision on approving the project.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, sought to open up a new front in the battle against the pipeline this week, seeking a comprehensive study about the health impacts of the oil sands, from production in Alberta to end use in the U.S.

It may raise more questions about the fate of Keystone XL but it won't do anything to stem the flow of crude by train, or higher fees as long as the older tank cars roll.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies