TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline is officially dead.

Announced via press release on Thursday, the news confirmed long-held suspicions that the $15.7 billion, 4,500 km oilsands pipeline simply wouldn’t cut it in today’s economic context.

But that hasn’t stopped commentators on all sides from pouncing on the cancellation as proof of their political project. Conservative politicians have lambasted the federal Liberals for introducing carbon pricing and new rules on pipeline applications, while environmentalists have claimed the company’s decision was a direct result of their organizing.

DeSmog Canada is here to help wade through the mess. Here are five things you should know about the cancelled Alberta-to-New Brunswick pipeline.

1. Energy East was primarily for export

Perhaps the most lingering myth about Energy East was that it would be built to displace foreign oil imports in Eastern Canada.

In fact, that very notion was repeated by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley in her Facebook post about the cancellation: “We believe this nation-building project would have benefited all of Canada through new jobs, investment, energy security and the ability to displace oil being imported into Canada from overseas and the United States,” she wrote.

Except it’s never been true.

An application by TransCanada to the National Energy Board back in May 2016 indicated that it would ship an estimated 281 tankers per year of oil, equivalent to about 900,000 barrels per day. That’s more than 80 per cent of the pipeline’s planned 1.1 million barrel per day capacity, leaving around 200,000 barrels per day to be refined at New Brunswick’s Irving Oil refineries.

That’s far below the 736,000 barrels per day that TransCanada suggested is being imported from foreign countries due to a lack of a west-to-east pipeline. In addition, Irving Oil’s president suggested in 2016 that his company wouldn’t necessarily displace its use of cheaper barrels from Saudi Arabia with product from Alberta.

Energy East was never about energy independence. The whole point was to ship oil by tanker to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining.

2. Canada’s regulatory process is catching up with reality

Back in early September, TransCanada requested that the National Energy Board suspend its review of the Energy East project for 30 days.

That followed news that the review panel for the pipeline would be evaluating the climate impacts of upstream and downstream emissions associated with the project: a first for any major Canadian pipeline. (The Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. was also subject to a climate test.)

It’s something that many industry boosters have now locked on to as the pipeline’s deathblow.

What’s often left unacknowledged is that Canada has committed to international climate change goals under the 2015 Paris Agreement, requiring the country to slash 230 megatonnes in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That’s where policies like the federal carbon pricing mandate and the overhaul of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency can come into play, integrating climate tests into the very fabric of reviews.

In addition, many critics conveniently fail to mention that the entire National Energy Board review process for Energy East was suspended with all decisions thrown out because the National Energy Board privately met with TransCanada consultant and former Quebec premier Jean Charest.

The complete restarting of the process and inclusion of a climate test was the price of doing business in a country ostensibly committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and introducing transparent environmental reviews.

3. Canada doesn’t necessarily need more pipelines

Energy East was the last of the big four Canadian pipelines to get underway.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 pipelines were both approved by the current Liberal government, while TransCanada’s Keystone XL was resuscitated with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

All offer better prices for exporters. As noted by University of Alberta professor Andrew Leach, shipping crude to New Brunswick via Energy East would cost $10/barrel, far higher than other networks.

That matters a lot given heavily reduced forecasts for oilsands production in coming decades. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers now estimates that oilsands production is expected to hit 3.7 million barrels per day by 2030. That’s down from their 2013 forecast of 5.2 million barrels, when Energy East was first announced.

In other words, Alberta at most  needs an additional 1.3 million barrels of pipeline capacity by 2030. Just two of the three aforementioned pipelines would easily allow for that.

And that’s to say nothing of Alberta’s cap on oilsands emissions of 100 megatonnes per year (for comparison purposes, Ontario plans to reduce all of its emissions to 115 megatonnes by 2030).

Unless there are substantial technological innovations that cut per-barrel emissions, it’s expected that the province will hit its emissions cap by 2030. That calls into question the need for several of the pipelines that are further along in the process, let alone Energy East.

5 Things You Need to Know About the Cancellation of #EnergyEast https://t.co/yUPyOUruzy #oilsands #climate #cdnpoli #keystonexl pic.twitter.com/6jJV9KqGLd

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 6, 2017

4. The majority of Canadians want to decrease oil demand

Spend too much time in the “Canadian politics” corner of Twitter and you might be inclined to believe that the average Canadian overwhelmingly favours increased oil and gas development.

But that’s not at all the case, based on recent polling numbers by Abacus data.

A poll published in September noted that 55 per cent of people would prefer to see demand for oil drop in the coming decade, with 65 per cent wanting to see a decline in the next 30 years. Even in Alberta, there are more people who wish to see oil demand decline in 10 years (38 per cent) compared to people who want to see oil demand increase (28 per cent).

There’s also been a marked drop in support for pipelines. In 2014, 58 per cent of Canadians supported building more pipeline capacity. Now, that number has dropped to 44 per cent.

In addition, when asked “recently, I’ve grown more worried about climate change and it is changing my view of how long we should use oil,” 22 per cent of people said “strongly agree” while another 37 per cent said “agree.”

This clear shift in public opinion is in line with the global consensus that the world needs to rapidly reduce emissions to avoid the worst of climate change.

5. This was about harsh economics

Environmental organizations across the country loudly celebrated in the wake of the cancellation. To be sure, Indigenous and environmental organizing has greatly raised the public profile of major pipeline projects like Energy East and arguably contributed to delaying the process while market conditions changed. But it’s seriously doubtful that the project would have been cancelled if oil prices were hovering in the $70-plus/barrel range and the company’s Keystone XL project was still blocked by the U.S.

