After more than a year of public hearings, the federal government unveiled its new and improved environmental assessment legislation in February 2018 with much ado.

But the new rules — designed to restore public trust in Canada’s process for reviewing major projects — didn’t contain any details on what kinds of projects would trigger a review under the new legislation.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna skirted the issue, saying her ministry was still evaluating what kinds of activities would show up on a yet-to-be-released “project list” that was pending further consultation with Canadians.

But when pressed on the issue, McKenna told reporters she didn’t believe oilsands projects developed via in-situ methods should be included. McKenna reasoned that because Alberta already has a hard cap on emissions, future oilsands projects would be exempt from federal environmental review.

The implications of excluding new oilsands projects because of a provincial emissions cap (which is controversial) weren’t lost on Adam Scott, senior advisor with Oil Change International.

Unbelievable and unacceptable. @cathmckenna proposes exempting #tarsands in-situ projects from any federal environmental assessment because ‘Alberta has a hard cap on emissions’ #cdnpoli

— Adam Scott (@AdamScottEnv) February 8, 2018

“It’s just appalling,” Scott told DeSmog Canada in an interview. “There’s no other way to say it.”

Unlike the more familiar open-pit mines of the Alberta oilsands, in-situ projects extract the region’s viscous bitumen by injecting steam into the ground, which softens the oil that is then pumped to the surface.

In-situ development represents the future of the oilsands. Between 2016 and 2040, in-situ is expected to double in daily production reaching 2.9 million barrels per day.

And while the process is less visible than its open-pit counterpart, in-situ oilsands mining has greater greenhouse gas emissions and significant land disturbance that clashes with the rights of local Indigenous peoples.

NDP MP Linda Duncan said by not releasing the project list the federal government has left everyone in the dark.

Duncan, who serves as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development which is responsible for reviewing the new legislation, said in-situ projects were exempted from federal assessments under the previous Harper government during dramatic cuts to Canada’s environmental rules. The new proposed federal legislation, bill C-69, was meant to make the gutted rules more robust.

“Everybody agrees that this bill should not be finalized until everybody knows what the project list is,” Duncan told DeSmog Canada.

“Who is it going to apply to? It’s ridiculous that they didn’t have the consultations simultaneously. This is a really serious matter. One of the things that we heard from industry today was that they’re just fed up.”

In-situ projects expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions by 2030

In-situ projects don’t result in the same level of visual devastation as open-pit mining: there are no toxic tailings lakes or gargantuan trucks needed.

But they have their own set of significant impacts, which critics argue should fall under the purview of federal assessment.

For one, they emit far more greenhouse gases that mining on a per-barrel basis. A 2016 assessment by the Pembina Institute found the “emissions intensity” of in-situ is about 60 per cent higher than mining. That’s because natural gas is burned to create the steam used in the process, making it extremely emissions intensive.

By 2030, in-situ projects are expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions per year: almost equivalent to all passenger transport in the country.

Sharon Mascher, law professor at the University of Calgary and expert in environmental law, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that such climate impacts from in-situ projects warrant federal assessment.

“I would argue that the federal government has the constitutional power to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and they need to show some leadership if they’re going to purport to be acting in a way that’s consistent with their obligations under the Paris Agreement,” she said.

“They need to exercise that jurisdiction to make sure that over the long term Canada’s greenhouse gases are not increasing  but are decreasing and eventually reaching carbon neutrality.”

Alberta’s emissions cap allows for a 40 per cent expansion in emissions, up to 100 megatonnes. But that doesn’t include electricity cogeneration, oilsands that doens’t require steam extraction and new or expanded upgraders — which combine for another 15 megatonnes of emissions.

As noted in the recent collaborative report by Canada’s auditors general, Alberta is one of nine province and territories that doesn’t even have a 2030 emissions goal in place.

Mascher said the only way an exemption for new in-situ projects would make sense would be if the federal government conducted a strategic assessment of all existing legislative frameworks in order to provide assurance that new production fits within Paris Agreement obligations.

However, strategic assessments aren’t legislated — meaning they’re completely at the discretion of cabinet.

No environmental assessments for in-situ oilsands projects under the federal government’s new rules. @cathmckenna https://t.co/WjhonE2XgN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 3, 2018

Without federal assessments, ‘there’s no credibility to the system at all’

Greenhouse gas emissions aren’t the only potential impact of in-situ projects.

As recently reported by DeSmog Canada, Fort McKay First Nation in northeast Alberta is currently fighting a proposed in-situ project that is feared to jeopardize a nearby sacred region.

Specific concerns include the introduction of linear disturbances like roads and cutlines — which can further endanger caribou — and constant water withdrawals.

“They’re massive water polluters with large impacts on land and endangered and threatened species like woodland caribou,” Scott said. “They obviously need to be part of any review. It’s just essential. Without that, there’s no credibility to the system at all. They need to be on the project list as a default.”

There’s growing interest by oilsands producers in the use of “solvents” for in-situ projects, which would greatly reduce the amount of natural gas required for extraction but have unknown impacts on groundwater quality.

Duncan emphasized it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to address Indigenous rights.  In addition, she emphasized that only the federal government can regulate navigable waters, fisheries and trans-boundary waters.

Even though the previous environmental impact system implemented under Harper exempted in-situ projects, Duncan said it’s imperative that they be included in the project list.

“It’s still having a huge impact on the landbase that is by and large traditional Indigenous lands,” she said.

Committee required to review legislation without knowing what it will apply to

The proposed legislation is currently being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. After it’s approved, it’ll return to the House for third reading and eventually royal assent.

In late February, the Liberals introduction a “time allocation” motion over bill C-69 in the House of Commons, limiting debate to only two days before sending it off to the Liberal-stacked committee.

