Environmental and citizen groups in Quebec are demanding the National Energy Board (NEB) explain why it refuses to order a hydrostatic safety test of Enbridge's Line 9 pipeline, a west-to-east oil pipeline that could come online as early as next month.

A hydrostatic test or hydrotest is a commonly used method to determine whether a pipeline can operate safely at its maximum operating pressure. The test involves pumping water at through the pipeline at levels higher than average operating pressures. Enbridge is reversing the flow of the 39-year old Line 9 pipeline, which previously carried imported oil inland from Canada's east coast, and will increase its capacity from 240,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil per day.

“[The NEB] claims to be transparent and to listen to what the public is saying, yet despite having all the required information in their possession for over six months, it refuses to render a written and reasoned decision on whether or not it will impose hydrostatic tests on the length of Line 9B,” Lorraine Caron, spokesperson for the citizen group Citoyens au Courant, said.

When the NEB, Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, approved the Enbridge pipeline project in March 2014, the board stated it could order a hydrostatic test of Line 9 if it felt the integrity of the 39-year old pipeline was in question. So far the board has chosen not to exercise this option and has said very little as to why.

“Refusing to make a decision public means the NEB wants to keep the public in a state of ignorance. This only contributes to diminishing public confidence in the NEB,” Steven Guilbeault, executive director of Equiterre, said.

Citoyens au Courant, Equiterre, l’Association Québécoise de Lutte Contre la Pollution Atmosphérique, Environnement Jeunesse, Climate Justice Montréal, Nature Québec, Sierra Club Québec and Environmental Defence jointly filed a request for clarification with the NEB on its hydrotest position Tuesday.  

The half dozen Quebec-based groups are concerned the untested pipeline could have disastrous consequences for residents of southern Ontario and southern Quebec, especially if the line leaks or ruptures while transporting oilsands (also called tarsands) bitumen.

Recent bitumen spills in Canada and the U.S. have proven extremely difficult and costly to cleanup.

''The NEB as a quasi-judicial court has the responsibility and obligation to divulge an official decision so that its motives can be analysed and weighed by the public,” Karine Péloffy, director of the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, said.

The province of Ontario asked the NEB to require a hydrotest of Line 9 during the regulatory hearings on the project in 2013. A provincial commission authorized by Quebec to investigate Line 9 also recommended a hydrotest.

Earlier this month, the Greater Montreal Area passed a resolution also asking the NEB to order a hydrostatic test of the pipeline.

This Southern California Gas Company explains the basics of hydrostatic testing.

“Our municipal officials have done their job by asking for these tests,” Caron previously told DeSmog Canada.

Line 9 runs though a densely populated corridor from Sarnia, Ontario through Toronto and on to Montreal. The pipeline is of similar age and design to the Enbridge pipeline that ruptured in 2010 near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

The Kalamazoo spill, as it is known, was one of the largest inland spills in the U.S. history and cleanup costs have exceeded $1 billion.

An international pipeline safety expert told DeSmog Canada in 2013 Line 9 is “high risk” for a rupture due to extensive stress corrosion cracking on the pipeline, as outlined in an Enbridge engineering assessment of the line.

U.S. investigators concluded pipeline stress corrosion cracking most likely caused the Kalamazoo pipeline spill.

“I do not make the statement ‘high risk for a rupture’ lightly or often,” Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline safety expert with over forty years of experience in the energy sector, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada. "There are serious problems with Line 9 that need to be addressed."

Kuprewicz predicted there was a “90 per cent” probability of Line 9 rupturing if a hydrostatic test of the pipeline was not conducted.   

Enbridge expressed concerns during the regulatory hearings a hydrotest could potentially damage Line 9. The Calgary-based pipeline company also claims its inline inspection tool can detect serious stress corrosion cracking threats.

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.

Drinking water for more than 60 per cent of Manitoba's population will be put at risk by TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline, according to a report released Monday by the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition. 

“The entire length of the Winnipeg aqueduct is in danger of contamination from the nearby pipeline,” the report states. "Contamination could occur from large spills anywhere along the pipeline and from small, more frequent, undetected spills between Falcon Lake and Hadashville where the aqueduct and pipeline are very close."

Retired biophysicist and author of the report, Dennis LeNeveu, announced his findings in Winnipeg, saying the city's aqueduct is at risk from the nearby pipeline. LeNeveu added it is not just Winnipeg’s drinking water that is threatened by the 1.1 million barrels a day Energy East project.   