TransCanada couldn’t make the numbers work. There was enormous unused capacity risk at play. To proceed with a multi-decade project in an era of sustained low oil prices and depressed production forecasts would have been a baffling decision.

Now, the company only faces a $1 billion charge to write down the project instead of $16 billion in capital expenses that might not ever be recovered. This move also allows them to focus more on making Keystone XL happen, and investing in markets with less immediate competition.

It doesn’t have quite the same inspirational tone to it. But hey, that’s capitalism for you.

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.

On January 9, the National Energy Board (NEB) finally announced the new panel members that will review TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline, replacing the trio that recused themselves in September 2016 after revelations that panel members had secretly met with a TransCanada consultant.

But within hours of news breaking about the new panel members, a notice of motion was filed by the environmental law firm Ecojustice on behalf of Transition Initiative Kenora, calling for the complete cancellation of the entire Energy East review based on an unresolved “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

“The original panel presided over the review for years,” says Charles Hatt, one of the two Ecojustice lawyers representing Transition Initiative Kenora, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“All of those important decisions that they made along the way occurred after the conduct that gave rise to the reasonable apprehension of bias, after those meetings with the interested stakeholders.”

Hatt says it is clear the entire proceeding had been tainted by the reasonable apprehension of bias.

“There’d be no way for this new panel to look back and try to determine which of those many decisions were tainted and which were not.”

For Hatt and representatives from Transition Initiative Kenora, it simply isn’t enough for the former panel members to recuse themselves. The original panel’s work is tainted by a the apprehension of bias which Hatt describes as “the idea that there’s been some conduct that in the eyes of a ‘reasonable person’ gives rise to the perception of bias.”

These lingering concerns have led the petitioners to request the National Energy Board void the entire proceedings, leaving TransCanada with the option of starting from scratch.

‘Tainted’ Panel Made Dozens of Preliminary Rulings and Requests

The original Energy East review panel was announced in December 2014.

Only the following month, the two review panel members and NEB chair/CEO Peter Watson met privately with former Quebec premier Jean Charest, who was then working as a consultant for TransCanada.

While the NEB denied it at first, the meeting did in fact include specific discussions about Energy East including suggestions of “using the ‘Lac Megantic example’ to show that pipelines are safer than rail.”

Other private meetings took place that Watson and the panel members didn’t publicly disclose.

At least a year-and-a-half of preliminary work was completed by the panel prior to the beginning of the formal review in June 2016. This work was completed without any acknowledgment that members of the review panel had secretly communicated with the project proponent.

The new notice of motion by Transition Initiative Kenora, submitted to the NEB on Jan. 10, reports that the previous panel decided “dozens of procedural and substantive matters that have shaped the Board’s review of Energy East,” including 27 rulings, six procedural directions and nine information requests to TransCanada.

It notes the original panel also determined when TransCanada’s project application was complete and decided who could or could not participate as intervenors in the National Energy Board’s review of Energy East.

“It’s a continuation of work that we had started earlier,” says Teika Newton, executive director of Transition Initiative Kenora.

“We filed the notice of motion back in August that resulted in the original review panel recusing themselves in September. This is a natural progression on that.”

NEB Has to Respond to Notice of Motion or Refer It to Federal Court

Newton’s organization has specific concerns about the proposed construction of Energy East, especially the impacts of a potential oil spill on water sources, wetlands and marshes.

But she emphasizes the notice of motion is something that should concern any participating group given the need to ensure a fair regulatory process and review: “I don’t think we’re any different or have any unique concerns just because of who we are or where we are.”

“I think it’s an issue that applies universally to all participants,” she says.

Transition Initiative Kenora must now wait for the new panel to formally issue a response to the motion.

Hatt says the NEB will have to hear from all interested parties, which will include TransCanada and many intervenors. It could take weeks or longer to hear from all parties, after which the panel will have to make a decision.

The National Energy Board can refer the matter to the Federal Court of Appeal or could refuse to grant relief.

Hatt says “if and when that happens we will advise our client about challenging that decision in court.”

He adds that the motion provides the federal government with the opportunity to restart the process under a renewed National Energy Board Act and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, both of which are currently under federal review.

Strengthened environmental laws could result in “a totally different type of review of these important pipeline projects,” Hatt says.

“They’ve put bandaids on the existing legislation but it’s still the legislation that was reformed by the previous government.”

It was also announced on Jan. 9 that Ginoogaming and Aroland First Nations had filed a lawsuit and injunction against TransCanada to ensure proper consultation for pipeline maintenance and prevent “integrity digs” that some fear are actually preliminary work connected to Energy East.

Environmental Defence has also called for the NEB to “pull the plug on the Energy East review and restart it only when an overhauled review process with a credible climate test is in place.”

Newton says her group is “content to just see what happens next in this ongoing saga.”

Image: Environmental Defence poster outlining risks of TransCanada's Energy East pipeline. Photo: Environmental Defence via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

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.

You know you’ve got the attention of the fossil fuel industry when the Financial Post’s Claudia Cattaneo pens a dismissive column about your efforts.

On Tuesday, Cattaneo — recently dubbed “everyone’s favorite oil and gas shill” by American Energy News — bestowed the honour on a new report about TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline, published by the Natural Resources Defense Council and 13 other environmental organizations including 350.org, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

“Canadian [sic] are also right to wonder why a deep-pocketed U.S. group with an army of lawyers is meddling in an all-Canadian pipeline project,” she opined in her 820-word column, shortly after insinuating the Natural Resources Defense Council “needed to conquer and make money off a new dragon” following the presidential veto of the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015.