But Duncan said the committee process itself is also being fast-tracked, with limitations on hearing witnesses and proposed amendments.

In response, she gave notice of a motion to break up the bill for review and send sections to relevant committees: parts addressing the Canadian Energy Regulator to the Natural Resource committee and parts about navigable waters to the Transport committee.

Those calls were rebuffed.

Now, her committee has to review over 800 clauses by late April.

Some have speculated that the continued exemption for in-situ for Alberta is a subtle trick to ensure the emissions cap remains regardless of who wins the next provincial election.

Scott suggested that would be a “terrible strategy.”

“The Alberta cap is an ineffective way of dealing with climate impacts of oil and gas operations,” he said. “Exempting projects with the environmental impacts of in-situ tarsands projects really shows the impact system was broken entirely.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

After six months of consultations, the National Energy Board (NEB) Modernization Expert Panel has delivered its long-awaited report.

The results are damning.

“In our consultations we heard of a National Energy Board that has fundamentally lost the  confidence of many Canadians,” the five-member panel wrote. “We heard that Canadians have serious concerns that the NEB has been ‘captured’ by the oil and gas industry.”

The 87-page report issued 26 key recommendations to repair the oft-criticized quasi-judicial tribunal, responsible for regulating interprovincial and international oil, gas and electricity projects.

Those include establishing a one-year review process by cabinet to ascertain whether a major project meets “national interest” prior to regulatory review, replacing the NEB with a “Canadian Energy Transmission Commission” and placing a broader focus on interprovincial transmission lines and renewable energy.

In addition, the panel recommended the government create a new agency responsible for collecting information about energy, relocate board headquarters back to Ottawa, considerably improve consultation with Indigenous peoples including an Indigenous Major Projects Office and extend the timelines for review of major projects (which were accelerated under the previous Conservative government).

“It’s clear that this is a pretty major confirmation of what we’ve been saying for years,” says Adam Scott of Oil Change International in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“It’s basically saying that the National Energy Board as it stands today is a broken and outdated institution that’s not fulfilling its role, and not serving the best interest of Canadians. It was very good at the very beginning to see that acknowledgment: there’s a problem here, and we really need to do something bold to rebuild what the NEB is and figure this out.”

Trudeau Promised to Fix the National Energy Board. Here’s What His Expert Panel Recommends https://t.co/tkSQLYJcNz @james_m_wilt #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/pb8I2Hh9re

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 16, 2017

Recommendations Include Prioritizing Renewables, Transmission Lines and Independent Information

According to Natural Resources Canada, the panel travelled to 10 cities, heard presentations from almost 200 people and received another 200 written submissions online.

Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, says in an interview with DeSmog Canada the recommendation to focus more on interprovincial transmission lines and renewables is “very consistent with the direction that the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate and Clean Growth sets for the country.”

“As acknowledged in the report, so much of the focus and conflict right now has been around pipelines,” he says.

“But in making recommendations for how to approach this regulatory decision-making in the future, they need to make sure that expertise is being brought in on the electricity side [to address] the interprovincial nature of that.”

The creation of a proposed Canadian Energy Information Agency will also assist with this task, he says.

The NEB’s current “Energy Futures” projections are “always very conservative when it came to renewable energy” and largely disconnected with climate policies that have been put in place on both provincial and federal levels.

As the panelists wrote: “We heard over and over in public consultations in all the regions of Canada that the NEB appears to be operating in a national policy vacuum.”

Critics Flag ‘National Interest Designation’ As Giving Cabinet Too Much Say

However, experts have already voiced serious concern about the recommendation that federal cabinet have the ability to designate “national interest” for major projects.

In a statement, Erin Flanagan of the Pembina Institute noted: “The recommendation that the Government of Canada make up-front recommendations on the extent to which proposed projects align with national policy objectives lacks any discussion of trade-off rules or other guidance to ensure this process is not arbitrary.”

Similarly, Anna Johnston of West Coast Environmental Law said in a statement: “The NEB Panel’s recommendation for determining ‘national interest’ is putting the cart before the horse. How can you determine whether or not a project aligns with policy objectives, respects Indigenous rights or carries unacceptable risks before a full impact assessment is conducted?”

Indeed, it’s unclear how cabinet would adequately assess national interest before an environmental assessment is even conducted.

Patrick DeRochie, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, says in an interview with DeSmog that there needs to be more clarification about how the NEB modernization would intersect with the proposed changes to Canada’s environmental assessment process, including issues like “net contribution to sustainability.”

“This national interest determination doesn’t actually spell out how we get to that, or why a project would be rejected within that process,” DeRochie says.

Flanagan also noted in her statement that Pembina is “disappointed” with the recommendation that environmental assessments of energy transmission projects (and energy transmission project alone) be conducted in collaboration between the proposed Canadian Energy Transmission Commission and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, as opposed to just the latter.

“Many experts agree that consistent application of [environmental assessment] law can only be achieved if all projects are reviewed under one set of rules, applied consistently,” she wrote.

Natural Resource Minister Suggests Government Won’t Adopt All Recommendations

Next up is a 30-day window for public comment on the report, closing on June 14, 2017.

Jim Carr, minister of natural resources, told reporters in Ottawa on Monday: “Now the government will ask Canadians what they think, and with other reviews that are happening now, come the fall, we’ll meet together as a government and determine the modernization of the National Energy Board and environmental assessment in Canada.”

In addition, he implied the government wouldn’t be accepting all 26 recommendations, telling the National Observer: “That means that we wouldn’t have any tough decisions to make, and I can tell you, we will have tough decisions to make.”

Woynillowicz adds that transmission projects that allow for more renewable energy and emissions reductions are still at risk of being held up because of an insufficient regulatory process, and that having these recommendations adopted will increase the likelihood that they’ll get built.

