Montreal Mayor Denise Coderre announced Thursday the city's formal opposition to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline. The 4,600-kilometer west-to-east oil pipeline project would see 1,600 kilometres of new pipe built along the St. Lawrence River in Quebec and in New Brunswick.

"We are against it because it still represents significant environmental threats and too few economic benefits for greater Montreal," Coderre said in a press conference.

Groups opposed to the 1.1 million barrels-a-day project, which is significantly larger than TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, welcomed the announcement.

“Today, 82 municipal counsellors, representing 3.9 million citizens in the greater Montreal region, have issued a resounding ‘no’ to the Energy East project and to TransCanada Corporation,” Steven Guilbeault, Senior Director at Équiterre, said in a media release.

Coderre’s announcement came after 82 municipalities comprising the Communauté Municipale de Montréal (Montreal Metropolitan Community) voted this morning on whether to approve or oppose the project. Energy East’s proposed route would go through the northern municipalities of the greater Montreal-area.

“We’re really happy,” Audrey Yank, spokesperson for Montreal-based citizens-group Coalition Vigilance Oleoducs told DeSmog Canada. “It feels like a another small victory to give us hope.”

“TransCanada is asking us to bear all the risks of Energy East in exchange for very small benefits,” Yank said.

Energy East has faced stiff opposition in Quebec for over a year now. TransCanada’s plan to build an export tanker terminal in Quebec near the calving waters of endangered beluga whales was met by public outcry. Even Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is not an Energy East opponent, suggested publicly TransCanada should look some place else for its terminal.

In the face of growing Quebec public opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada scrapped plans for building a terminal anywhere in Quebec last November.

But by canceling plans to build a terminal in Quebec, selling the project to Quebecers on the basis of economic benefits has become difficult. The Montreal Metropolitan Community conducted public consultations on Energy East last fall and the majority of those who participated were against the project.

In a 2015 poll, 57 percent of Quebecers expressed their opposition to Energy East.

Montreal is the first major city to come out against the project to transport oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen across the country from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. Winnipeg and Ottawa also sit along Energy East’s purposed route, but neither has shown the same degree of opposition as Montreal as of yet.

Ottawa-resident Mike Fletcher is hoping this will change soon.

“Ottawa has more risk and potentially less benefit than Montreal from this horrible proposal. The pipe through Ottawa is used, as opposed to proposed new pipe in Montreal,” Fletcher told DeSmog Canada.

“But so far Ottawa's reaction has been mixed. We are glad that the City will produce a letter of comment to the National Energy Board, but most of our municipal elected officials need to square up against Energy East,” Fletcher said. The 3,000 kilometres of the proposed pipeline situated west of Quebec is an existing natural gas line TransCanada plans on converting to oil.

Fletcher has played a key role in local group Ecology Ottawa’s campaign against the Energy East pipeline over the last two years. Ecology Ottawa was one of several environmental organizations targeted by a botched TransCanada PR campaign to undermine pipeline opponents in 2014.

Provincial governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick support the project. Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have all been guarded in their statements about Energy East, neither denouncing nor fully endorsing their provinces acting as a thoroughfare for the pipeline.

Ontario’s energy regulator examined TransCanada’s application for Energy East and concluded the project was not in the best interest of Canada’s most populous province.

Audrey Yank from Coalition Vigilance Oleoducs is concerned that Montreal’s analysis of the Energy East project does not cover the potential impacts the pipeline could have on climate change. 

“It appears the analysis does not address green house gas emissions. Climate change should be part of the analysis, especially after the Paris climate talks,” Yank said.

“We can’t build fossil fuels infrastructure that lasts 40 or 50 years if we need to get to a zero-carbon economy by 2050,” Yank told DeSmog Canada.

Montreal’s announcement comes amongst a flurry of protests and calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to keep his election promise to initiate new regulatory reviews of Energy East and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline in B.C. that will include climate impacts, and stronger recognition of First Nations’ concerns.

Image Credit: Ville de Montréal 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.