The idea that Energy East only concerns Canadians is a curious perspective. But it’s certainly not a unique one.

The Energy East project, requiring 1,500 kilometers of new pipeline and the conversion of 3,000 kilometers of existing natural gas infrastructure in order to transport up to 1.1 million barrels of dilbit per day, has been heralded by many as a quintessentially Canadian project, comparable to the Canadian Pacific Railway in scope and significance. Even Rick Mercer argued for its construction.

Unlike the Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans-Mountain Expansion, however, there’s been a fair bit of obfuscation about what the desired market is for the transported product.

That’s a key problem for a big picture defence of the project.

Some have contended that Energy East will transport products for consumption in Eastern Canada, helping to foster energy security by breaking a reliance on imports from the Middle East. Such a reality would indeed seem like an “all-Canadian pipeline project” and justify Cattaneo’s confusion about why U.S. organizations are getting involved in the battle.

But as the Natural Resources Defense Council’s new 24-page report (ominously titled “Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean“) sketches out, the U.S. has many, many reasons for concern: threats to marine mammals, vulnerable ecosystems and progress on climate change, for starters.

“From the U.S. perspective, [Energy East] is a huge project that right now feels as if it’s being snuck in,” says Josh Axelrod, a Washington, D.C.- based policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-author of the report in an interview.

”We’re worried if it remains on the down-low that our regulators will basically find out about dilbit tankers the day something goes wrong and will not be prepared for it. We would like to, at the very least, have them prepared, if not express their disapproval of the idea.”

Sinking Tarballs, Whale Collisions: Potential Impacts of #EnergyEast on the U.S. Coast Detailed in New Report https://t.co/wCTtKXg8bG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 28, 2016

Tankers Could Move 328 Million Barrels of Oil Per Year in U.S. Water

Axelrod’s quick to point out there’s “no compelling case” for the suggestion that Energy East is planned to transport oil for Canadians to use.

In TransCanada’s May 2016 consolidated application to Canada’s National Energy Board, the company estimated it would ship up to 281 tankers every year.

Axelrod says the proposed tanker configuration amounts to 900,000 barrels a day.

By the report’s estimates, tankers could move up to 328 million barrels of oil to refineries in New Jersey, Delaware, Louisiana and Texas: the U.S. Gulf Coast sports 25 refineries, 17 of which have a history of processing heavy oilsands crude.

Meanwhile, New Brunswick’s Irving refinery doesn’t have the capacity or even necessarily the desire to process dilbit (Axelrod adds the reversal of Enbridge’s Line 9B in September makes Energy East less useful to the Montreal refineries).

This matters a great deal. If TransCanada was intending to transport and sell dilbit to Canadian refineries for Canadian usage, it would indeed be odd for a report to call for a moratorium on tankers; Cattaneo strangely suggested in her column that the proposed ban is “a bit surprising given that oilsands tankers would be leaving from a Canadian port, making it harder to block by the U.S. administration.”

For at this point, the facts seem clear: tankers will be leaving a Canadian port and travelling through American waters with potentially catastrophic impacts in the case of a spill or accident.

Dilbit Spills Notoriously Difficult to Clean Up

The report points to two major incidents that have occurred in the past few years — the 2010 Enbridge spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, and the 2013 ExxonMobil spill in Arkansas — as examples of the difficulties of containing and cleaning up a dilbit spill.

A 2016 report by the National Academy of Sciences emphasized that dilbit sinks in water and doesn’t biodegrade easily, making a spill far more disastrous than its conventional counterpart.

And that’s not even to speak of issues like ship strikes (when ships hit whales or other marine mammals), noise pollution or the accidental transportation of invasive species.

These are all issues that one would hope regulators would consider in their review of projects. But Axelrod says the National Energy Board (NEB) has “really flubbed this,” using a process that fails to consider cumulative impacts or acknowledge difficulties with cleaning up other dilbit spills.

“The NEB likes to make it seem like their processes are straightforward but they’ve really made it into a disaster,” he says. “There’s pro forma discussion of some of the impacts but a very limited scope.”

Energy East Exempted From Environmental Assessment Overhaul

There is still lots of time to correct such problems: the NEB’s consultation process will be continuing until 2018, while the very earliest Energy East could start transporting dilbit would be 2021.

But companies including TransCanada and Kinder Morgan have already been told by the federal government that “no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line,” with the exception of the evaluation of their upstream greenhouse gas emissions.

“I hope it’s being used as a way to look at a project’s impacts on provincial and national climate goals and international commitments, and if that’s the case it could be a useful tool,” Axelrod says. “But it really misses a lot of the project’s climate impacts.”

And given the NEB will almost certainly approve the project — since 2012, the body has had to conduct environmental assessments and consultations, tasks that are far outside of its original mandate — that’s a problem the federal cabinet will have to confront.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion will be decided upon before Energy East. But that’s a far more complicated project due to dozens of unresolved First Nations land claims. The Alberta NDP also appears to have put more long-term hope in Energy East due to such factors.

But if Canada does end up approving Energy East — and, of course, depending on who’s elected as president of the United States — it may end up seeing a similar conclusion to what happened with the Keystone XL pipeline: pushed for by Canada and rejected by America due to potential impacts on environments and wildlife.

Maybe, by then, it will have all started to make sense for Cattaneo and her pals.