“The drinking water supplies in the province, as well as Winnipeg’s supply are at risk of contamination from the pipeline. Many communities draw their water from rivers that the pipeline directly crosses,” LeNeveu wrote in the report.  

"Winnipeg has much to lose from the pipeline crossing within its boundaries and little to gain."

The Manitoban portion of the Energy East project involves repurposing a 40-year old natural gas pipeline to transport crude from Saskatchewan and the Alberta oilsands (also called tarsands) to refineries and export facilities on the east coast. TransCanada plans to convert a total of 3,000 kilometres of natural gas pipeline and construct another 1,600 kilometres of pipe in eastern Canada for the project.

The proposed pipeline for conversion in Manitoba is one of six natural gas lines laying side by side south of Winnipeg. LeNeveu is concerned the proximity of natural gas and oil pipelines adds additional risk.

TransCanada's system map shows parallel gas lines running through Manitoba. TransCanada is proposing repurposing one of the gas lines to transport oilsands crude.

A 2014 explosion in one of the gas lines left a crater ten metres wide and three metres deep leaving around 4,000 Manitobans without heat in the dead of winter.

The explosion was TransCanada's fourth failure in twenty years in the province.

“There is a significant risk of rupture and explosion of the Energy East line from the nearby natural gas lines… An explosion and black toxic smoke plume from a dilbit (diluted bitumen) fire could easily be larger than occurred at Lac Megantic,” the report states.

“The smoke plume from such an explosion and fire could necessitate the immediate evacuation of the entire population of Winnipeg should it occur nearby.”

Winnipeg’s Red River, and the LaSalle, Seine and Assiniboine Rivers are all listed in the report as potentially threatened by an Energy East pipeline spill.

Image from the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition report.

Of particular concern is the lack of information in the Energy East application on safety features like pipeline shut off valves or modeling pipeline pressure swings that can cause damage to pipe walls, according to the report.

“There is no information in the Energy East submission on the location of shut off valves and especially those around water crossings. This lack of information could be considered a major deficiency,” the report concludes.

Although, TransCanada submitted an unprecedented 30,000-page project application for Energy East to the National Energy Board (NEB) in 2014, the application is not complete.

The NEB, Canada’s pipeline regulator, recently ordered TransCanada to submit additional project information for the pipeline review process to move forward. 

The information TransCanada provided indicates the pipeline company does not plan on making the final details of the project available to the NEB or the public until the end of this year.

Image Credit: Energy East

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 Quebec citizen group is applauding a resolution by the Greater Montreal Area’s governing body asking the National Energy Board for a hydrostatic safety test of the Line 9 oil pipeline before it goes back into operation this summer.

“We would like to thank the CMM (Greater Montreal Area) and its president, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, as well as the numerous other elected bodies that have listened to the concerns of the public, and acted swiftly on this safety issue by adopting similar resolutions and forwarding them to the NEB,” Lorraine Caron, a spokesperson for the citizen group Les Citoyens au Courant, said.

The governing body, better known as the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal or Montreal Metropolitan Community, passed the resolution in a meeting on April 30. Line 9, a 39-year old Enbridge pipeline, runs through a densely populated corridor from Montreal, through Toronto and on to Sarnia in southwestern Ontario.

Citizen groups, and environmental organizations in Ontario and Quebec have been voicing concerns for over two years on whether Line 9 — the twin in age and design of the Enbridge pipeline that ruptured in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 2010 — can operate safely at an increased capacity and while transporting oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen.

“We have been convinced by industry experts, including Richard Kuprewicz, U.S. expert on pipeline safety, that hydrostatic testing is the only way to guarantee the 639-kilometre pipeline can withstand the pressure it will be subjected to and the only way to find pinhole leaks and some types of stress corrosion cracking that could lead to rupture,” Katherine Massam of Les Citoyens au Courant stated in a press release.

Kuprewicz, who discussed Line 9 with DeSmog Canada on several occasions, believes without a hydrotest there is a 90 per cent probability the pipeline will rupture. The U.S.-based pipeline safety expert with over thirty years of experience found evidence of extensive stress corrosion cracking on the pipeline when examining Enbridge’s own documents on Line 9's condition.  

“Enbridge needs to conduct a hydrostatic test on Line 9. It is the gold standard for pipeline integrity and safety. Canada has a well-established history of hydrotesting its pipelines,” Kuprewicz told DeSmog Canada in a 2013 interview.