TransCanada announced Thursday the company no longer plans to build an oil tanker terminal at the controversial site of Cacouna, Quebec, as part of its 1.1 million barrel-a-day Energy East oil pipeline project.

“TransCanada will be advising the NEB (National Energy Board) that the company will not be proceeding with a marine terminal in Cacouna and is evaluating other options,” the Calgary-based pipeline company said in a press release. Cacouna was TransCanada's lone Quebec terminal.

TransCanada used the announcement as an opportunity to take a shot at Energy East’s critics. 

“It goes without saying but we’ll say it anyway, our decision was certainly not made because of opposition from some well-funded groups that want to deny Canadians the right to benefit from a reliable domestic supply of energy that ensures Canadians enjoy the quality of life they’ve come to expect in this country every day,” TransCanada states on its Energy East website.

The comments are reminiscent of Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s foreign funded “radical groups” remarks regarding Northern Gateway pipeline opponents in 2012.  

TransCanada now projects the pipeline will be in operation in 2020, two years later than the original date of 2018.

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told the Globe and Mail the delay shows TransCanada is "clearly in damage-control mode."

“There is no chance TransCanada will find a place in Quebec where they will find the social licence to operate,” Patrick Bonin, Climate and Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

“The majority of Quebec doesn’t want this project."

TransCanada lost face with the public when documents leaked to Greenpeace revealed the company's strategy to undermine opposition to the Energy East pipeline.

The proposal to build a marine oil tanker terminal for Energy East in Cacouna has been at the centre of controversy for months. Cacouna is near the breeding grounds of the declining St. Lawrence Estuary beluga whales. Last December, the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada recommended placing the belugas on the species at risk list due to their dwindling numbers.

Russ Girling, TransCanada CEO, said the company cancelled the Cacouna terminal in response to concerns about the whales.

"This decision is the result of the recommended change in status of the Beluga whales to endangered and ongoing discussions we have had with communities and key stakeholders," he said in a statement.

Jennifer Skene from the Natural Resources Defense Council writes the loss of the terminal is the result of public opposition to the project.

"This is just another roadblock encountered by Energy East, as growing public opposition to tar sands continues to block proposed pipelines and undermine the industry's climate-destroying expansion plans." 

“By abandoning its tanker terminal plans for Cacouna, Quebec, TransCanada has finally admitted Energy East carries major risks for Canada,” Environmental Defence’s Adam Scott told the Globe and Mail.

“If TransCanada is serious about listening, it should move immediately to cancel the Energy East project,” he said.

Energy East is “an export pipeline that has nothing to do with meeting Canadian demand for oil," Scott added.

Canceling Cacouna No Surprise

Rumours of the decision to axe Cacouna from the pipeline project surfaced months ago.

Montreal-based newspaper La Presse, citing government sources, reported in February TransCanada was no longer considering Cacouna as the site for Energy East’s Quebec terminal. Similar reports resurfaced in La Presse and other news outlets this earlier week.

TransCanada denied all reports, claiming no decision had been reached. Originally, the pipeline company planned to unveil its decision on Cacouna last Tuesday, but delayed the announcement.

The possibility of an alternate Quebec terminal remains.

“Potential alternative terminal options in Quebec are being reviewed. Quebec and New Brunswick refineries would continue to be connected directly to Energy East,” a TransCanada press release states.

According to the company all changes to the Energy East project will be filed with the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s pipelines regulator, by the fall.

The regulatory process, which will partially decide the fate of the Energy East project, will not begin until TransCanada submits complete and finalized project plans on the pipeline. The NEB has already received over 1,800 applications from Canadians wishing to comment on the project.

Any changes to the project means the participant application process will likely be reopened, potentially allowing more members of the public to participate in the regulatory hearings. Hearings are now expected to begin in 2016.

Photo credit: Inhabitat

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.

