Even as calls abound for a green economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, construction is underway on major new pipelines in B.C. and Alberta to carry diluted bitumen and natural gas to international markets. 

For experts who say the world is already moving too slowly to avoid catastrophic climate change the decision to build new pipelines is a pressing concern. But for Alberta’s oil industry, which has felt the pinch from a lack of pipeline capacity for years, new construction offers hope for better prices down the road.

The federal government, meanwhile, continues to insist that Canada can have both a strong oil and gas industry and meet its climate targets.

In comments to The Globe and Mail in July 2020, Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan said, “I am very serious about combatting climate change and I’m very serious about net zero, and that means we need to make sure we have a prosperous, innovative, healthy oil and gas industry.”

Despite ongoing uncertainty about major pipelines south of the border and opposition to projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline in Canada, O’Regan said the federal government is pushing for both Keystone XL and Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement to move forward.

On Trans Mountain, he told The Globe: “It’s getting built.”

However, the prospect of new oil and gas infrastructure could pose a major challenge for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as major investments in pipeline projects signal a commitment to oilsands production for years to come.

“I’m very worried,” said Juan Moreno-Cruz, a Canada Research Chair in energy transitions based at the University of Waterloo, who pointed to a 2019 analysis in the journal Nature that found existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure has already put the world’s ability to limit warming to 1.5 C at risk.

“Every time you do something new, something as monumental as these pipelines, you are delaying that and increasing the chances that we’re just not going to be able to achieve the climate goals we need to,” Moreno-Cruz said.

In its World Energy Outlook 2020, the International Energy Agency projects demand for oil will recover from its “historic drop in 2020” by 2023, but expects demand will plateau after 2030 based on policies currently in place and an assumption that the pandemic is under control next year. 

In a scenario where countries are pursuing net-zero emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency projects demand for oil will fall over the next decade as demand for renewable energy increases. 

Richard Masson, an executive fellow at the University of Calgary and chair of the World Petroleum Council, said he believes the oilsands will play a part in providing fuels for transportation and feedstock for petrochemicals for decades to come. 

“There are really very limited choices for transportation fuel. Electricity doesn’t work for jets and trains and planes. And even for cars, electric vehicles are a tiny share of the market and it’s going to be a long time before they take a meaningful share of the market,” he said.

New pipelines will help ensure Alberta producers aren’t forced to sell their product at a discount, Masson added.

Several factors have contributed to the lower prices for Alberta crude, according to Masson. Looking back to 2018, there wasn’t enough pipeline capacity to carry all the oil that was being produced in Alberta to refineries, causing a glut in the province. In addition, a number of the U.S. midwest refineries that usually take in Alberta oil were undergoing repairs, so there was less demand for the raw product (leaving producers to send their oil to refineries that were less efficient at processing heavy oil).

“That just resulted in this huge blowout in prices,” said Masson.

In response, the Alberta government brought in curtailment, restricting the amount of oil produced in the province, he explained. 

This year, as demand dropped due to COVID-19, producers voluntarily cut production, but Masson said, it won’t be long before demand climbs back up and pipeline capacity becomes an issue once again. 

Beyond the risks of ongoing reliance on fossil fuels affecting climate change, there are significant concerns about the local environmental threat posed by some of the major pipeline projects currently under construction.

The devastating consequences of a diluted bitumen spill in the Salish Sea, for instance, is a major concern for some coastal First Nations who oppose the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Cynthia Callison, a founding partner of the Vancouver law firm Callison & Hanna and a member of the Tahltan Nation in northwest B.C., said those underlying reasons — the risk of irreparable harm to traditional territories — are critical for understanding why many Indigenous people haven’t consented to the project.

“For Indigenous people, they believe that the risks are too high, that they’re too great, that there is no way to mitigate any leak especially around important waterways,” Callison said.

She pointed to the potentially devastating impacts of an oil spill in the Fraser River, a major salmon-bearing river many First Nations rely on for both food and the survival of their cultural practices.

Despite the risks, construction is underway on major pipelines in Canada. Here’s the status of four key projects.

Trans Mountain pipeline

The Trans Mountain expansion would lead to a major spike in tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet. Photo: Edna Winti / Flickr

Construction of the controversial 1,150-kilometre Trans Mountain pipeline, which will increase pipeline capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day and result in a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic to the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, B.C., is underway in both B.C. and Alberta.

Trans Mountain Corporation said in early September that construction in the Edmonton area is nearly done. Construction of the pipeline and pump stations was ongoing in the Yellowhead region of Alberta as of late August.

In B.C., meanwhile, Trans Mountain contractor Surerus Murphy Joint Venture laid the first section of pipe in Kamloops in late September and Trans Mountain said pipeline construction is expected to begin along the Lower Mainland route in the coming months. The route between Surrey and Burnaby has already been approved by the Canada Energy Regulator, but just 3.5 per cent of the route through the Fraser Valley has been approved so far.

