Lexpert®Ranked Lawyers
22 | Pipelines v. Rail
Hardwicke-Brown,
Mungo
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
(403) 260-9674
mhb@blakes.com
Mr. Hardwicke-Brown's
M&A, corporate
fi nance and energy
practice focuses on
the natural resources
and infrastructure
industries. His
experience embraces
the petroleum,
natural gas, oil sands,
electricity, potash,
pipeline and LNG
sectors.
Harricks, Paul H.
Gowling Lafl eur
Henderson LLP
(416) 369-7296
paul.harricks@
gowlings.com
Mr. Harricks leads
Gowlings' Energy,
Infrastructure &
Mining Group. His
transaction-based
practice embraces
infrastructure, energy
and project fi nance.
He acts for Canadian
and international
corporations, funds and
fi nancial institutions.
Harvie, Alan S.
Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP
(403) 267-9411
alan.harvie@
nortonrosefulbright.
com
Mr. Harvie practises
energy and
environmental/
regulatory law
including commercial
and operational
issues, focusing on
the upstream oil and
gas, energy, waste
disposal and chemical
industries.
Harper, Dufferin R.
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
(403) 260-9710
dufferin.harper@
blakes.com
Mr. Harper acts
for clients on
environmental
due diligence and
liability issues, and
provides regulatory
compliance and impact
assessment advice to
oil and gas companies,
companies operating
in the oil sands and
liquefi ed natural gas
proponents.
Harrison, QC,
Elizabeth J.
Farris, Vaughan,
Wills & Murphy LLP
(604) 661-9367
eharrison@farris.com
Mrs. Harrison has
extensive experience
in corporate, M&A and
securities transactions.
Represents
corporations and
investment dealers.
Experience includes
M&A, take-overs
and related-party
transactions, and
public and private
fi nancings.
Helbronner, Valerie
Torys LLP
(416) 865-7516
vhelbronner@torys.
com
Ms. Helbronner is
recognized as a
leading energy lawyer.
Her experience
includes the
development and
fi nancing of gas-fi red,
wind, hydro, solar,
biomass and CHP
projects. She has
extensive experience
with Aboriginal-related
matters and energy
projects.
"Being able to set their own safety rules pleases them, I'm
sure. en they claim proprietary interest in their safety-
management system so nobody in the public can see what's
in it.
"If you have companies in business to make money it
makes no sense to me to vest in them the primary obligation
to come up with expensive safety and environmental rules to
impose upon themselves."
Crowther at Dentons says activists have succeeded "in
making pipelines the enemy, but you can make a very com-
pelling argument based on the facts that pipelines are a very
safe way of moving that product to market, which is not to
say rail isn't.
"I think the pipeline companies feel some of the criticism
is unfounded, that it's not always – and o en, not – based in
fact. But I expect they would think the railway companies
are facing the same situation.
"Rather than feeling that they've been unfairly singled
out, I think they see it as pipelines were the focus -- and rail-
ways may become more of the focus going forward."
"When a pipeline explodes or has a leak, there are tragic environmental
consequences at times. But when a railway car explodes people die.
We already saw that at Lac-Mégantic. So it's not as easy as saying
if we don't have pipeline access, we'll move it by rail."
– JOHN OSLER, MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP
PHOTO:
SHUTTERSTOCK