“I think it’s really positive that this review has happened,” he concludes. “Hopefully Minister Carr and the federal government will pay heed to these recommendations and move quite quickly to adopt them.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For years, the Canadian public has been besieged with the same message: Alberta’s pipeline network is completely maxed out, meaning the oilsands are landlocked and new pipelines must be constructed to allow producers to ship their product to new markets and eliminate the discount imposed on exports.

It’s a notion that’s been repeated by politicians of all stripes, including Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

But there’s no merit to that argument, according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Oil Change International.

In the briefing, titled “Canada Not Running Out of Pipeline Capacity,” authors Adam Scott and Greg Muttitt point out that there’s around 400,000 barrels/day of unused capacity in the network, easily accommodating exports for projects currently operating and under construction.

This calculation was derived from the organization’s Integrated North American Pipeline model, which then concluded the network was 89 per cent full.

As a result, the only reason that new pipelines like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East would be required is if there’s a massive expansion of the oilsands, a move that would arguably undermine the Paris Agreement and other international climate commitments (an argument also made by David Hughes in his thorough June 2016 report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).

“When you look at the reality of the situation building new pipelines would not increase the amount of money that producers receive because there isn’t a shortage,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “And there’s no discount anymore that could be relieved by building a new pipeline.”

“It’s really that missing piece of the puzzle that Canadians are not getting good information on.”

Only Reason for Kinder Morgan and Energy East Would Be For Huge Oilsands Expansion

Scott isn’t discounting the historical existence of an artificial price differential. Rather, he’s arguing that it no longer applies.

There was a serious pipeline constraint in 2012 and 2013 that resulted in a transport-related price gap between Western Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent Crude with Western Canadian Select (WCS). In other words, the lack of pipeline access rendered bitumen production and transport less economically viable.

But that changed with the construction of new pipelines between Illinois, Oklahoma and refineries on the Gulf Coast in 2013 and 2014, as well as the removal of a 40-year ban in the U.S. on exporting domestically produced oil in December 2015 (which the report suggests “reduced market distortions between shale oil and oil sands crude oil at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries”).

Now, oilsands producers are facing three major issues that ultimately have nothing to do with pipelines: lower quality crude, distance from major markets (almost exclusively in the U.S. given access to heavy oil refineries) and extremely low global prices.

“In reality, that differential is basically gone now,” Scott says.

He suggests that the pipeline network may come close to full in 2018, resulting in a “very brief” spike in prices.

But there are more expansions planned for the network that will likely come online to loosen that bottleneck: Enbridge is currently planning to add 800,000 barrel/day worth of pipeline capacity to its mainline system by 2020, which wouldn’t require new permits as it would be an expansion rather than a new pipeline. Kinder Morgan and Energy East wouldn’t be constructed until 2020 or so.

“It has nothing to do with the decision about current pipelines,” he says.

Taking the Enbridge expansion into consideration, the Oil Change International report concludes that “only significant additional plans to increase production beyond projects already operating, in-construction or sanctioned would change this situation.”

One Million Additional Barrels/Day Allowed Under Oilsands Cap

Here’s a bit of rough math to provide some additional context.

The oilsands currently produce about 2.4 million barrels/day and 70 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon emissions per year. Alberta’s new emissions cap on the oilsands allows for only 100 Mt per year.

Assuming that per-barrel emissions stay constant (which is unlikely given that most new production will occur via the more energy intensive process of in-situ), the cap allows for another one million barrels/day or so of production, up to around 3.4 million barrels/day.

David Hughes has also calculated the 45 per cent increase in production could be accommodated via existing pipeline and rail networks, which includes a 15 per cent surplus for maintenance and pipeline problems.

Specifically, the potential addition of 800,000 barrels/day from Enbridge added to the 400,000 barrels/day in current spare capacity allows for 1.2 million barrels/day in new production.

If Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain or TransCanada’s Energy East are approved by the federal government, it will serve as a clear signal that nobody’s taking that cap seriously.

That’s the assumption that allows the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to estimate that oilsands production will increase from 2.4 million barrels/day in 2015 to 3.7 million barrels/day in 2030, and the National Energy Board to calculate that oilsands exports could increase to 4.5 million barrels/day by 2040.

Oil Industry Is ‘Betting That In The Future the Government Will Ignore Its Own Climate Policy’

But such a spike can’t happen if Canada has any intention of meeting international climate commitments, especially its Paris Agreement target of reducing emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

A widely shared report published in September by Oil Change International titled “The Sky’s Limit” concluded that no new oil, gas, or coal extraction projects can be built if the world has any legitimate interest in staying below the mark of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial averages.

“Investment in new projects beyond what’s already under construction has stalled completely with the oil prices,” Scott says. “The oil industry knows these pipelines aren’t required and they’re betting that in the future the government will ignore its own climate policy and that somehow, miraculously, the price of oil will recover. Both of those things would be required for those pipelines to be needed.”

A recent analysis by economist Robyn Allan found that constrained oil production in the oilsands is exclusively the result of low oil prices, not restricted pipeline capacity. Allan found a total of 2.7 million barrels per day of oilsands production was cancelled between January 2014 and September 2016 due to the low price environment.

Per-Barrel Emissions Have Increased by One-Quarter in Last Decade

It also assumes that technological innovations will help decrease per-barrel emissions in order to meet those climate commitments.

Yet recent history shows little precedent for that: a Pembina Institute report from August 2016 noted that total emissions intensity has increased by 25 per cent between 2004 and 2014.

Technologies such as using solvents instead of gas to extract bitumen via in-situ isn’t very advanced, Scott says, and the increasingly popular technology features a far higher per-barrel emissions rate in both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than open-pit mining.