A hydrostatic test or hydrotest would pump water through Line 9 at similar pressures to those the pipeline is expected to operate at. The test could provide valuable information on whether Line 9 can operate safely at its proposed maximum pressure.

The NEB Can Order A Hydrotest of Line 9

When the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, approved Enbridge’s proposed changes to Line 9 — a 20 per cent increase in capacity, flow reversal, and the shipping of heavy crudes like bitumen — in March 2014, the board reserved the right to order a hydrotest if Enbridge’s updated Line 9 engineering assessment was deemed unsatisfactory.

So far, the NEB has chosen not to exercise this right.

“Our municipal officials have done their job by asking for these tests. Now we are expecting the Quebec government to do the same by following recommendations that CAPERN made in 2013, especially the one that pertains to carrying out hydrostatic tests to verify the pipeline,” Caron said. 

A committee commissioned by the Quebec government to investigate the Line 9 project in 2013 recommended Quebec request a hydrotest to ensure the pipeline would not fail.

During the Line 9 regulatory hearings in 2013, the province of Ontario also asked the NEB to conduct a hydrostatic test of the pipeline.   

Line 9 Approved, But Still Contested

Line 9 may have regulatory approval, but the project’s opponents in Ontario and Quebec certainly have not given up yet.

In a 29 – 2 decision, Toronto City Council passed a motion last April requesting the NEB not allow Enbridge to re-start Line 9 until the company installs automatic shut off valves on the pipeline at all major water crossings, the source of the city’s drinking water. Council deemed the valves necessary to halt the flow of oil through the pipeline in the event of a spill.

“This motion reflects increased resident pressure on the city to defend us all against environmental hazards,” Jessica Lyons, a member of the Toronto No Line 9 Network, said in a Toronto Media Co-op article.  

The Chippewas of the Thames, an Anishinaabe First Nation in southwestern Ontario, will appear in federal court this June to challenge Line 9 on the grounds the project violates their constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights.  

“All eyes are on Energy East, but we are in the 9th inning with Line 9 right now,” Caron told DeSmog Canada.

“If Line 9 is allowed to transport tar sands oil it will set a bad precedent for all the other pipeline projects.”

Line 9 is expected to begin operating again at the end of June.

Image Credit: Oil Change International

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.

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.

The National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, has come under tremendous public criticism over the last three years for limiting public participation in its review of major oil pipeline proposals. In recent years the board has denied hundreds of Canadians an opportunity to voice their concerns on projects like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 9.

TransCanada’s Energy East, Canada’s largest proposed oil pipeline, is the newest project to land on the NEB’s desk. Despite major barriers to participation in the public hearing process, Canadians are preparing to apply in droves, even if just for the opportunity to be officially rejected from the process.

“We can’t sit back and we can’t afford the luxury of despair," Donna Sinclair of North Bay, Ontario said. "We need to resist efforts to shut us out of the process.”

Sinclair, who was denied the opportunity to submit a letter of comment regarding the Line 9 pipeline project in 2013, plans on applying to participate in the NEB review process for Energy East.

Why Participate in a Broken Process?

Despair about the process, especially for pipeline critics like Sinclair, is understandable enough. After recent changes to federal legislation the NEB now limits participation only to members of the public the board believes are “directly affected” or possess “relevant information or expertise” on a given project.

“The narrow restrictions on speech are completely anti-democratic,” Sinclair told DeSmog.

Canadians wishing to submit comments to the NEB on the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline must complete the board’s ‘application to participate’ form by March. Completion of the form does not guarantee one’s participation in the NEB-run public hearing process.

What qualifies an individual as having the relevant level of expertise can at times be difficulty to ascertain. Last spring the NEB refused the application of 27 scientists and experts from B.C. universities who registered to participate in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings.

Over two thousand people and organizations applied to participate in the NEB Trans Mountain hearings. Four hundred and sixty-eight were rejected outright.

The approval of the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline, despite broad public opposition, worked to convince many British Columbians that the board’s only real authority resides in its ability to dictate approval conditions. The NEB subjected the Northern Gateway pipeline’s approval to a hefty total of 209 conditions. 

Further weakening the NEB’s authority, thanks to omnibus budget bill C-38, decisions by the board are now subject to federal cabinet approval, leaving what was previously a quasi-judicious and independent decision ultimately in the hands of politicians.