By midnight March 3 the National Energy Board (NEB) received 1,801 applications from groups and individuals wishing to express their views on the proposed Energy East oil pipeline. At least 1,250 applicants indicated they want to comment on the impacts the west-to-east pipeline will have on climate change, according to environmental organization 350.org.

“I have applied to intervene at the NEB hearing to talk about the impact of the proposed pipeline on greenhouse gas emissions because I think that it’s outrageous that impacts of the pipeline on climate would be deliberately excluded from the assessment process,” Danny Harvey, professor of Geography and Planning at the University of Toronto said in a statement.

The NEB, Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, has been clear it will not accept public comments on the climate impacts of TransCanada's Energy East pipeline. With the majority of applicants wanting to comment on this very issue, the NEB is now in a position where it may very well deny most applicants a voice in the regulatory review process.  

“This speaks to Canadians wanting to talk about climate change and tar sands expansion at the federal level. There is nowhere else to go to talk about this stuff with the federal government,” Cam Fenton, Canadian Tar Sands Organizer with 350.org, told DeSmog Canada.

350.org managed to track individuals wanting to comment on the climate impacts of Energy East through the organization’s website. The group estimates 1250 individuals intend to address climate change.

Energy East is the largest oil pipeline proposal in North America. If approved the 4,600-kilometer pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick would move 1.1 million barrels of oil and western Canadian oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen every day.

“You Can’t Ignore the Climate Impacts"

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with extracting, shipping and consuming 1.1 million barrels of crude daily is comparable to putting another seven million cars on the road, according to the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank.

“You can’t ignore the climate impacts like this without significant protest,” Fenton said.

The board plans on announcing this summer who will be permitted to participate in the regulatory process on Energy East. Due to restrictive rules on public participation introduced in federal omnibus budget bill C-38 in 2012, the NEB only permits Canadians the board believes are “directly affected” or have “relevant information or expertise” on a project to submit comments.

During the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain oil pipeline regulatory process in British Columbia, the NEB received over two thousand applications to participate and of those four hundred and sixty-eight were rejected. Among were twenty-seven scientists and experts wanting to comment on the climate impacts of expanding Trans Mountain's capacity.

The Energy East process may have three times the amount of ‘rejectees’ if the board chooses to thrown out all applications from individuals and groups who expressed interest in commenting on climate change.

“A full accounting of economic costs and benefits must include external costs of production — in particular, the impact on existing economic activity, potential impacts due to spills, and impacts on human populations associated with climate change impacts,” Marc Lee, Senior Economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, stated in a press release.

Proposed Route of Energy East is Still Unclear

Although the month-long application period to apply to participate in the regulatory process on Energy East closed March 3, the NEB have may to reopen it sometime in the near future.

“If TransCanada were to make changes that result in additional individuals and groups being directly impacted by the project, the Board has procedural flexibility to address those matters, if and when they materialize. For example, we could re-open the application to participate process,” Katherine Murphy, spokesperson for the NEB, said in a statement.

The board has not determined yet if TransCanada's application is complete and contains all the necessary information for the regulatory process to move forward. Furthermore, Energy East’s proposed route is still in question.

TransCanada initially proposed the building of two marine oil tanker terminals, one in Quebec and another in New Brunswick, as part of the project. The site selected for Quebec — Cacouna — has been controversial for months. The port of Cacouna is adjacent to the breeding grounds of endangered belugas whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary.

Quebec media citing government sources reported last month TransCanada was abandoning its plans for Cacouna. TransCanada has denied the report and says it will make its final decision on Cacouna by the end of March.

Changing the proposed site of a terminal in Quebec or eliminating it entirely from the project would alter the routing of the 1,600 kilometers of new pipeline TransCanada plans on constructing through Quebec and New Brunswick. This could create a new group of Canadians who suddenly are “directly affected” or in position of “relevant information or expertise” on the project.

According to the changes the federal government made to the National Energy Board Act in 2012, the NEB only has fifteen months to make its recommendation on a pipeline project.   