“With the crash in oil prices, [research and development] budgets and the willingness of the oil industry to spend extra marginal dollars on extra technology that would increase the cost is gone,” he says.

“We don’t expect the oil industry will have a real ability to dramatically reduce emissions intensity.”

Yet politicians across Canada continue to push for pipelines, with the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project expected to receive approval shortly before Christmas.

Scott suggests that such elected officials “are completely ignoring the reality of what the Paris Agreement means” and those who contend that new fossil fuel development can be allowed under such commitments “don’t understand climate science.”

“We’re not saying we need to shut down the fossil fuel industry tomorrow,” Scott says.

“But Canada can’t meet its own obligations to the Paris Agreement if it intends to allow for that expansion. In that way, the decision of whether or not to build these pipelines is a direct choice from politicians about whether or not they’re going to honour their obligations on climate change. It’s that simple.”

Image: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Photo: Government of Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The federal government announced on Wednesday the upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects.

“We are considering direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions,” Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said. McKenna along with Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr made the announcement.

“Today’s announcement is a great step forward and shows the federal government is listening to Canadians,” Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative’s energy and democracy director, told DeSmog Canada. “The dark days of the National Energy Board are coming to an end.”

The new measures will apply to pipeline projects currently under regulatory review, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline projects, according to Carr. Five principles that proposed pipelines will be measured against were unveiled. One of those includes "meaningful consultation" for Indigenous peoples.

“This is a real test of this government’s commitments to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples," said Clayton Thomas-Muller, 350.org’s Stop it at the Source Campaigner. "At the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the right to free, prior and informed consent. That means Indigenous Peoples have the right to say ‘No’ when it comes to projects like pipelines and its responsibility of the government to listen.”

The changes are too little, too late, according to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell.

“These interim measures are a welcome band-aid, but they are not enough to inject science and evidence-based decision-making into the Kinder Morgan review process," Campbell said. "The outcome of the National Energy Board review must still be to reject this project, until the flaws in the application are remedied, and the full regional impacts of the project are fully considered.”

Both ministers were clear upstream and direct GHG emissions will be “a factor in the decision making process." How much weight a project’s GHG emissions will be given compared to its economic benefits is unclear.

“Climate plays into the economic viability of these projects,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, said. “How do these projects fit into a world of high carbon taxes and shifting away from oil?”

Like Nagata, Scott says he is “very encouraged” the federal government is listening to Canadians. However, he is concerned Carr, although acknowledging the problems with the current National Energy Board, is still allowing the review of Energy East to go ahead without reforming the board first. The National Energy Board is Canada’s federal pipeline regulator.

“There’s no legal reason for Energy East to go through the old broken process,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “The review hasn’t even started yet and the board has not determined if TransCanada’s application is complete.”

Wednesday’s announcement has little effect on the workings of the National Energy Board itself. The Environment Ministry, not the Board, will conduct the assessments of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The five principles are transition measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place.

McKenna said revamping the board could take “a number of years.”

The federal government will also extend the timeframes in which decisions on Energy East and Trans Mountain must be made. Legislative changes under the previous Conservative government mandated that proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15 months.

An extra six months will now be tacked on to the review of the Energy East pipeline. For the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is in its final round of hearings, no federal decision will be made until December of this year.

“The fact there’ll be no construction on Trans Mountain this summer is good news for people of B.C.’s Lower Mainland,” Nagata said.

The extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public in what Carr describes as “setting up a process beyond the NEB’s mandate and timelines.”

Nagata welcomes this decision as well, but questions still remain.

“How do you put a timeline on meaningful consultations with First Nations?” Nagata asked.

Another unanswered question and an issue most Canadian politicians tend to dance around is how does an oil pipeline pass a climate test?

“A climate test on pipelines is only meaningful if it respects the commitment to 1.5ºC that Prime Minister Trudeau made in Paris, and that would mean taking pipelines and tar sands expansion off the table,” Cameron Fenton, 350.org’s tarsands organizer stated in a media release.

“There’s no such thing as a climate-friendly pipeline. The science is crystal clear: in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, fossil fuels, and especially tar sands, need to stay in the ground,” Fenton said.

Alberta-based energy think tank Pembina Institute estimates the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Energy East pipeline (1.1 million barrels per day capacity) are the equivalent of putting an additional seven million cars on the road.

Twenty-seven climate experts in a 2014 open letter projected Trans Mountain “alone is expected to lead to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces.”

Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of a recent backlash by pro-pipeline politicians against Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who announced last week that 82 Montreal-area municipalities oppose the Energy East pipeline.

For the last month, First Nations, environmental organizations and politicians such as Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan have called on the federal government to suspend the current regulatory reviews of existing pipeline projects until after the promised overhaul of the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Screenshot CBC News

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Kinder Morgan’s proposal to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline has failed to meet British Columbia’s standards when it comes to marine and land spill response plans, according to the province’s submission provided to the National Energy Board (NEB) Monday.

Environment Minister Mary Polak told reporters the province outlined five conditions that must be met to receive the province's support for any oil pipeline in its submission to the National Energy Board. She said two of those conditions, pertaining to marine and land spill response, have not been met.

“Today we are putting forward our final submission to the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion,” Polak said.

“You will see once again our five conditions outlined. We see those as our basis for defending British Columbia’s interests in terms of environment, but also First Nations and benefits to British Columbia.”

“We have not at this time seen evidence in the NEB process that those conditions have been met,” she said.

Polak added B.C. has received encouragement from both government and industry leaders for its decision to uphold the five conditions.

Although not all levels of government have expressed support for the province’s position.

Thomson Nicola Regional District Chair John Ranta expressed disappointment the government is “turning its back” on the project which he says would benefit communities along the pipeline route.