Image: NRDC

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 speech Alberta Premier Rachel Notley gave to over 1,000 federal NDP delegates on Saturday in Edmonton’s Shaw Convention Centre was a stunning thing to behold.

In a mere half-hour, she received around a dozen standing ovations, cracked a pretty solid joke about Donald Trump and delivered a unabashed appeal for the approval and construction of pipelines “that are built by Canadians, using Canadian steel.”

But even more stunning was the fact that she completely failed to mention the rights or interests of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people.

Oil and Gas Industry Currently Critical to Alberta Economy

The Alberta government clearly has a reason for wanting to facilitate the export of more oil and gas via the proposed TransCanada Energy East and Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain pipelines.

In 2014, energy products accounted for one-quarter of the province’s GDP and three-quarters of its exports. The global oil price has since plummeted by two-thirds, resulting in a projected provincial deficit of over $10 billion.

Notley emphasized in her speech that “hundreds of thousands of Canadians work in resource industries — here and across Canada” and “we need to be able to get the best possible world price for the oil we produce here” via “pipelines to tidewater that allows us to diversify our markets and upgrade our products.”

Alberta NDP Pledged to Implement UNDRIP, “Ensure Respectful Consultation”

Those are very nice ideas, supported by many political pundits and Alberta NDP supporters.

But unfortunately for such boosters, the NDP committed in its election platform to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and to “work with Alberta Indigenous Peoples to build a relationship of trust and ensure respectful consultation.”

Article 32 of the declaration states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories.”

And free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) underpins much of the document, requiring that Indigenous peoples are consulted with in a way that ensures a process free of manipulation, conducted well in advance and with plenty of information provided.

Eriel Deranger, communications manager of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) suggests the NDP’s push for the development of pipelines and oil and gas resources simply doesn’t respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

“Where’s the consent?” asks Deranger. “If communities want to say ‘no,’ then we’re talking about a government that’s willing to respect communities’ right to say ‘no’ and to uphold that right,” she says.

Many First Nations Oppose Energy East and Trans Mountain Expansion

Many First Nations and other Indigenous groups have voiced opposition to Energy East and the Trans Mountain expansion (the two projects considered most likely to be approved and constructed).

The Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs are explicitly opposed to Trans Mountain, while the entire Iroquois caucus, Wolastoq Grand Council and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have united in resistance to Energy East.

A letter sent by Mohawk Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard in early March stated: “The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake as well as the rest of the Iroquois caucus has made its choice. Other First Nations are making the same choice.”

Mike Hudema, climate energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada, says: “Not only have First Nations not given their consent but they have said very strongly that they don’t want these pipelines going through their traditional territory.”

Federal Government Positioning to Implement Pipeline Strategy

On Monday, the National Post’s John Ivison reported (while vaguely citing “people with knowledge of the matter”) that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instructed cabinet ministers to prepare a pipeline strategy to “make Energy East and Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.”

The federal government has also pledged to implement UNDRIP, as well as all 94 calls to action contained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The TRC also emphasizes the concept of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples “before proceeding with economic development projects” and the requirement of “recognition and integration of Indigenous laws and legal traditions in negotiation and implementation processes involving Treaties, land claims, and other constructive agreements.”

Many First Nations Desire Co-management of Resource Development

Deranger emphasizes that First Nations communities are not anti-development: “There’s this really, really antiquated notion that if you give First Nations the right to say ‘no’ we’re going to end up back in teepees and sending smoke signals or something really ridiculous,” she jokes.

Rather, she says First Nations are asking for co-management of resource development, something that has been done in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Northern Quebec and Manitoba (ACFN has been petitioning for a similar arrangement for 20 years).

“Co-management is not asking for everything,” she says. “It’s asking to be partners. Our ancestors signed our treaty agreements believing that we were signing nation-to-nation agreements, to be given equal say in the development of our lands and territories.”

There has been no public indication that such conversations are on the radar of the provincial or federal government.

Alberta’s Push for Pipelines “Flies in the Face of These Commitments”

After all, truly engaging with documents like UNDRIP and the TRC would require a complete overhaul of how development is conducted, could potentially pose a threat to corporate profits and prove difficult to explain to voters.

But the Alberta NDP perhaps shouldn’t have promised to implement such policies if it just wanted to continue rapid oilsands development in Treaty 8 territory and ram pipelines through other sovereign territories without ensuring free, prior and informed consent beforehand.

“I do think the Alberta government pushing so hard for pipelines really flies in the face of these commitments,” Hudema says. “A lot of First Nations communities are looking to see how the government deals with this situation to know how serious the government really is to its commitments to First Nations people.”

Image: Premier Rachel Notley holds a sign in support of the Energy East pipeline. Photo: Premier of Alberta/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.

This is a guest post by Ecojustice National Program Director Barry Robinson and staff lawyers Charles Hatt and Karen Campbell. It originally appeared on the Ecojustice website.

The Harper government’s 2012 environmental law rollbacks were a blunt-force trauma to the environmental assessment of pipelines. And last week, the new federal Liberal government prescribed band-aids for an ailing patient that needed more.

On January 27, the federal government announced interim measures for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project Review process and the upcoming TransCanada Energy East Pipeline Project Review process. These measures are a welcome first step, but unfortunately still fall short of what is required to restore public faith in National Energy Board (NEB) reviews and environmental assessments in Canada.

