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.

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.

With two weeks to go until Ontarians vote in a new government, it appears proposed oilsands pipeline projects for the province will not be a prominent election issue.

Ontario’s 2014 election will not be B.C.’s 2013 election.

“We would like to see all elected leaders in Ontario — not just MPPs — saying no to tar sands pipelines until sanity can be restored to federal environmental policy and the environmental regulations recently rolled back by the Harper government are put back in place,” says Graham Saul, executive director of Ecology Ottawa.

Last year’s provincial election in B.C. left many (especially those living outside of B.C.) with the impression that the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain oilsands pipelines were the only election issues. Ontario also faces two proposed oilsands pipelines that would cut through the province — TransCanada’s Energy East and Enbridge’s Line 9 — but no political party has addressed the risks these pipelines pose for the province on the election trail.

“We are seeing momentum build in Ontario against tar sands pipelines, but resistance is still new,” Saul told DeSmog Canada. Ecology Ottawa leads local opposition in the Canadian capital against Energy East. If approved, the 4,600 kilometre pipeline will transport 1.1 million barrels a day of oil and oilsands bitumen from Alberta through Ontario to Saint John, N.B.

Ontario Opposition to Oilsands Pipelines Has Yet to Reach B.C. Levels

Public outcry in Ontario against oilsands pipelines has yet to reach the same levels as opposition to pipelines in B.C. or the Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. This may be because Line 9 and Energy East are existing pipelines being repurposed to ship heavy crudes such as bitumen. Both pipelines have been in the ground for decades — Line 9 as a conventional oil pipeline and Energy East as a transporter of natural gas.

TransCanada's Energy East pipeline. Credit: Environmental Defence.

“People have the impression that it is not dangerous to retrofit pipelines for tar sands oil,” Saul says.

An examination of pipeline spills in the U.S. Midwest between 2010 and 2012 by the Natural Resources Defence Council found pipelines transporting oilsands bitumen ruptured three times more often than the national average. The heavy bitumen’s tendency to sink in water (confirmed by a federal study earlier this year) makes cleaning up bitumen spills in waterways extremely difficult. Conventional oil floats when spilled in water.

Line 9 in southern Ontario and Energy East in northern Ontario pass through or come dangerously close to the drinking water supply for millions of Ontarians, specifically the Great Lakes. Ontarians and their drinking water are effectively boxed in by proposed oilsands pipelines that critics describe as “all risk, no reward” for the province. The oil in both projects is not destined for Ontario, but for refineries in eastern Canada and overseas.

Enbridge's Line 9 Pipeline. Credit: Enbridge.

The timing may also be off for oilsands pipelines to be an Ontario election issue. The rushed review process of Line 9 concluded with the project’s approval last March by the federal regulator, so for some Ontarians the issue of Line 9 may have already come and gone. Saul of Ecology Ottawa points out a decision on Energy East is not expected until 2016, so it may not be an imminent concern for Ontarians at the moment.

The Debate On Energy Is Being "Incorrectly" Informed By Political Parties

What Ontarians are left with is a provincial election energy debate revolving entirely around the rising costs of home power bills in the province. 

“Power bills are a more tangible and directly visible concern. It hits people in their pocketbooks,” says Mark Winfield, professor of environmental studies at York University in Toronto.

Ontarians do pay some of the highest rates of electricity when compared to other provinces, so it is a conversation worth having. Unfortunately, the major political parties — the NDP and Progressive Conservatives especially — have plunged this conversation down a path that ignores why power bills have gone up in the first place.

Ontari-Hydro.com chart showing average cost per 1,000 kWh of electrcity per province.

“Under [Ontario Premier] Harris we had a ten-year period of very little investment in electricity infrastructure. We are playing catch-up now,” Winfield says.

“Its like taking out a new mortgage on your house to do badly needed home renovations,” Winfield told DeSmog Canada.

The Progressive Conservatives claim the ruling Liberals' subsidies for renewable energy are to blame for the high cost of power and vow to get rid of them if elected. The NDP propose capping CEO salaries in the provincial power corporations and merging Ontario’s four energy agencies into one to save money. 

“This is informing the conversation on power incorrectly and ignores the historical operating costs of power in Ontario,” Winfield says.

Ontario Is Still Paying Off Past Investments In Its Power Grid

A report released earlier this year finds paying off the construction of Ontario’s nuclear power plants (all of which ran massively over budget) and investments made in Ontario’s electrical delivery system over the last ten years is the largest component of the average home power bill in Ontario. Green energy, including solar, wind and biomass, comprises nine per cent of the bill.

Average power bill in Ontario according to the “Your Home Electricity Bill” report.

Winfield argues the most cost effective method for savings on electricity is investing in energy conservation. The NDP, Greens and, to a certain extent, the Liberals all promote ‘Conservation First’ energy strategies. Winfield would also like to see discussion on whether Ontario is overbuilding electrical production facilities (electrical demand in Ontario is declining) and investing in “inflexible assets,” such as nuclear power.

“There is still the perception in Ontario that it is the 1960s and we are getting lots of cheap hydro-power from Niagara Falls. Today in Ontario, hydro accounts for only 25 per cent of the province’s electrical use. Constructing new sources of electricity costs money,” Winfield says.

Ontario does sit beside a large, relatively inexpensive source of hydro power: Quebec. It is estimated Ontario could save $1 billion annually from 2020 to 2050 if the province imported hydro power from Quebec through existing power lines instead of refurbishing its nuclear plants to extend the plants’ lives. All four political parties speak favourably of the proposal, although the Greens and the NDP are the strongest supporters.