“Billions of dollars were expected to be spent, employing thousands of people during the construction phase,” Ranta told a local radio station in Merritt. “It surprises me a project of this magnitude would be rejected by the provincial government.”

Minister Polak defended B.C.’s position, saying, “I think perhaps Mr. Ranta is forgetting the basis upon which we are providing this submission to the NEB.”

“This is about the NEB process and based on the evidence within the NEB process,” she said.

“We have seen that the company has been vocal in saying they believe they can meet our five conditions,” Polak stated, adding, “they are welcome to work towards that.”

Peter McCartney, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee, said his organization is “cautiously optimistic” about B.C.’s submission to the NEB. "Of course they have their conditions laid out but if you read through their submission they say if these conditions are met, they will approve the pipeline," added. 

“I think it’s a good sign that the B.C. government recognizes a spill on our coast would be disastrous,” he said. “We’ll see what Kinder Morgan comes up with, if they even do come up with a proper spill response plan in the eyes of the government.”

As DeSmog Canada first reported, Kinder Morgan refused to release full spill response plans to the B.C. government, citing safety concerns. The company released those same spill response plans in full to the public in the U.S. for segments of the Trans Mountain pipeline network that cross the B.C.-Washington border.

Beyond oil spill concerns, McCartney said B.C. has no condition to address the climate impact of pipelines. 

“Even if that oil makes it to Asian markets without spilling into the Salish Sea it’s going to spill into the atmosphere via greenhouse gas emissions.”

Adam Scott from Environmental Defence said the current regulatory system doesn’t take the risks pipelines post to Canadians and environment seriously enough.

“The National Energy Board is increasingly seen by Canadians as a rubber stamp for the oil industry,” Scott said in a statement. “The NEB for too long has only asked how to get projects built. Instead, a reformed pipeline review process must first ask if these projects are in the best interest of Canadians.”

During the federal election Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the Liberals would overhaul the National Energy Board review process by making it more evidence-based. Trudeau said a new revamped process would be put in place and that ongoing reviews, such as for the Trans Mountain pipeline, would start fresh under a new, more robust system.

However, in November Natural Resources Jim Carr announced ongoing oil pipeline reviews will continue on under the current regime, adding that changes may retroactively apply to ongoing reviews if and when they are implemented at the National Energy Board level.

Scott said the federal government is “backtracking on its election promise” but the final decision regarding the fate of the pipeline rests with cabinet.

“Any meaningful review has to investigate if energy projects will undermine Canada’s policy goals like promises made in Paris to cut carbon pollution,” he said. “It also means listening to the best available science, such as the recent NAS study on the safety risks of diluted bitumen.”

The Tsleil-Waututh First Nation is currently engaged in a legal challenge of the National Energy Board review process. The nation argues the process has been compromised by a number of “procedural errors” and the government has failed to meet its duty to consult with First Nations.

The proposed pipeline expansion would increase the line’s capacity from 300,000 to 750,000 barrels of oil per day and could quadruple the number of oil tankers in the Burrard Inlet, from five to more than 20 each month. 

Eugene Kung, staff counsel with West Coast Environmental Law, said he is “pleased the province has recognized that this project doesn’t meet their five conditions.”

Kung is a representative for the Tsliel-Waututh First Nation in the NEB hearings and is also counsel for the Tsliel-Waututh Sacred Trust Initiative, the branch of government tasked with fighting the Trans Mountain expansion.

Kung added that beyond marine and terrestrial spill response, there are two additional conditions that have yet to be met by Kinder Morgan.

The first condition, that the project go through an environmental assessment process, has yet to be met, according to Kung.

“It’s an open question whether the NEB process as it currently stands would fulfill that first condition given how widely criticized that process has been including by the province,” Kung said.

Kung added the fifth condition which pertains to First Nations rights needs further discussion.

“Based on where the state of Canadian law on aboriginal rights is today and in particular the practical requirements for consent as set out the in Chilcoltin decision — combined with the Tsliel-Waututh and other Fist Nations well-grounded and well-founded rejection of the project — makes it difficult for a linear project like a pipeline to meet all those conditions.”

“It’s hard to imagine those conditions being met if the aboriginal law rights and title requirements do have to be met because that clearly hasn’t happened,” he said.

“I haven’t seen anything from the minister on their position on that.”

This article was updated January 11, 2016 at 4:00pm to include comments from Eugene Kung.

Image: Environment Minister Mary Polak via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new report released Thursday by the Ontario Energy Board finds the risks of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, destined to carry Alberta oilsands crude to eastern refineries and export facilities, outweigh the project’s benefits.

The board’s vice-president, Peter Fraser, said the report, prepared at the request of Ontario Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli, finds “an imbalance between the economic and environmental risks of the project and the expect benefits for Ontarians.”

The Energy East pipeline, projected to transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, is the continent’s largest proposed pipeline, outsizing the company’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which has become a political boondoggle in the U.S. in recent years due to growing concerns over oil spills, private property and climate.

The Ontario Energy Board traveled to communities along the pipeline route to gauge public sentiment about the project and, according to the report, found fears over potential water pollution running high throughout the province.

“The top concern expressed was the risk of an oil spill as the pipeline runs new or across many waterways,” Fraser said. “Our advice is that for the existing pipeline, when it is too close to environmentally sensitive areas, it should be rerouted unless it can be justified by TransCanada as necessary.”

The report states concerns over water were “routinely expressed” at community meetings and mentions a First Nations elder who put the question to the board by saying, “Would you put something in your mother’s blood that would poison her? Your mother wouldn’t be able to hold you then.”

The report recommends TransCanada “pay particular attention to protecting Nipigon Lake, Trout Lake, the Ottawa River, the Rideau River, the Oxfard-Marsh Aquifer, the Nepean Aquifer, and other areas where there is elevated public concern.”