Even individuals from the energy industry are losing faith in the process. Last November, Mark Eliesen, a former energy executive with 40 years experience, publicly quit the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain public hearings, calling the NEB process "fraudulent" and a "public deception." Even B.C.'s environment minister Mark Polak said the province has had its "own issues with the process," which include the NEB defending Kinder Morgan's right to withhold critical information on things like spill response measures.

In this light, it is perhaps astonishing Canadians continue to apply en masse to be heard by the NEB on new proposed pipelines like Energy East.

So why does the public still try to elbow its way into a broken process which decides, ostensibly without their regard, the fate of new pipelines in Canada?

Hearings Drive Public Awareness, Opposition

“Participating in the NEB process helps to bring forward new information and keep the issue alive so that awareness and opposition grows,” Tzeporah Berman, legendary B.C. environmentalist and co-founder of ForestEthics, told DeSmog Canada.

“In the end the NEB may approve a project, but if you have approval without social license and are facing lawsuits, difficulty with provincial permits and massive protests, the barriers to development are pretty serious,” she said.

The Northern Gateway pipeline is a prime example.

Over one thousand five hundred Canadians presented oral statements against the pipeline to the NEB. Attempts to criticize pipeline opponents – most infamously in former Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s ‘foreign funded radicals’ letter – drove further support for the opposition movement.

Defend Our Coast Protest Against the Northern Gateway Pipeline in 2012.

The NEB ultimately approved the project, yet the hearing process generated a massive anti-pipeline coalition comprised of engineers, scientists, First Nations, municipalities, environmental organizations and a good portion of the general public.

Strong social pressure undoubtedly influenced the unprecedented 209 conditions the NEB eventually attached to the pipeline’s approval. Meeting every condition may actually be impossible for the project’s proponent, Enbridge.

The NEB’s conditions for Enbridge’s Line 9 project in Ontario and Quebec have similarly delayed the pipeline’s progress.

Public concern and criticism may not sway the NEB’s recommendation or the federal government’s decision on a project, but it is certainly leaving its mark in other ways.

The Public Forces Unique Pipeline Issues To the Surface

“Public participation in recent pipeline processes have brought forth some unique issues,” Tanya Nayler, staff lawyer with the Ecojustice, an environmental law advocacy group, said.

For example, the ongoing NEB review of Trans Mountain has triggered a full on debate on where municipal by-laws and rights stand in relation to the powers of the NEB (not to mention a showdown on Burnaby Mountain last year).

The question of dilbit or diluted bitumen’s behaviour in water was brought to the fore largely because of the Northern Gateway hearings. Subsequent federal reports confirmed the substance sinks when mixed with sediment although recently-released government documents show just how little is known about the effects of dilbit when spilled into water.

For existing pipelines like Energy East, involvement in the NEB process means information that might otherwise be kept from the public becomes a matter of record.

Through information requests, participants in the Enbridge Line 9 hearings gained access to disconcerting information about the condition of the 40-year pipeline. Information requests also revealed Enbridge had failed to assess what would happen in the event of a pipeline rupture.

“New information is essential to driving a public narrative about the risks associated with these projects,” Berman said. 

Three thousand kilometers of the proposed Energy East pipeline travelling through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario is comprised of an existing TransCanada natural gas pipeline. If approved that gas line will be converted to carry heavy crude and dilbit. One thousand six hundred kilometers of additional pipe will be constructed in Quebec and New Brunswick to extend the line to export terminals.

NEB Is the Only Venue Canada Has To Discussion National Energy Projects

Outside the NEB, Canada simply has no alternate venue where national issues connected to new pipelines can be discussed, leading participants to argue for much-needed structural change.

“Although I do agree the NEB has become slanted towards approvals, it is important to have the public participate in and challenge the process in order to highlight the problems in need of fixing,” Nayler said.

Of particular concern is the NEB’s refusal to consider the climate impacts of pipelines. From the outset, the board deemed climate impacts, and especially upstream emissions from the Alberta oilsands, as outside the purview of public hearings on the Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain and Energy East pipelines.

At 1.1 million barrels-a-day, Energy East would increase oilsands or tar sands production in Alberta by at least one third. The energy-intensive oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHG emissions.

Recently the U.S. EPA acknowledged the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta oilsands crude to export facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, would be the climate equivalent of adding 5.7 million new passenger cars to the road.

“The NEB is the only place we can try and be heard. Every other level of climate and environmental legislation has been removed by the Conservatives,” Cam Fenton, tar sands campaigner for 350.org, said.