The interim measures are part of the Liberal government’s mandate to “regain public trust” and deal with the broken process left behind by the Harper government’s repeal and replacement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and amendments to the National Energy Board Act. These efforts to fast track approvals for proposed pipeline projects backfired and have brought public confidence in project reviews to an all-time low. Public trust in these reviews is so diminished that communities from coast to coast — Burnaby, Kenora, Montreal and Saint John, to name a few — have organized against proposed projects and regulators. This is unprecedented.

The federal government has indicated that it intends to overhaul the legislation that governs both the NEB and federal environmental assessment processes. The interim measures introduced last week — some immediate short-term measures for the Trans Mountain and Energy East processes and a set of five principles for other environmental assessments — will take effect before those promised legislative reforms are made.

Too little, too late for Trans Mountain, missed opportunity on Energy East

The interim measures include: additional consultation with First Nations outside of the NEB process, additional consultation with affected communities, and an assessment of the greenhouse gases from the oil projects supplying the pipelines. To achieve this, the government extended the review processes for the Trans Mountain pipeline by four months and for the Energy East pipeline by nine months. But even with these extended timelines, it is hard to imagine how these interim measures will do anything more than simply gloss over the systemic procedural flaws that undermine the NEB’s legitimacy as a regulator.

In the case of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain project, these measures come as too little, too late. Last week, our colleague Dyna Tuytel stood before the National Energy Board and laid out how Kinder Morgan’s application, riddled with flaws and weak evidence, make it clear that the Board has no choice but to recommend against the project. The new measures will not remedy the fact that Kinder Morgan’s application does not address sinking dilbit, threats to the survival of Southern Resident Killer Whales, or the ecological and health risks of a massive marine oil spill. Given these flaws, the NEB cannot reasonably or lawfully recommend that Cabinet approve this project.

The process is somewhat less clear for Energy East. The federal government will expand its consultation with First Nations and will assess the additional upstream greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project. It is directing the NEB to expand its public and community engagement activities and will appoint up to three new members to the Board to help. It remains to be seen if the NEB will react to the government’s direction and use the additional time wisely and correct the flaws that occurred in the Trans Mountain process. For instance, the additional time could be considered by the NEB as an invitation to require cross-examination.

What the federal government didn’t do — but could have done — was stop and reform the entire Energy East review before it begins. TransCanada submitted its revised application in December and the NEB has not yet determined if the application is complete. Intervenors in the process have not been selected and the NEB has not issued a hearing order setting out the review process. The government’s new measures leave it to the NEB to decide whether the Energy East review becomes a rerun of the Trans Mountain process. Here, the government missed a golden opportunity to put the entire process on hold until legislative amendments could effectively repair the damage done by the Harper government’s rollbacks.

For other projects already under review or new projects that enter the environmental assessment process before legislative reforms are made, the government announced five principles that will apply:

• Projects which have already started in the environmental assessment process will continue in that process;
• Decisions will be based on science, traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples and other relevant evidence;
• The views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered;
• Indigenous peoples will be meaningfully consulted; and
• Direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) will be assessed.

These are a welcome start, but they do not address key underlying problems. For example, the restrictive timelines set by the Harper government’s 2012 reforms remain in place. This means intervenors will still be rushed to retain experts, gather evidence, and present it to the regulator. For major projects, there may be inadequate time for oral cross-examination of expert witnesses.

Prescribed climate test misses half the picture

The interim measures falter further when it comes to capturing climate impacts related to major projects. While upstream greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed and reported (also note: It’s not clear how this information would be applied in a regulatory context), this climate test does not consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions.

In the case of a pipeline, this means carbon pollution associated with producing oil for transport will be assessed (upstream impacts), but carbon pollution emitted once that oil is burned (downstream impacts) will not. Furthermore, this test will not determine whether a project’s total climate impact is consistent with the carbon reduction targets set in Paris.

There is no time to get this climate test wrong. To that end, here are three refinements we propose:

• It must consider downstream and upstream GHGs. To look at upstream impacts is to only consider part of the equation. At least half of project emissions will come from the downstream side of things. This cannot be overlooked.
• It must do more than simply assess and make public the GHGs. There must be a meaningful commitment to reduce, mitigate, adapt — or otherwise cut emissions if Canada is to take its commitment to keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees seriously.
• These GHG emissions must be considered within the broader Canadian energy context. This means that instead of looking at project emissions in isolation, ideally, we should consider them in concert with Canada’s overall emissions. This would be fairer to Canadians and industry, and it could enable a meaningful dialogue about how reductions can most effectively and quickly occur. While this conversation rightfully lies outside project review processes, it is one that needs to happen.

Looking ahead

While they could be improved, these interim measures still count as steps in the right direction. We urge the government to honour its commitment to consult with Canadians and move quickly to heal the trauma of the Harper government’s environmental law rollbacks.

Ecojustice will continue to contribute to that discussion to ensure that Canada’s environmental assessment processes are inclusive of all Canadians, make robust use of the available scientific and Indigenous knowledge, have adequate time for thorough review and cross-examination, and align with Canada’s carbon reduction targets.

Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery  

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.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr has reiterated the federal government’s pledge to overhaul the National Energy Board in order to restore public confidence in Canada’s pipeline review process. But the promised legislative changes will not come quickly.

"You don't rush your way into decisions that affect not only today, but generationally in Canada in the new world of sustainably moving resources to market," Carr said Monday while attending the federal cabinet’s retreat in New Brunswick.

Over the last month, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan requested Carr and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspend the review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid a decision being pushed through a process they claim is “deeply flawed.” Trans Mountain’s final hearings began as scheduled on January 19 in Burnaby, British Columbia.