The report stated the Crown's "duty to consult" with Canada's First Nations was high on the minds of many community members and said it considers this responsibility "a very important issue" when considering the fate of the pipeline. The final decision-making authority over the pipeline rests with the federal government, as does the duty to consult.

The board also noted Ontario’s own requirement that pipeline projects have the “highest available technical standards” for protection of the public and the environment.

Yet the board did not find TransCanada met those reqirements.

“We cannot state that the project meets the highest available technical standards, as the proponent, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd, has not yet filed a complete application,” Chair and CEO of the board, Rosemarie Leclair, said.

The board said construction of the pipeline, which involves converting and redirecting a pre-existing natural gas pipeline as well as constructing a new extended portion of the line, could create as many as 114,000 full-time equivalent jobs and add $12 to $19 billion to the province’s GDP.

But the report also noted the costs associated with an oil spill “could easily surpass $1 billion.” As a result, TransCanada “needs to demonstrate that, in the event of a spill, the amount of crude oil that could be released will be as low as reasonably possible,” the report’s authors write.

The authors recommend an examination of TransCanada’s safety record during the National Energy Board’s Energy East hearings.

The report also finds the project will take an existing natural gas line out of operation, potentially driving up gas prices. The report states: “We are concerned that, even with the new natural gas pipeline that TransCanada is proposing to build in eastern Ontario, Energy East will reduce the supply and increase the price of natural gas for consumers in that region.”

In February the Ontario Energy Board released a report on Energy East’s climate impacts, prepared by Navius Research, that was widely criticized for downplaying the pipeline’s influence on oilsands expansion and the country’s rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Adam Scott from Environmental Defence said the board’s recent report “raises serious concerns about Energy East.”

Scott said the report makes clear the environmental risks of the pipeline are high, especially for a “risky project” that “does not have the support of communities along the pipeline route in Ontario.”

“Many participants also raised concerns that Energy East would directly facilitate the expansion of the Alberta tar sands, increasing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. This would make Canada an irresponsible player in a world where more and more countries are working hard to reduce their impact on the climate.”

He added the board’s analysis of the project’s climate impacts was “disappointing” and “based on outdated and inaccurate information.”

A report by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy think tank, found the oil needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would account for an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions release into the atmosphere each year.

Pembina estimated that’s the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads and is “higher than the total current provincial emissions of five provinces.”

The board discussed Pembina’s findings in its recent report, saying “climate change was one of the key issues mentioned by people when they discussed the impacts of Energy East,” adding people felt addressing the impacts of the project without discussing climate change was inadequate.

Image Credit: TransCanada via Youtube

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

An estimated 25,000 took to the streets of Quebec City Saturday to protest the federal government’s lack of leadership on climate change and unfaltering support for increased production in the Alberta oilsands.

“Our message is simple — yes to climate equals no to the tar sands,” Christian Simard, executive direct of Nature Quebec, said. Nature Quebec along with Greenpeace, Equiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation and other eastern Canadian environmental groups organized the demonstration — already being called the largest climate protest in Canada's history.

Demonstrators filled the streets of Quebec City’s historic quarter demanding the nation's premiers be climate leaders and reject proposed pipeline projects like TransCanada’s Energy East and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain.

“We don’t want to see the premiers under the cover of a national energy strategy agreeing to help Alberta expand the tar sands. A national energy strategy needs also to be a climate strategy,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

All premiers will be in Quebec City next week, save Nova Scotia's Stephen McNeil, for the annual premiers’ summit.

Update April 15: B.C. premier Christy Clark and Alberta premier Jim Prentice also declined to attend the climate summit. For details on the province's role in the summit read our DeSmog Canada Primer: How is Your Province Acting on Climate? A Primer for the Premier's Climate Summit.

Discussions on new oil pipeline projects will feature prominently during this year’s meeting which has the sole focus of addressing climate change. The oilsands and pipeline industry has run up against roadblocks in recent years in British Columbia, the United States and now Quebec while seeking public approval for major projects designed to export oilsands bitumen to international markets.

Thousands march on the streets of Quebec City. Photo: Derek Leahy

“Quebec and Ontario are facing the prospect of the largest tar sands pipeline in North America in Energy East. Ontario and Quebec need to decide if they will take climate change seriously and say no to Energy East,” Scott told DeSmog Canada.

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard have both professed a desire to be ‘climate leaders.’ Both also support the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline expected to travel through their provinces.  

The turnout in Quebec City for the ‘Act on Climate’ march may be an indicator Wynne and Coulliard, by supporting Energy East, may find their positions offside in their respective provinces. According to a recent poll, one in two Canadians are against the west-to-east pipeline project.

“There is no compromise between climate change and tar sands expansion — it is just not possible,” Simard told DeSmog Canada.

A new report released this week by Environmental Defence and Greenpeace argues it is highly unlikely Canada can meet any greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and grow the oilsands at the same time. If the oilsands continue to grow, by 2020 Alberta will produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as B.C., Ontario and Quebec combined. Alberta compromises only eleven per cent of Canada’s total population.

“It’s ridiculous that politicians claim to want to address climate change while also wanting tar sands production to grow. These are totally incompatible goals,” Dale Marshall, national program manager at Environmental Defence and co-author of the report, said.

Act on Climate rally. Photo: Derek Leahy

As part of the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris this year, Canada was suppose to table plans on how the country will make deep reductions in emissions output. No such plans surfaced from Ottawa. South of the border, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to a joint task force on climate policy. Canada decline to participate in that agreement.

“We march today for a Canada we can be proud of again. It’s time for climate policy to be developed in Ottawa, not in the oil patch,” Tzeporah Berman, co-founder of ForestEthics, said.

Photo: Derek Leahy

Students groups, First Nations, unions and other segments of civil society all participated in today’s march.

