It’s tough to be in Alberta these days. Oil prices already have been lower for longer than just about ever before, and the light at the end of the tunnel is a long way away. Layoffs, shutterings and investment cutbacks are the norm. We’re in the middle of earnings-reporting season and, across the board, it’s bloodshed.

Which makes Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre’s position on the Energy East Pipeline stick particularly hard in Alberta’s craw. Claiming there wasn’t enough in the pipeline project for his constituents and citing climate change and other environmental risks, Coderre says TransCanada Corp.’s plan to ship Albertan bitumen to an Irving Oil Ltd. refinery in New Brunswick (among other destinations) makes no sense. “As president of the Montreal Metropolitan Community, I made known on several occasions our position of ‘zero tolerance’ toward the environmental risks of transporting petroleum products by pipeline,” he wrote in an op-ed in The Montreal Gazette.

To begin, let’s try to have a rational conversation about risk. There are pipelines all around us operating at all times, and the vast majority fulfil their mandate without a hitch. Spills are a blight, sure, but they are rare, generally small and, for the most part, get cleaned up. Enbridge Inc.’s Michigan disaster in 2010 aside, is there any other pipeline spill in the past few years you can remember? I live in Alberta, where most of them happen. When they happen, they get lots of media attention and get cleaned up to a reasonable standard.

And I think it’s fair to say that the new pipeline through Quebec – in particular, in and around Montreal – will be one of the finest ever built. TransCanada is only too aware of the bad press any spill in Quebec would get. It’s the last thing the company – or anyone in the industry – needs.

Second, don’t bring climate change into this debate. Alberta recently announced a world-leading climate change plan that includes a broadly based carbon tax and the phasing out of coal-fired power by 2030. These are real, effective commitments from Alberta, and we can only hope other jurisdictions will be as progressive.

The additional greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting from Energy East, by comparison, are miniscule. We all know that the vast majority of GHG emissions happen when the fuel is burned, which brings us to demand.

Oil is a global commodity: did you hear about the oil tanker that was recently contracted to carry a load of Saudi Arabian oil to Irving Oil’s refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick? Yes, that Saudi Arabia, the one with the appalling human rights record. And, yes, that Irving Oil refinery.

Alberta sits on one of the world’s most important sources of oil, and the world is going to be demanding oil for a while yet. Squeezing this province’s output by shutting down Energy East will not dent climate change. The oil will still flow to the demand – places such as Montreal and Toronto and New York.

On the other side of the debate, TransCanada is asking for a ribbon-thin right of way that is mostly established already. The risk/reward scale tips too far in favour of building Energy East. Alberta would get a better price for its resource, more money would flow into federal and provincial coffers, Irving Oil wouldn’t have to import oil from Saudi Arabia and Alberta would become a better place to invest.

Let’s not let this opportunity slide.

© 2016 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.