"The minister is correct, we shouldn’t rush the creation of a new process,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said. “But continuing with the flawed Kinder Morgan and Energy East reviews is entirely inconsistent with Liberal promises. How can a 'transition strategy' rectify the failings around public participation and Indigenous consultation for these projects. I don't see how this can happen."

“We are not saying pipeline companies have to go back to square one,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. “All evidence submitted goes on hold and this can be supplemented with additional evidence after the changes are made.”

Trudeau’s government has been clear on several occasions pipeline projects currently under National Energy Board review will not be forced to go back to “square one,” that is, begin their application process completely from scratch.

The legislative changes during the Harper government’s 2012 omnibus bill frenzy severely weakened key pieces of environmental protection legislative like the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Species At Risk Act. The National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were also altered to ensure proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15-months, no matter how complex those projects may be.

“Some pipeline reviews may fall into that time limit. On the other hand, large projects with clear risks like Energy East or Kinder Morgan may not and this is problematic,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada.

There is little doubt the massive surge of public participation in the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings in B.C. served as the impetus for the Harper government to slap time limits on project reviews. With the exception of the Mackenzie Gas Project, the Board took less than 15 months to make its decisions on project applications between 2004 and 2012.

The controversial Northern Gateway proposal to pipe oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen to B.C.’s northern coast drew records numbers of public participants for regulatory hearings and took four years to complete. The Board approved the project, albeit with over 200 conditions, in 2014.

By allowing pipeline reviews to proceed under the previous federal government’s rules, the Liberal government may be condemning projects to go back to ‘square one’ regardless. First Nations, and environmental organizations over the last four years have not been hesitant to take pipeline reviews to court over violations of ‘aboriginal’ rights or the freedom of expression.

In some cases, pipeline opponents are winning these legal battles, particularly those launched by First Nations.

Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of coastal First Nations who argued in their case against Northern Gateway that the B.C. government fail to consult them about the pipeline proposal. The provincial government is now required to meaningfully consult coastal First Nations on the project, which many believe to be dead already.

Similar scenarios could play out for other pipeline projects.

The Board’s review of Trans Mountain faces a legal challenge by Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. Energy East has not come up against a legal case yet, but Treaty 3 First Nations in Ontario have vowed not to allow the pipeline to go through their territory without their free, prior and informed consent.

Line 9 pipeline, one of the first pipelines to be approved by the Board in the post-2012 omnibus bill era, is also being challenge by Deshkaan Ziibing (Chippewas of the Thames). The Ontario First Nation plans on taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Image Credit: Shannon Ramos 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.

Three prominent First Nations organizations are calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cancel the regulatory reviews of three major oilsands pipelines as a step towards reconciliation between Canada and First Nations.

“First Nations and Canada have a lot of work to do regarding measures needed to finally put us all on the path of reconciliation and partnership,” the joint letter to Trudeau, signed by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, states.

“We focus here on one such measure — the overhaul of the review and assessment process for tar sands export pipelines.”

Earlier this week, Trudeau was on hand as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada unveiled its final report on the Indian Residential Schools. During the closing ceremony, Trudeau gave his word to “renew and respect” Canada’s relationship with indigenous peoples in the country.

“Our First Nations in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec call for the establishment of a new pipeline review and assessment process, to be developed and implemented in collaboration with First Nations, that will enable a thorough and objective environmental assessment of these pipelines,” the letter adds.

The three pipeline projects at issue in the letter are KinderMorgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 3, all of which are currently under review by the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator.

Trudeau has promised to overhaul the NEB to ensure more thorough assessments of proposed pipelines (including a climate test), but stopped short of making this a requirement for projects currently under review.

According to Canada’s new Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, no proponent of a pipeline project under review right now will be required “to go back to square one.”

“At a time when our First Nations are already suffering major climate change related impacts to their ways of life, the full consideration of climate change impacts has to be a major focus of any new review and assessment process for the pipelines,” the letter states.

“Our Indigenous laws tell us that actions have consequences. Mother Earth is giving us signs that she is out of balance. Climate change is one of these signs.”

The group also accused the NEB of being an “industry-captured ‘rubber stamper.’" They raised concerns about an apparent revolving door between the energy industry and the regulator.

Last August, energy consultant Steven Kelly was appointed to the board by the Harper government, despite having been hired by Kinder Morgan two years prior to conduct an economic analysis of the Trans Mountain pipeline project in B.C.

“The NEB's conflict of interest issues need to be urgently resolved,” the letter concludes.

This is the second letter the Prime Minister has received this month calling on him to intervene in a pipeline project. Last week, eighty organizations in Quebec and Ontario including Greenpeace and Equiterre and two First Nations demanded Trudeau stop the recently reopened Line 9 pipeline.

“We urge the federal government to halt the Line 9 project until it can be subjected to a subsequent review under more robust, transparent, and democratic conditions,” the December 9th letter states.

“It is our strongly-held conviction that the prior government’s support for the NEB structure and review process has resulted in an erroneous decision that threatens communities, water sources, local ecosystems, and the planet,” the letter adds.

Image Credit: US State Department

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.

If you’ve been watching headlines about the historic signing of the Paris Agreement this past weekend, you may be understandably confused.

Does the world’s first climate treaty represent the beginning of the end for fossil fuels or a mere free-market cop out?

Both arguments hold some truth. That’s because the agreement is more form, less substance. That’s what it was intended to be. The real meat of the deal remains entirely undetermined because it has yet to grow on the bones of the treaty.