Image Credit: Derek Leahy

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A panel of leading environmental groups expressed concern last week over findings in an Ontario Energy Board commissioned report that suggest oil tanker trains could replace TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline if the project isn't approved. 

“We believe the report makes a number of flawed assumptions on rail capacity, and actually goes beyond the oil industry’s own projections,” Ben Powless, a panel presenter at the province's Energy East stakeholder meeting and pipeline community organizer for Ecology Ottawa, said.

The energy board's report, written by Navius Research, estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of the pipeline — which is project to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil per day — will be "modest" since the oil could could just as easily be brought to market by rail.

“It is highly unlikely that 1.1 million barrels of oil or even half of that could be shipped by rail,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, countered. Scott and Powless joined panel members from the Council of Canadians and the Ottawa chapter of 350.org to argue against the report's findings at a stakeholders meeting on Energy East in Ottawa last week.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) projects oil-by-rail in Canada will only hit 700,000 barrels per day by 2016. Even if sufficient additional rail capacity were proposed, the panel found it “overly optimistic” to assume public support in light of recent oil tank car explosions, such as the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic.

“We have trouble believing more oil-by-rail won’t cause public opposition,” Powless said.  

Climate impacts of Energy East debated

Navius’ report is one of only two studies assessing the GHG emissions from a fully operational Energy East pipeline. By assuming Energy East’s 1.1 million barrels will be extracted regardless of the pipeline's approval, the report sees only a 1.2 and 10.2 megatonnes-of-carbon increase in Canada’s carbon footprint due to Energy East. 

“Energy East will likely increase emissions from 'well-to-tank' (extraction to refineries) in the rest of Canada, but the impact is likely to be relatively modest,” the report concludes.

Navius’s findings differ greatly from the first study on Energy East’s potential GHG emissions by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy think tank:

“The crude production needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would generate an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads.” 

The Pembina study does not assume oil-by-rail will replace Energy East if the pipeline is not constructed, leading to constraints on production in the oil patch.

Ontario’s environmental leadership on the line with Energy East

“Energy East is Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Keystone," Muthanna Subbaiah of the Ottawa chapter of 350.org said at the meeting. 

"President Obama said he will veto Keystone XL. Wynne needs to reject Energy East.” 

The province has talked much about being a climate leader and is hosting an international climate summit this summer, but attracted criticism over its position on Energy East. Ontario Premier Wynne recently stated her government will only consider the GHG emissions from Energy East that occur within Ontario, meaning the climate impacts from developing oil in the Alberta oilsands will be excluded from consideration.

Navius’ report for the Ontario Energy Board finds the pipeline will cause an 0.4 per cent increase in GHG emissions in Ontario. These emissions will be almost exclusively from pipeline pumping stations running on either natural gas or Ontario's relatively clean electricity.

“The Ontario government needs to step up and protect us,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, told the audience attending the public meeting.

The panel also voiced concerns about TransCanada’s safety record, the effects of a oil spill on the province’s natural environment and the fact TransCanada’s application for the pipeline is incomplete.

“I don’t know of a clearer warning than the Kalamazoo spill,” Harden-Donahue stated.

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 remains the largest inland pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, and cost well over one billion dollars in cleanup costs. The Enbridge pipeline ruptured when the pipeline's external polyethylene tape coating became unglued, allowing moisture to corrode the pipe.

Ninety-nine kilometers of the existing natural gas pipeline TransCanada plans on converting for the Energy East project in Ontario is coated with polyethylene tape.

Image Credit: Ecology Ottawa

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alberta Premier Jim Prentice begins an Energy East lobby tour today in Quebec City to try to woo the premiers of Quebec and Ontario into supporting TransCanada's 1.1 million barrel-per-day oil pipeline proposal.

“It is a sign the project is in danger,” Patrick Bonin, a Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner based in Montreal, told DeSmog Canada. “Over 70 per cent of Quebecers don’t want Energy East to be built.”

Ontario and Quebec announced last month that Energy East would have to meet seven conditions to gain the provinces' approval of the 4,600-kilometer pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick. Included in these conditions is a demand for a full environmental assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline.

An analysis conducted earlier this year by the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank, found the greenhouse gas emissions from extracting the oilsands bitumen to fill the Energy East pipeline would erase all reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by Ontario’s phase out of coal-fired power plants. The analysis did not include emissions from combustion, which would make Energy East’s carbon footprint even higher.

“If Ontario and Quebec are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change then the Energy East tar sands pipeline project is dead already,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

Prentice meets with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard Tuesday and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in Toronto on Wednesday.

Ontario and Quebec's conditions exceed B.C.’s heavy oil conditions

This is not the first time an Alberta premier has travelled to another province on behalf of a pipeline project. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark famously inflamed relations with Alberta with her five conditions for the Northern Gateway pipeline, which resulted in some icy meetings with then Alberta premier Alison Redford.

Clark's demand to receive a greater share of the fiscal benefits from Northern Gateway was a contentious issue between the two western provinces, but she did not go as far as Wynne and Couillard in insisting the pipeline's greenhouse gas emissions be properly assessed.

The National Energy Board's reviews of pipeline projects aren't taking climate change into account, which has left a leadership vacuum that the provinces are stepping in to fill. New pipelines facilitate expansion of oilsands production, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

The seven conditions on the Government of Ontario's website.

Bad news for Energy East continues

Prentice’s visit comes during a turbulent public relations spell for Energy East.

Documents leaked to Greenpeace last month revealed TransCanada had hired global PR firm Edelman to work on an aggressive strategy of undermining Energy East opponents through tactics that included creating phony grassroots groups to give the impression of genuine support of the pipeline. The revelations caused TransCanada and Edelman to publicly part ways.