350.org has launched an online campaign encouraging the public to apply to take part in the NEB process on Energy East, but explicitly on the grounds of addressing climate change – a demand that is likely to have consequences.

It was precisely for wanting to address climate change that the NEB denied the 27 experts mentioned above participation in the Trans Mountain public hearing process.

“We are going to force the NEB to reject all these people. We need to hold the NEB and the process accountable for not allowing people to speak about climate change,” Fenton told DeSmog Canada.

Over the last year, 350.org has collected one hundred thousand signatures from Canadians wanting the board to consider climate change in its Energy East decision.

Last week representatives traveled to Calgary to physically hand the petition to the NEB.

Image Credit: Light Brigading via Flickr, LeadNow, Greenpeace, TransCanada 

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.

“I do not want to be the grand chief who consented to a pipeline that’s going to destroy 30 per cent of the fresh water in Ontario, in Treaty 3 territory,” Treaty 3 Grand Chief Warren White said in a speech outlining his objections to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East oil pipeline last week.

“I did not come here for consultation. I came here to let everyone know what Energy East is all about…In unity in Treaty 3 we will be the ones to stop this. Our communities, our youth, our leadership are being called on by other nations,” White, while presenting at a public meeting hosted by the Ontario Energy Board in Kenora, Ontario, stated.

TransCanada “low balled” and “tried to pull a fast one” on Treaty 3 chiefs, according to White. The pipeline company agreed to participate in a consultation process based on Treaty 3 Resource Law or Manito Aki Inakonigaawin in Anishinaabe (Ojibwe), but failed to actually engaged in the process. TransCanada was a no-show for a meeting with Treaty 3 chiefs on December 21st last year.

“I am very upset right now and you put that in your report that Energy East, TransCanada whatever you wanna call it, are there for the dollar signs, and nothing about the land, nothing about how we survive,” White said.

"I do not want to be the grand chief that’s remembered as, 'all he wanted was the money.' I do not want to be the grand chief known as the destroyer of the lands, waters, sacred sites, rivers, trees, animals, birds…We are going to get another Grassy Narrows situation, an oil spill will happen no matter how safe you guys say it is.”

If approved, the 1.1 million barrel a day pipeline stretching from Alberta to New Brunswick would operate on Treaty 3 territory. The Treaty 3 First Nation represents over twenty-five Anishinaabe First Nations whose traditional territory covers an area of northwestern Ontario larger than Newfoundland.

White’s speech was part of the ongoing public consultations Ontario’s energy regulator – Ontario Energy Board – is conducting with communities and First Nations along Energy East’s proposed route in northern and eastern Ontario. The board will be in Ottawa Thursday.

The provincial government claimed it will partly base its position on Energy East in light of the board’s findings. Ontario plans on arguing its case for or against Energy East at the National Energy Board (NEB) hearings on the pipeline project expected to take place later this year.

Ontario has identified seven conditions for its approval of the pipeline. Included is the condition that “proponents and governments” fulfill their constitutional duty to consult with the province’s First Nations on the project.

“When you send me correspondence and I never participated that does not constitute consultation. We keep hearing [from] government about meaningful consultation, the duty to consult. I never consented to be part of this [regulatory] process,” White told the Ontario Energy Board.

The federal government has the constitutional duty to consult with First Nations, Metis and Inuit on projects that may infringe upon their aboriginal and treaty rights according to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haida First Nation vs British Columbia in 2004. There is no indication yet that the federal government plans to fulfill this legal duty in the case of Energy East.

White expressed his lack of faith that the Ontario Energy Board and National Energy Board processes are interested in protecting Treaty 3 rights:

“No matter what we say as intervenor or [in] protest to the Ontario Energy Board and National Energy Board we know you are still going to move forward [with the pipeline], but without our consent,” White said.

Ontario, although calling itself a “climate leader,” has come under fire recently from pipeline critics for weakening its stance on Energy East. Premier Kathleen Wynne announced last December the province would not take into account the potential upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of Energy East when deciding whether to support the project.

The Ontario Energy Board has also been criticized for its claims Energy East, North America’s largest proposed pipeline project, will likely have a “relatively modest” impact on GHG emissions in Canada.

Image Credit: Ontario.ca

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.

Canada can reduce its carbon footprint by 90 per cent, play its part in the fight against climate change and grow its economy at the same time according to a recent report by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 

“This is a really important piece of analysis for Canada. It shows that we can cut our carbon pollution dramatically by 2050, making a strong contribution to tackling climate change, while growing our economy by over 200 per cent,” Clare Demerse, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada says.