But the clock does not start ticking on the allotted fifteen months until the board delivers its ‘hearing order,’ a document that spells out who has been approved to participate in the regulatory process and when and where public hearings will take place. The hearing order will be issued sometime this summer.

Image Credit: Pacific Wild

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.

Environmental organizations are demanding TransCanada clarify immediately whether constructing a marine oil tanker terminal in Quebec is still part of the company’s Energy East oil pipeline project.

“[TransCanada] should reconsider its positions and show more transparency by revealing its real intentions behind its project in Quebec. The company should stop showing disregard to Quebecers and give us the real facts,” Christian Simard, director of Nature Québec said in a statement.

Earlier this week the Montreal-based news outlet La Presse reported that several sources in the Quebec government had confirmed TransCanada is no longer considering Cacouna, a port on the St. Lawrence River, as the site of an export terminal for the 4,600 kilometre west-to-east proposed pipeline.

TransCanada quickly denied the report. The Calgary-based pipeline company insists it will make a decision on Cacouna at the end of March.

The port is near the breeding grounds of endangered beluga whales and the proposal to build a terminal and subsequently increase oil tanker traffic through beluga habitat has been at the centre of controversy for months in Quebec. Ignoring the risks to belugas would likely enrage a Quebec populace already skeptical about the TransCanada project.   

St. Lawrence River

“TransCanada must confirm it has abandoned its plans in Cacouna and concede that such a platform cannot be built without having a great impact on the beluga population. Considering the fragile ecosystem of the region, which is already subject to intense pressures, we believe that the company should drop its plan to build a tanker terminal in the St. Lawrence River,” Karel Mayrand of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, stated.

Last December the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada warned the St. Lawrence’s belugas are at even greater risk of extinction than they were ten years ago. The committee concluded the belugas should be on Canada’s species-at-risk list. 

“The company refuses to admit that the Cacouna terminal project is dead and that there is no plan B. The company is trying to buy time and save face among its stakeholders,” Patrick Bonin, a Climate and Energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada, said in joint press release on Wednesday.  

Groups Warn Lack of Oil Tanker Spill Preparedness in St. Lawrence

Public concerns in Quebec about Energy East substantially increasing oil tanker traffic on the St. Lawrence may make it impossible for TransCanada to construct a terminal in Quebec if the project is approved. TransCanada has plans for a second export terminal Saint John, New Brunswick.

Two separate reports released this week argue the 1.1 million barrels-a-day pipeline will increase tanker traffic on the St. Lawrence by at least two hundred ships yearly. The reports warn an oil tanker spill on the St. Lawrence could have “catastrophic” consequences.

“The environmental consequences on both the land and the water associated with tanker accidents are usually catastrophic for the directly affected ecosystems. Cleanup and remediation efforts are always very expensive and often ineffective,” Émilien Pelletier, Professor Emeritus and Canada Research Chair in Molecular Exotoxicology in Coastal Areas at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, writes in the “Doubling Down on Disaster” report.

Illustrative map of Energy East's proposed route along the St. Lawrence in Quebec

The private company responsible for responding to an oil tanker spill on the St. Lawrence, Eastern Canada Response Corporation, is “vastly under-resourced” with only thirteen employees in Quebec. In its own study on Energy East, the emergency response company estimates it would take them twelve hours to respond to an oil tanker spill.

“Navigation professionals generally recognize the St. Lawrence as one of the most difficult waters to navigate in the world,” the second report on oil tanker traffic through the St. Lawrence states. 

Frequent changes of current, sudden weather changes, the presence shoals and ice cover in the winter are some of the factors the report cites making piloting through the 1,600 kilometres of the St. Lawrence no easy task. The river’s ecosystem is home to 1,700 wildlife species.

“After mapping out the risks and threats entailed by the proposed strategies for transporting oil through the already-weakened St. Lawrence ecosystem, our organizations do not see how these projects can be compatible with biodiversity protection, human safety and economic activities that rely on the St. Lawrence,” the report concludes. The David Suzuki Foundation, World Wildlife Fund Canada and Société pour la Nature et les Parcs (SNAP) authored the report.  