What countries like Canada actually do to implement the intended outcome of the Paris Agreement — to keep temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions — will determine whether the torrent of analyses we’re seeing, dire or otherwise, have any merit.

“There’s this Buddhist idiom that says: first Enlightenment, then the laundry,” Glen Murray, Ontario’s Environment Minister, said at the climate summit in Paris. “This has been the Enlightenment and now we all have to go home and do the laundry to make sure this happens.”

Same Finish Line, Different Starting Lines

Ontario received praise in Paris for its complete phase out of coal-fired power plants in 2014 and Murray spent time advising other jurisdictions, including Alberta, how they could do the same.

Yet, Ontario’s bold climate move — more than 25 per cent of the province’s power previously came from coal — and Alberta’s new climate plan highlight just how disparate efforts to limit wildly different amounts and sources of emissions are from province-to-province.

According to Environment Canada, between 1990 and 2013 Canada’s absolute emissions increased by 18 per cent, primarily from the growth of fossil fuel industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. Emissions from the oil and gas sector are responsible for nearly one quarter of all national emissions.

During that time, Alberta’s provincial emissions grew by 53 per cent, Saskatchewan’s by 66 per cent, B.C.’s by 21 per cent and Manitoba’s by 14 per cent.

The absolute emissions of Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the territories all fell during this same period.

As the saying went in Paris, we’re all trying to get to the same finish line, but don’t all have the same starting line.

Feds Need to Implement Harmonized GHG Targets

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to meet with the premiers within 90 days of the Paris climate talks to discuss how Canada will move forward in a post-Paris Agreement world.

The federal government has promised both to work with the provinces but also to implement a pan-Canadian framework for addressing the country’s growing emissions profile.

According to Erin Flanagan, policy expert from the Pembina Institute, how the federal government will wrangle the provinces together under a national climate framework is still a complete mystery.

“In large part, the federal government has been highly cooperative and collaborative with provinces in these first few weeks,” Flanagan said, adding she doesn’t think Ottawa will be unfairly prescriptive when it comes to establishing a policy pathway.

“At the same time,” she said, “if Canada makes good on that commitment of a pan-Canadian framework within 90 days of Paris, one of the things they talked about is instituting harmonized targets.”

Tensions Likely to Emerge Between Provinces

Differing opinions on what that harmonized target should be and what each province must do to achieve it could mean troubled water between premiers and the federal government.

Flanagan said Alberta’s much celebrated climate action plan did not include specific emission reduction targets.

Alberta promised to phase out its 18 coal-fired power plants, introduce a carbon tax to match B.C.’s $30/tonne price to put a cap on oilsand’s emissions.

“But they didn’t frame any of that in terms of what Alberta should do to reduce its emission between now and 2030,” Flanagan said. “So there will be an additional conversation now about what Alberta’s contribution to a national target will be.

I think that’s where some of the challenges over the next little while will emerge.”

What steps the federal government might take if a province like Alberta fails to meet its targets will also form a part of that challenging conversation, Flanagan added.

B.C. is often celebrated for its climate leadership after instituting the country’s first carbon tax. Yet at the Paris climate talks, B.C. was on the hook for freezing that carbon tax back in 2012 and now working to build a carbon-heavy liquefied natural gas (LNG) empire.

“I don’t want to pick on the west too much,” Flanagan said, “but B.C. is a good example where you’ve got a world-winning carbon tax…but if you look at modeling coming out of that province they’re not likely to hit their 2020 or 2030 climate targets.”

“So how do you penalize a jurisdiction that has a carbon tax but isn’t doing enough to actually contribute nationally?”

“That’s going to be a tough one,” she said.

“As much as subnational climate action has been exciting — that’s the best climate story coming out of Canada right now — it does pose the risk of fragmentation. None of these conversations have been about what Canada’s emissions look like in a climate safe world. They’ve been about what it means for Ontario or Quebec or B.C. to be a climate leader.”

Living Up to Paris Agreement Means Quick Transition Off Fossil Fuels

Those are important conversations, but they need to be brought into the context of Canada’s contribution on the global stage.

If Canada is to do its fair share to keep global temperatures from increasing beyond 1.5 or even two degrees Celsius, it must reduce its emissions 80 per cent by 2050.

According to Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that charts a clear course for decarbonization.

“In order to live up to this deal we must, as a country, quickly transition off fossil fuels and usher into the renewable age,” he said. “This means saying no to tarsands pipelines and other carbon infrastructure.”

In Paris, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna avoided commenting on specific projects like the TransCanada Energy East pipeline, proposed to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta to ports in New Brunswick.

“I don’t like just looking at one particular development,” McKenna said in Paris when asked about the climate impacts of Energy East. “We are looking at how we are going to make progress towards a low-carbon economy.”

Last month, President Barack Obama rejected the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, saying the project’s climate impacts were intolerable. Now many onlookers from within the climate movement are saying Canada should evaluate energy projects and infrastructure according to a similar “climate test.”

Feds May Have to Step in and Reject Projects

Critically, Canada’s position within a global context must be drawn into the national decision-making process, Flanagan said. This may mean rejecting oilsands projects, natural gas extraction or coal-fired power plants at the federal level.

Canada’s overall climate targets should not be up for negotiation with the provinces, Flanagan added.

“You let climate scientists at Environment Canada determine what that trajectory looks like and you then negotiate with the provinces how you share that burden,” she said.

“Ultimately if they want to achieve these goals they have to be bad cop and good cop — not just good cop.”