Ontarians will hit the polls on June 12. Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals currently have a slight lead in the polls on Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives. Andrea Horwath’s NDP, which forced the election, is trailing both parties significantly. 

Image Credit: Sharon Drummond 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.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared it will enhance Canada's “energy security.” The premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick call it a “nation builder.” Even the Toronto Star agrees: “this project appears to be in the national interest.”

Those are just some of the reactions to what sounds like the rebuilding of Canada's transcontinental railway but was in fact the announcement of a proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to Canada's east coast. Last week TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. announced it will seek regulatory approval for its Energy East pipeline project, expected to ship 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and tar sands bitumen from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick, crossing through six provinces on its way.

“Energy East and other tar sands pipeline projects will build a nation dependent on exporting tar sands oil overseas,” says Ben Powless, a tar sands community outreach coordinator for Ecology Ottawa.

“A true nation building project would decrease or eliminate Canada's dependence on fossil fuels,” Powless told DeSmog.  

Energy security for Canadians or securing exports for oil companies?   

The Energy East project involves converting 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada's 'Mainline' natural gas pipeline and constructing another 1,400 kilometres of pipeline mostly from the Quebec-Ontario border to Saint John. Three new oil terminals will be built in Saskatchewan, Quebec City and Saint John to accommodate the pipeline.

The terminals in Quebec City and Saint John will be outfitted with ocean-going tanker loading facilities raising concerns Energy East may turn the St. Lawrence River into a “highway for oil exports.”

“Energy East's oil and bitumen will go to the highest bidder whether it is refineries in eastern Canada or markets in the US, Asia or Europe,” says Andrea Harden-Donhaue, an energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

A substantial portion of Energy East's 1.1 million bpd shipments will have to be exported outside of Canada. Eastern Canadian refineries – refineries TransCanada claims it will supply – collectively refine 700,000 bpd. One of these refineries is Irving Oil's refinery in Saint John, the largest refinery in Canada (300,000 bpd). According to a press release from Irving Oil earlier this year “the refinery exports over 80 per cent of its production to the US” as refined products such as gasoline.  

“There is no guarantee oil refined in eastern Canada will be for domestic consumption,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog.

Eastern Canada cannot refine large quantities of bitumen

TransCanada has not yet said how much bitumen from the Alberta tar sands Energy East will transport. This is another factor in determining how much of Energy East's shipments will be exported since Eastern Canadian refineries are not outfitted to refine large quantities of the heavy unconventional crude oil.

With bitumen production surging and conventional oil sources drying up in Canada it is safe to assume this pipeline will eventually carry more bitumen than conventional oil if the project is approved. Unless eastern Canadian refineries are willing to invest an estimated $2-billion to upgrade their facilities to refine bitumen, the bulk of Energy East's bitumen is likely to be exported.

Shipping bitumen through an old gas pipeline

Shipping bitumen through the TransCanada Mainline, a 55-year old natural gas pipeline, is another cause for concern especially for Canadians living along the pipeline's route. According to a report by the National Petroleum Council for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2011:

“Pipelines operating outside of their design parameters such as those carrying commodities for which they were not initially designed, or high flow pipelines, are at the greatest risk of integrity issues in the future due to the nature of their operation.”

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 and the Mayflower spill in Arkansas earlier this year involved old pipelines designed to transport light crude oil that ruptured while shipping bitumen. Changing the contents of what North America's aging pipelines move may very well be a recipe of disaster.

Opposition to Energy East has already emerged

The same day TransCanada announced Energy East, one of Canada's largest civil society organizations – the Council of Canadians – launched a nation-wide campaign against Energy East, a pipeline the Council of Canadians believes is unsafe, and unlikely to provide energy security or create “decent jobs.”

Later that same day the Assembly of First Nations' Chiefs in New Brunswick announced, although not opposed to Energy East, they "will avail themselves of any means necessary, legal or otherwise" if the pipeline threatens their treaty rights or the environment.

Opposition to Energy East had already sprung up before TransCanada's announcement last week in places such as Ottawa and North Bay, Ontario. Some unorthodox opponents of the pipeline are three gas distributors who claim Energy East will mean less natural gas for the Central and Eastern Canada markets. Gas customers may be forced to pay higher rates if gas distributors have to find new sources.

It may prove to be a fool's errand to attempt to build in the new pipeline in Quebec that Energy East requires to reach the Atlantic coast. Quebec stopped its own fracking industry dead in its tracks because of public outcry. Constructing a pipeline along the St. Lawrence River to facilitate further expansion of the tar sands industry may be a tough sell for environmentally-conscious Quebecers.

Energy East: The Tar Sands Resistance Building Pipeline

“People on Canada’s West Coast have rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline; Americans are rejecting pipelines going south. Why would we in Eastern Canada accept the risks that no one else will?” Gretchen Fitzgerald, director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, said in a press release on the day of TransCanada's announcement.

If the campaign against Northern Gateway in BC and the more recent campaign against Enbridge's proposed Line 9 pipeline in Ontario and Quebec are indicators, Canadians tend to become more actively opposed to the development of the tar sands when the industry proposes to operate tar sands pipelines in their provinces. Energy East may face the greatest Canadian opposition to any pipeline to date. No other pipeline under consideration for oil and bitumen shipments involves so many provinces as Energy East does.

“Energy East may build and unite Canadian opposition to the expansion of the tar sands from coast-to-coast,” Powless told DeSmog.

TransCanada intends on applying for approval of the Energy East project in 2014. The company hopes to see the pipeline up and running by 2017.

Images Credit: Vicki Watkins Flickr and 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.