Friday, July 11, 2014

On Tar Sands, My City Steps Up

For several years, all eyes have been on the proposed Keystone Pipeline.  But Keystone isn’t the only pipeline that could connect Canadian tar sands crude to a United States port.  Another possibility has its southern terminus about a mile from my house.

Portland-montrealThe pipeline has its origins in World War II.  During the early stages of the war, when the United States was still nominally neutral, Canada needed an oil supply port.  South Portland, Maine, where I live, became that port, and to this day, a pipeline carries oil from tankers docking in Portland Harbor through northern New England and on to refineries near Montreal.  But as Canada’s tar sands bonanza has reduced the country’s need for oil imports, the amount of oil passing through the pipeline has declined, and its owners began to consider whether oil might flow more profitably in the opposite direction. 

Most of New England wants no part of this.  But state and local governments lack the authority to regulate the contents or safety of interstate pipelines.  So, unless the pipeline company needs to build new facilities within their towns—and, in most places, it does not--most New Englanders hold only political leverage over the possible reversal.  My city is in a different position.  Turning an import facility into a tar sands oil export facility would require the construction of new infrastructure, and that infrastructure would be built right next to the city’s most popular and scenic waterfront park, and in an area where the city hopes to see mixed-use development.  The possibility of a pipeline reversal therefore confronted the city with a land use question: do we want new crude oil export facilities on our waterfront? 

Tar sands meetingAddressing that kind of land use question is a classic prerogative of local governments, and last night, the city council took a big step toward answering “no.”  For the past six months, and through a series of public meetings, a small committee has been working on drafting an ordinance that would address the local environmental threats posed by new export facilities.  Their task was not easy.  The ordinance can’t exceed municipal authority, and it also needs to address the desire, shared by many voters in South Portland, to protect the city’s eastern waterfront while protecting industrial jobs and maintaining an active working port in the western part of the city.  But I think the committee did an excellent job, and the city council seems to agree.  The process isn’t over—planning board review and another city council vote still will occur—and the oil industry is already making noises about a ballot initiative or litigation.  But Wednesday’s vote still was a big step, and I’m proud of my city.  Through a careful, deliberative, and highly public process, we’ve decided that we’re not going to be the endpoint of the East Coast’s Keystone.

- Dave Owen

(the meeting photo above first appeared in the Portland Press Herald, which has run a series of informative articles about the controversy.)

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Tar Sands, My City Steps Up:


The Tar Sands oil were proposed to be an import product only in the US. I do not see why the pipeline should be used for export of Canadian oil to foreign countries. Canada should build their own facilities so that the us does not have to exposed to the risk of leaks and spills. The same applies to the Keystone extensionto the Gulf coast.

Posted by: Gary Huxel | Jan 12, 2015 8:04:08 AM

In response to Bryan Dench's question, there are three primary reasons for concern. The first is that, while it's possible to take extensive precautions, people sometimes cut corners--particularly when they're trying to eke a last few years out of aging infrastructure, as the pipeline company is doing here. Second, even if extensive precautions are taken, there still will be some toxic emissions, some visual impacts, and the real, if difficult to quantify, impact on land values and uses of increasing heavy industrial use of an area better suited for recreational use and mixed-use development. At a personal level (I think this was not a motivating factor for the city council), I'd rather not have my city be a major fossil fuel export site. There are better ways to generate and to conserve energy--some of which the city is actively pursuing--and I'd much rather have my city be part of the future.

Posted by: Dave Owen | Aug 11, 2014 8:50:02 AM

Why is it an either or dilemma, Professor Owen? Is it impossible for the facilities to be repurposed for this use without proper precautions for the well being of the community?

Posted by: Bryan Dench | Aug 6, 2014 1:29:00 PM

Supporters of the ordinance wore blue shirts to many of the public meetings. In response, opponents began wearing red shirts. As you can see, there weren't a whole lot of undecided people at the meetings.

Posted by: Dave Owen | Aug 1, 2014 6:52:55 AM

We've recently had a similar set of circumstances here in Kentucky and I'm not really surprised it's happening in the rest of the county - but I have to ask - what's the story behind the shirts in the picture?

Posted by: Nathan Bowman | Jul 28, 2014 7:46:42 AM

Post a comment