Image: Twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet the board did not find TransCanada met those reqirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: TransCanada via Youtube

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

On Saturday, April 11, thousands of Canadians are expected to gather in Quebec City for a national day of action on climate change (update: an estimated 25,000 attended the march). The march will occur in advance of an unprecedented gathering of the nation's premiers, who will meet in Quebec City April 14 to discuss provincial climate plans (Premiers Christy Clark, Jim Prentice and Stephen McNeil declined to attend the summit).

According to a new poll released by the Canadian arm of the Climate Action Network, the majority of Canadians feel addressing climate change is a higher priority than developing the Alberta oilsands or building pipelines.

“Canadians believe climate disruption is a moral issue and that climate protection trumps development of the tarsands and pipelines. They want politicians to control carbon pollution and give citizens a say in energy decision-making,” the network said in a press release.

Polling data shows the majority of Canadians — 61 per cent — from across the political spectrum said protecting the climate is more important than further developing the oilsands and building the proposed Energy East pipeline, designed to carry 1.1 million barrels of oilsands crude each day to east coast refineries and export terminals.

Eighty per cent of Canadians said they were familiar with the Energy East project and 47 per cent of Canadians oppose the project, 36 per cent support it and 18 per cent said they were unsure.

The poll also showed Canadians are supportive of clean energy initiatives, with 72 per cent saying they would like to see a plan in place for more jobs in the renewable energy sector.

A report recently released by Greenpeace Canada and Environmental Defence argues continued expansion of the Alberta oilsands is at cross-purposes with the nation’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The study argues increased production in the oilsands “makes it almost impossible for Canada to meet even weak carbon reduction targets or go further and show climate leadership.”

In the past few years Canadians engaged in the pipeline review process have expressed serious concern with the legitimacy of the National Energy Board and its role in reviewing major energy infrastructure projects.

The National Energy Board is currently engaged in a tense formal public hearing process in British Columbia on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and in Ontario and Quebec along the route of the Energy East pipeline.

Recently, seven B.C. mayors publicly declared their "non-confidence" in the board’s review of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The municipal leaders requested the federal government intervene and halt the process until a full public hearing process is re-instated.  

“Canadians are looking for political leadership,” Stephen Guilbeault, senior policy director at Equiterre, said. “The federal government is missing in action. It is time for all federal and provincial leaders to take responsibility for doing their part to protect the climate.”

The poll was conducted by Oracle Research Limited which conducted a national random telephone survey of over 3,000 Canadians between March 12 and March 30, 2015. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 1.78%, 19/20 times.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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 Oil Magazine just published its National Survey on Energy Literacy, the culmination of 1,396 online interviews of a representative sample of Canadians conducted by Leger.

The results are particularly interesting coming from Alberta Oil, a magazine destined for the desks of the energy sector’s senior executives and decision-makers.

Summing up the survey’s findings about “The Issues,” Alberta Oil editors write that opposition to energy projects is “not just for West Coast hippies anymore.”

Indeed. There are quite a few nuggets in the survey’s findings that are probably causing a headache or two in Calgary’s corner offices this week. We round up the Top 5.

1) Opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is just as serious as opposition to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline — if not more so, according to the survey. What’s more, the more highly educated citizens are, the less likely they are to support Trans Mountain or Northern Gateway. Hmph, maybe the anti-pipeline crowd isn’t all unemployed hippies after all?

2) Fewer than one-in-ten post-secondary graduates find oil and gas industry associations credible and trustworthy when it comes to carbon emissions. That shouldn’t come as a huge surprise given that industry associations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have fought new greenhouse gas regulations and successfully lobbied to weaken Canada’s environmental laws.

3) Young people aren’t super stoked on the future of the energy industry. Just 16.5 per cent of people 18-34 described it as “essential,” compared to 30.3 per cent overall. What’s more, only 9.3 per cent of respondents aged 18-34 described the oilsands as “essential” compared to 18 per cent for the broader population.

4) While British Columbia has thus far been the focal point of Canada’s pipeline debate, the strongest opposition to the oil and gas sector is actually in Quebec. That’s going to have big ramifications for the proposed Energy East pipeline that would theoretically transport bitumen across that province. When asked to think of the oil and gas sector in Canada and select words that come to mind, 51 per cent of Quebecers came up with “environmental disaster.” Time for Trans Canada's PR people to pop an Advil. (Since Edelman isn't doing their dirty work for them any more …)

Screencap of Alberta Oil Magazine's National Survey on Energy Literacy.

5) The editors at Alberta Oil do some hand-wringing about Canadians' lack of “energy literacy” … although energy literacy in this case appears to be defined as the ability to answer some pretty obscure pro-industry questions.

Take the multiple choice question on how much more carbon intensive the oil produced from Alberta’s oilsands is than the average grade of U.S. crude on a well-to-wheels basis. Only 5.6 per cent of respondents chose correctly.

Ummm hold on, hasn’t there been a raging debate going on for the past few years on oilsands’ emissions intensity?

While Alberta Oil would like you to think the “correct” answer to that question is six per cent, a comparison of oilsands emissions intensities (well-to-wheels) from seven data sources to the 2005 U.S. baseline showed that oilsands emissions range from eight to 37 per cent higher than the baseline. Really, the best answer would probably be that there's a huge amount of variation and disagreement on oilsands emissions intensity.

In good news, very few Canadians can spew out the precise answers industry wants to hear to their technical questions. Oil execs probably aren’t loving that their multi-million dollar advertising campaigns appear to be falling on deaf ears.

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.