An attached CN presentation paper notes that “CN has ample capacity to run seven trains per day to match Gateway’s proposed capacity.”

 

　　Greenpeace researcher Keith Stewart said the CN rail pitch has the appearance of a “Plan B” in case Northern Gateway is blocked, but that it raises “the same or greater risks.”

 

　　The horrific Lac-Mé

 

　　A spokesman for CN Rail told The Canadian Press in an email that “no specific crude-by-rail project to Prince Rupert [was] discussed”

 

　　The company “does not disclose publicly its commercial discussions with customers,”

 

　　“CN will continue to explore new opportunities to move crude oil safely and efficiently to markets,”

 

　　“The company will consider concrete crude-by-rail proposals, including any specific project to move crude to Prince Rupert. However, there is no infrastructure in place at Prince Rupert to transfer crude oil from train tank cars to vessels.”

 

　　“NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to mutually understand how rail could be part of a solution to current market access challenges,”

 

　　The memo describes rail as “an increasingly viable option” and states that carriers Canadian Pacific and CN “have indicated that the potential to increase rail movements of crude oil is theoretically unlimited.”

 

　　Rail officials had indicated that a project to bring crude to port for tanker export “is likely in future.”

 

　　A separate memo for International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Dennis Lebel, then the transport minister, asserts that Transport Canada “has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars ...”

 

　　The memo states that “transportation of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment” but notes that “proposals to construct new infrastructure to support the activity”

 

　　The “Departmental Position”

 

　　Greenpeace’s Stewart said the Lac-Mégantic tragedy revealed that federal safety regulations hadn’

 

　　“If the government or industry imagines they can use these regulatory loopholes to do an end-run around opposition to tar sands moving through those lands or waters, they will be in for a rude awakening,”

 

　　Opposition in Canada to the Northern Gateway and in the United States to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has keyed on stopping or slowing development of Alberta’

 

　　The undated memo to Oliver, the natural resources minister, suggests that’

 

　　“Despite difficulties related to new pipeline capacity, Canadian crude producers are unlikely to slow down production and will turn to rail to ensure their product reaches market,”

 

　　“To date, there hasn’t been a project to bring crude by rail to port for tanker export, however rail officials indicate that such a project is likely in future.”