Call to Halt NEB Process On Energy East Until Terminal’s Location Clarified

Groups in Quebec once again called on the National Energy Board (NEB), federal regulator of interprovincial pipelines, to suspend the regulatory process on Energy East until TransCanada clarifies where and if there will be an export terminal in Quebec.

“Dropping plans in Cacouna will have a significant impact on the pipeline route, on the people who are directly affected by it as well as on the expert assessment on the project. It would be unfair to keep the same deadlines for the NEB public hearing process, especially since many crucial aspects of the project remain in a state of uncertainty,” Karine Peloffy, director of the environmental group Centre Québécois du droit de l’environment (CQDE), said.

The NEB restricts public participation in the regulatory process on new pipeline projects to Canadians who are “directly affected” or possess “relevant information or expertise” on a project. Without major project details like the site of an export terminal, the board will be weaker and uncertain ground when determining who is an expert or directly affected by Energy East.

Canadians must apply to the NEB to participate in the Energy East regulatory process no later than March 3rd. TransCanada says it will make its final decision on Cacouna by March 31st.

Image Credit: St. Lawrence Oilway? report  

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.

TransCanada appears to have dumped plans for constructing a marine oil tanker export terminal at the controversial location of Cacouna, Quebec, as part of its Energy East oil pipeline project.

Several sources in the Quebec government told Montreal-based newspaper La Presse TransCanada is abandoning its plans for Cacouna, on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, as the 1.1 million barrels-a-day pipeline project’s Quebec export terminal. A second terminal is proposed for Saint John, New Brunswick.

“This is a great citizen victory,” Patrick Bonin, Climate and Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada in Montreal, said. Cacouna’s close proximity to the breeding grounds of the St. Lawrence Estuary beluga whales has been at the centre of controversy around the proposed marine terminal in Quebec.

TransCanada denies its has given up on Cacouna. According to a TransCanada spokesperson, the Calgary-based pipeline company intends on making a decision on the Cacouna terminal at the end of March. Francois Poirier, president of the Energy East, made the same announcement last week.

Construction and exploratory work in and around Cacouna has been at a standstill since last December when the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the St. Lawrence’s belugas are at even greater risk of extinction than they were ten years ago. The committee concluded the belugas should be on Canada’s species-at-risk list.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is not opposed to the $12 billion pipeline project, said he would find it hard to support the construction of the Cacouna marine terminal in light of the risks it could pose to the belugas’ dwindling numbers.

If TransCanada has decided not to build its deep-water terminal at Cacouna, finding an alternative in Quebec may prove difficult. The mayor and council of the port city of Levis, another a possible site for an Energy East export terminal, have been less than receptive to the idea in the past. In total eight potential sites in Quebec are under consideration by TransCanada for an export terminal.

Forgoing building a terminal in Quebec entirely will also make it harder for TransCanada to sell to Quebecers the argument the province will benefit economically from Energy East. A report last June revealed the economic benefits of the pipeline project will be “minimal” even with the construction of an export terminal.

Quebec groups demand suspension of Energy East review

“We want the NEB [National Energy Board] to suspend the regulatory process for Energy East. We don’t know the exact route [of the pipeline] anymore,” Bonin of Greenpeace told DeSmog Canada.

The NEB, Canada’s federal regulator of pipelines, kick started the regulatory process on Energy East last week when it made its ‘application to participate’ available to the public. Canadians wishing to have their comments on the pipeline project heard by the NEB must apply by the end of the month.

Groups in Quebec are already demanding the NEB halt the process due to the lack information on the project available to the public. The environmental group Centre Québécois du droit de l’environment (CQDE) and landowner France Lamonde are seeking a court injunction to halt the process until more information about the Energy East application is available in French.

TransCanada submitted a 30,000-page Energy East application to the NEB. Critics point out the massive application is still incomplete. The pipeline company plans on submitting more information later this month.

Image Credit: Bill Liao 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.