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, former Maple Spring student activist and author, announced on Radio-Canada just days after the leak that he was donating his $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award to an anti-pipeline coalition and encouraged the public to do match it. Donations have reached $400,000 now. 

Yesterday the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the belugas whales of the St. Lawrence Estuary — where TransCanada has plans for an Energy East marine oil tanker terminal — are at greater risk of extinction than a decade ago, forcing TransCanada to halt work on the terminal.   

“It’s good news and bad news,” Bonin says. “TransCanada’s marine terminal at Cacouna probably won’t be built now, but it is sad to find out the beluga population is not recovering."

Image Credit: Jim Prentice via Twitter, WWF Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A fiery CN train derailment in rural Saskatchewan has many people asking what could have happened if the accident occurred in a more populated area.

The 100-car freight train derailed Tuesday about 190 kilometres east of Saskatoon. Twenty-six cars left the track, including six carrying dangerous goods. Two cars containing petroleum distillate caught fire, sending 30-metre flames into the air. Several explosions were also confirmed.

The area around Clair, Sask., was evacuated overnight. Families were allowed to return to their homes Wednesday morning according to Harold Narfason, chief of the Wadena & District Fire Department.

The volunteer fire department was the first on the scene.

Narfason told DeSmog Canada his department has long been aware that dangerous commodities are being shipped by rail through the area.

“I’ve attended numerous meetings with CN to get informed and there are more cars moving through,” Narfason said.

On the scene of the derailment, his team quickly accessed the hazmat sheets, which indicated they were dealing with the explosive petroleum distillate.

“Everything is going as good as it can under the circumstances,” Narfason said.  

The railway industry has been in the spotlight since July 2013 when 47 people died after an oil train derailed and exploded in downtown Lac-Megantic, Que.

In August, the Transportation Safety Board issued a report into the Lac-Megantic tragedy that called for improved safety measures and cited inadequate oversight by Transport Canada.

Overall shipments of oil by rail in Canada have increased by 28,000 per cent since 2009.

The surge in rail transport of petroleum products has outpaced regulatory oversight, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In an October 2013 report, CCPA executive director Bruce Campbell, wrote, “In my view, the evidence points to a fundamentally flawed regulatory system, cost-cutting corporate behaviour that jeopardized public safety and the environment, and responsibility extending to the highest levels of corporate management and government policy making.”

Adam Scott, a spokesman for the advocacy group Environmental Defence, told the Canadian Press that an accident like the one in Saskatchewan could have happened anywhere in Canada.

“The freight rail lines actually go right through the centre of almost every major urban centre in the entire country … so the risk of accidents is significant,” Scott said.

Scott said rail companies in Canada are not required to publicly disclose the types of hazardous materials being transported on trains.

ForestEthics has set up a ‘blast zone’ website, which allows users to search by address for oil train routes in Canada and the U.S.

A quick look at the blast zone map indicates CN ought to be counting its lucky stars this latest derailment happened in a town of 50 people instead of a city of 500,000.

Photo: Wadena News

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A photographer who has shot for National Geographic Traveller is setting out on a road trip along the proposed route of the TransCanada Energy East pipeline. Robert van Waarden is trying to crowdsource $10,000 to partially cover the costs of his project to put a human face on the proposed $1.2 billion project.

“There is an opportunity to tell the personal story about how people along the line feel,” van Waarden says about his motivation to capture stories from a cross section of Canadians stretching from “the fisherman on Grand Manan Island to the farmer in Saskatchewan.”

Energy East is a massive project proposed by TransCanada Corp. to bring 1.1 million barrels a day of western oil to eastern markets along a 4,600-kilometre pipeline. It involves the conversion of an existing gas pipeline, the development of 72 new pumping stations along the route and new pipelines to connect the line from the oilsands in Alberta to Quebec City and then on to St. John, N.B.

“This is going to cross so much Canadian land and waterways and First Nations land and it’s going to have a big impact,” van Waarden says.

Image credit: Robert van Waarden

Supporters of the proposal describe Energy East as a 'nation-building' piece of infrastructure to eliminate Eastern Canada’s dependency on imported oil. A report prepared for TransCanada estimated the pipeline would create more than 10,000 jobs and generate $10 billion in GDP during the construction phase and sustain 1,000 direct full-time jobs during the 40-year lifespan of the project.

The Pembina Institute, a sustainable energy think tank, says the oil needed to fill Energy East would generate up to 32 million tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions each year – 50 per cent more than the Keystone XL pipeline.

“Many people will talk about the climate impact of the pipeline, but less people will inherently understand what it will be like to live along the route,” Adam Scott, a program manager at Environmental Defence, says. “Robert’s work is a really important way for people to make an emotional connection.”

The Energy East pipeline would cross many farmer's fields, like this one in Rigaud, Quebec. Image credit: Robert van Waarden

Environmental Defence and Greenpeace Quebec have provided some seed funding for van Waarden’s project and the crowd-funded money is meant to fill the gap. Van Waarden plans to complement his images with multi-media stories featuring the voices of the people he encounters in his travels. Scott says Environmental Defence wants to take large prints of the final images on tour to communities along the proposed pipeline.

Van Waarden studied photography at the Western Academy of Photography in Victoria in 2004. His publication credits include National Geographic Traveller, Canadian Geographic and CNN. His photos have been featured in solo exhibits in London, England, Ottawa, Washington, D.C., and Cairo. For his Along the Pipeline project, van Waarden will be shooting with a film camera, a Toyo 4×5, because he “really wanted to slow it down a notch.”

In early March, TransCanada submitted a project description to the National Energy Board and is expected to file for full regulatory approval this summer. The federal Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, as well as every provincial premier along the route, are publicly in support of the project.

Visit van Waarden's Indiegogo campaign page.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.