By powering transportation, buildings and electricity with largely renewable energy (water-power, wind, solar) and biofuels and applying wide spread use of greenhouse gas (GHG) capturing technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the oil and gas sector the report argues Canada can cut its GHG emissions production by 90 per cent by 2050 based on 2010 levels.

The catch is none of this can happen unless Canada implements policies effectively regulating the production of GHG emissions, something the federal government has so far been unable to do.

“Many of the major changes described in the Canadian decarbonization pathway will not occur without strong policy signals, which will require public support and in many cases will be driven by public pressure,” the UN network concludes. 

Electrification of the Economy Is the Key to Reducing GHG Emissions 

Reducing GHG emissions of transportation and buildings sectors by 97 per cent and 96 per cent respectively are the “two of the core foundations of the Canadian deep decarbonization pathway.” The key to reaching these targets is a substantial shift to renewable energy.

Canada's projected GHG emissions by sector by 2050 in a 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. Source: UNSDNS

“Decarbonizing electricity production is essential, since it is a precondition to reducing emissions throughout the rest of the economy through electrification,” the report states.

Water-power (Canada’s largest source of renewable energy), biomass, wind and solar are projected to lead the way in decarbonizing Canada’s electrical supply with wind and solar generating as high as 17 per cent and 10 per cent of Canada’s electricity respectively.

Oil consumption for transportation will need to plummet with the majority of Canadian vehicles running off of biofuels, hydrogen or electricity in the 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. The report sees a slight shift to mass transit (trains, buses) over personal vehicles and a large transformation from trucks to trains for freight.

Electricity production (left) and fuel consumption (right) by source by 2050. 

“The results the modelers presented are one way to hit the target they were given, but they’re not a prescription. As they point out, Canadians and our governments will need to make policy choices about what kind of low-carbon path makes the most sense for us,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

British Columbia’s successful and surprisingly popular carbon tax and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system are two homegrown Canadian climate policy examples Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government could follow to fulfill Canada’s international responsibilities to cut global warming GHG emissions.

Report Surprisingly Projects Oil and Gas Output Will Double by 2050

The report assumes Canada can remain an oil and gas “energy superpower” in a world that has gone nearly zero-carbon. The report predicts Canadian oil and gas production will double by 2050 as well.

“The report’s assumptions on global oil demand seem a little unrealistic. Studies have shown that demand will drop as countries transition to low carbon economies,” Professor Mark Jaccard, an energy economist at Simon Fraser University says.

Canada's GHG emissions by sector (2010 baseline). Source: UNSDSN

“If Canada is able to power its cars and buildings with virtually zero fossil fuels by 2050, why wouldn’t the rest of the world want to do the same? If global demand for oil drops, oil prices will drop too — and then we would see far lower production than the oilsands industry is counting on today,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

To keep the oil and gas sector in play in a near zero-carbon scenario the report recommends Canada employ widespread use of technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the sector. CCS captures carbon emissions, and converts them into a dense fuel that can be transported to sites below ground for storage.

Canada only has one operational CCS project. The Pembina Institute, an energy policy think tank, predicts Alberta alone will need twenty-five large-scale CCS projects to meet its own GHG emissions reduction targets.

“Why would companies adopt expensive CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology if at the moment they can dump waste into our atmosphere for free?” Jaccard says.

The authors of the report admit CCS is not “commercially viable” in Canada at the moment given “current climate policy stringency.” The low price on carbon and lack of regulations on GHG emissions in the Canadian oil and gas sector provide very little financial incentive for companies to invest in expensive technologies that decrease the carbon footprints of their operations.

“Until there are regulations on carbon in Canada technologies like CCS are going nowhere,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada.

Unclear If the Oilsands Have A Place In A Decarbonized Canada

The UN network behind the report is unable or unwilling to say if the oilsands (also called tar sands) industry, the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, has a future in a low carbon Canada. The report cites “literature conflicts on whether production from the oil sands can be cost-effective in a deep decarbonization scenario.”

Image Credit: Blue Green Canada, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network

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 recent shelving of the Joslyn mine oilsands project in Alberta is a reminder of the fragile economics of the oilsands. No economic formula could be found to make the $11 billion project work and it has been put on hold indefinitely.           

Oil major Total E&P, the biggest partner in the project, said the Joslyn mine project “cannot be (financially) sustainable in the long term.” Interestingly, Total did not blame lack of new pipelines for squeezing profit margins either.

“You run the risk in developing fossil fuels that one day will either become fully depleted or too expensive to extract,” Philip Gass, a policy analyst at the International Institute of Sustainable Development, said from Winnipeg.

It would be difficult to deny Canada has economically benefited from developing the oilsands, a particularly difficult and expensive fossil fuel to mine and refine into light fuels — but failing to diversify the Canadian economy beyond an oil and gas ‘energy superpower’ makes for a very uncertain economic future for Canada.

“Canada could find itself an energy superpower overspecialized in the ‘old economy’ (resource extraction) in a world rapidly trying to cut carbon emissions and avoid catastrophic climate change,” Andrew Jackson, a senior policy advisor with the Broadbent Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

“Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good economic strategy,” Jackson said.

Benefits of Energy Development Remain Largely Locked in the Sector

The idea that all Canadians benefit from a surging oil and gas industry is slowly turning into a farce. An International Monetary Fund (IMF) report earlier this year finds every dollar invested in the energy sector in Alberta grows Canadian gross domestic product — an economic vitality indicator — by 90 cents. Of this growth, 82 cents remains in Alberta, mostly in the energy sector (67 cents).

IMF‘s breakdown of $1 investment in the energy sector scenario.

“There appears to be an important scope to increase inter-industry linkages across Canada that would lead to wider sharing of benefits from the energy sector,” concludes the IMF report released in January.

Increasing inter-industry linkages or value-added jobs does not appear to be priority of the federal government. New oil pipeline projects are almost all geared to shipping Canadian oil and oilsands bitumen to refineries in the U.S. or overseas, not in Canada. Most of the heavy equipment for oilsands extraction comes from the U.S.

“The spin-off effects of the energy boom are not being felt in Ontario and Quebec, where most Canadians are,” Jackson says.

The federal government’s low corporate tax rate and the exemption of provincial resource royalties from the Canadian system of wealth redistribution (which ensures all Canadians receive the same public services) further locks the economic benefits of the energy sector within the sector and resource-rich provinces.

Energy Sector Is Not A Big Jobs Creator

“The oil and gas sector is capital intensive, not labour intensive. Manufacturing could employ more people,” David Macdonald, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says.

The same IMF report on the Canadian energy sector indicates that of the 752,000 jobs created in Canada between 2007 and 2012, the oil and gas sector can only take credit for less than 13,000, or 1.7 per cent, of them.

Job creation is not exactly Canada’s strong suit at the moment.

“The employment rate in Canada, that is the percentage of Canadians over fifteen years of age who are working, is sixty one per cent. This is the same level the employment rate was at during the worst of the recent financial crisis,” Macdonald told DeSmog Canada.

Employment rate (blue) and unemployment rate (black) from 2003 to 2013. SOURCE: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 

The official unemployment rate (seven per cent) in Canada has returned to pre-recession levels, but Macdonald points out that Statistics Canada does not count Canadians who are not actively searching for employment as unemployed.

“Eighty per cent of the so-called ‘recovered jobs’ since the recession are Canadians who have simply given up looking for work,” Macdonald says from Ottawa.

Part-time/Temporary Job Creation On The Rise

Ninety-five percent of all net jobs created in Canada in 2013 were part-time according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Part-time workers and the self-employed, who earn on average 20 per cent less than their employed counterparts according to CIBC, now make up 30 per cent of the Canadian work force.

Canada has created more full-time than part-time jobs since the recession but the rate of part-time job creation has grown faster than full-time. Fifty-three per cent of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 44 who found work since the recession could only find temporary jobs. The rate of Canadian part-time workers who want full-time work but cannot find it has grown 37 per cent during the same period.

“Since 2011 the number of underemployed workers has exceeded the number of unemployed workers — in 2013 there were 1.35 million unemployed workers and 1.43 million additional underemployed workers. And that is before we even begin to take into account skills-related underemployment. This is an issue that needs to be taken seriously,” a Canadian Labour Congress report concludes.

SOURCE: Canadian Labour Congress

Fourteen per cent of working Canadians are underemployed or unable to get enough work to meet their financial needs, a 28 per cent increase since 2008.

Canada Needs to Create Well-Paying, Long-Lasting Jobs

“Whether you are talking about green jobs or brown jobs (fossil fuels extraction) you want to create jobs that are fair, well-paying and long lasting,” Gass of the International Institute of Sustainable Development told DeSmog Canada.

“We would like to see federal policy facilitate the creation of more specialized manufacturing jobs and encourage unionization in the work place. Unions tend to create better paying full time jobs,” Macdonald says.

A report released last month by the Parkland Institute examining unions in Alberta (the province most hostile to unions) found in terms of economic performance, wage growth is lower in Alberta compared to other provinces with higher unionization rates, despite Alberta’s oilsands boom.

“There is $600 billion sitting on companies shelves in Canada that is not being reinvested in the economy. Companies only invest where there is an expectation for growth. At the moment it appears the expectations are low,” Jackson says from Ottawa.

Corporations operating in Canada are not the only ones with low expectations for growth. When polled earlier this year by the Broadbent Institute, Canadians between 20 and 30 believed they will face a future of precarious employment and the income gap will grow during their lifetimes despite Canada’s energy boom. Baby boomers (50 to 60 years of age) in the same poll stated they think their children are more likely to slip down an economic class than move up.

“With interest rates at all time lows I would like to see public investment into mass transit, passenger rail, etcetera ramped up. Public investment can pave the way for private investment,” Jackson said.

Unfortunately the current priorities of the federal government — tax cuts, tax breaks, battling unions and cuts to public spending — are taking Canada in just the opposite direction.

Image Credit: Cheryl 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 small town is northeastern Ontario has become the centre of attention in the Energy East pipeline debate for accepting a $30,000 donation from TransCanada while agreeing not to publicly comment on the pipeline company’s operations for the next five years.

“The Town of Mattawa will not comment publicly on TransCanada’s operations or business projects,” states the agreement between TransCanada, Canada’s second largest pipeline company, and the Town of Mattawa. The agreement is valid for five years. 

“The clause reads like a gag order,” Sabrina Bowman, climate campaigner for Environmental Defence Canada, says.

“It makes me wonder how many donations by pipeline companies to other municipalities across Canada have been given on condition of silence,” Bowman told DeSmog Canada.

TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, the largest oil pipeline project in North America, will pass near the town of 2,000 people. If approved by the federal government, the 4,600 kilometre pipeline will ship 1.1 million barrels of oil and oilsands products from Alberta to Saint John, N.B.

This is not the first time a pipeline company has made a cash donation to a Canadian municipality on a proposed pipeline route. Enbridge, Canada’s largest pipeline company, was criticized last year by pipeline opponents for making donations ranging from $6,000 to $44,000 to over a dozen municipalities along the Line 9 pipeline’s route in Ontario and Quebec.

But the Mattawa-TransCanada agreement appears to be the first known case to include an explicit condition that the municipality receiving the donation will not publicly speak out the operations of a pipeline company.

“While there are many examples of pipeline companies making donations, this is the first time I’ve seen a no-comment clause attached to the donation,” Bowman says. She played a major role in the campaign against Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline last year.

Mattawa mayor Dean Becker and TransCanada last week defended the donation, which will be put toward the purchase of a new rescue vehicle for the town. Becker insists he “didn’t sell out the community for $30,000” and TransCanada claims the no-comment provision is only in the agreement so communities do not feel “obligated to make public comments on our behalf about projects.”

Critics of the Energy East pipeline project remain concerned donation agreements like this will stifle public participation in the public hearings on the pipeline expected to take place in 2015.

“I think this case is a clear indication that pipeline companies are not interested in genuine open dialogue and discussing local concerns. It absolutely puts yet another boundary in front of democratic participation in the already public participation-discouraging National Energy Board process,” Bowman says.

The National Energy Board, Canada’s energy regulator, has already come under fire for its list of issues it will consider when deciding on the Energy East project. The list indicates the Board will not hear public comments on the project’s impacts on climate change, the expansion of the oilsands or the impact on First Nations communities living downstream from the oilsands when making its decision on the pipeline. All comments from the public in regards to the upstream and downstream economic benefits of Energy East will be heard though.

“It is inconsistent, improper, and to a certain extent, hypocritical to consider the upstream and downstream economic and commercial impacts of a pipeline — which should definitely be considered — and then ignore the upstream and downstream environmental impacts,” Jason MacLean, an assistant professor of law, and specialist in environmental law, at Lakehead University, told DeSmog Canada in a interview last May.

The National Energy Board has also been accused of “acting impermissibly in favour” of Energy East by releasing the list of issues before TransCanada has actually applied for the project. The pipeline company is expected to submit its application with the Board next month. The list of issues was made public last May.  

Image Credit: TransCanada, Wikipedia

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.