Construction is ongoing at the Westridge Marine Terminal in the Lower Mainland, where 60 of 162 piles have been installed so far, according to a September update. Two of the three new births are expected to be open by December 2022.

The cost of the pipeline expansion, which alongside the existing pipeline is now owned by a federal Crown corporation, has ballooned from an estimated $7.4 billion to $12.6 billion.

The project continues to face opposition in B.C. from some First Nations and environmental groups deeply concerned about the threat it poses to lands and waters. 

In an Oct. 19 open letter to the CEOs of finance and insurance companies, a group of Indigenous women and organizations called on the institutions to stop financing, investing and insuring projects related to the oilsands.

“The tar sands sector poses grave threats to Indigenous rights, cultural survival, local waterways and environments, the global climate, and public health,” the letter says.

Earlier in October, five people, including a Secwepemc Nation Hereditary Chief and his daughter, were arrested while protesting Trans Mountain near a worksite in Kamloops.

The route of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Graphic: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Opponents of the project were dealt a loss this summer when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal of a lower court decision denying an application for judicial review of the Trans Mountain expansion approval from three affected First Nations. But legal experts say there may be other avenues First Nations opposed to the project can pursue. 

Callison said First Nations could still make an international complaint through the United Nations that Canada has failed to respect Indigenous rights.

Such a complaint could have a powerful effect, she said. Canada doesn’t “want to lose face, they don’t want to be seen as not respecting the legal rights of Indigenous people,” Callison said.

“So when there is a human rights body that condemns Canada for failing to protect those rights, they do take action, or they have in the past.”

The economic case for the project has also been questioned, most recently by earth scientist David Hughes in an October report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

According to the federal government, it’s estimated that the Trans Mountain expansion will increase revenues for producers by $73 billion over 20 years and increase government revenues by $46 billion through the construction and first two decades of operation.

“TMX will also help strengthen Canada’s advantage as a secure and stable global supplier of oil — now and in the future — while generating the revenues to fund its transition to a low-carbon future,” the federal government says on a website detailing the project’s economic benefits.

Hughes writes that between revised production forecasts, announced expansions and optimizations of other existing pipelines, including Enbridge’s Line 3, and the decline in oil demand driven by COVID-19, there’s no need for additional pipeline capacity from the Trans Mountain expansion.

He also questions the potential for exports to Asia to improve prices for Canadian oil producers, given current prices and higher transport costs.

“The $12.6 billion the government plans to spend on the construction of TMX is counterproductive, as it is unlikely to increase the profits of Canadian producers or result in a revenue stream that will both cover the construction costs and provide additional funds to reduce emissions in a meaningful timeframe,” he writes.

“If anything, TMX will exacerbate the emissions problem by incentivizing additional production growth while diverting funds that could otherwise be spent on actual emissions reduction.”

TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink pipeline

Unist’ot’en spokesperson and camp founder Freda Huson in the foreground as the RCMP enforce a Coastal GasLink injunction in February 2020. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

A linchpin of B.C.’s burgeoning liquefied natural gas industry, the roughly 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline will carry natural gas from northeast B.C. to Kitimat, where it will be liquefied for transport overseas. The pipeline is expected to begin operating in 2023.

The $6.6 billion pipeline, owned by TC Energy, is strongly opposed by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters. There are significant concerns that pipeline construction could harm protected wetlands, erase cultural history and pose a safety threat to Indigenous women as a result of worker camps. 

Despite these concerns, construction has moved forward and almost 3,500 people were working along the pipeline right-of-way in October, the company said in a construction update. Grading is underway in four of the eight pipeline segments to prepare the land for pipe installation.

Twenty-one per cent of the pipeline is already installed in northeast B.C. along the first route segment, which runs from west of Dawson Creek to south of Chetwynd. Pipe is also being installed at the LNG Canada connector site near Kitimat.

Map of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

The Coastal GasLink project has faced considerable opposition from Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters. In February, RCMP arrested more than two dozen people, including Unist’ot’en matriarchs at the Unist’ot’en Healing Centre, as they moved to enforce a court injunction aimed at preventing land defenders from blocking Coastal GasLink’s access to worksites. Protests, including rail blockades, sprung up across the country in support of the Wet’suwet’en.

Lawyers for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en appeared in court in October, asking the B.C. Supreme Court to quash the recent extension of Coastal GasLink’s environmental assessment certificate by the Environmental Assessment Office, the Canadian Press reported.

While the province argued the judicial review is unwarranted, lawyers for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en argued further consideration is needed to determine the project’s potential risks to Indigenous women and girls. The lawyers also raised concerns about TC Energy’s track record of non-compliance with existing environmental conditions, according to the Canadian Press.

Read more: How the Wet’suwet’en crisis could have played out differently

TC Energy’s Keystone XL pipeline

Construction of the Canadian portion of the Keystone XL pipeline has been halted after U.S. President Joe Biden used his first day in office to sign an executive order cancelling a permit for the project.

The move dealt a blow to the planned 1,947-kilometre pipeline, which would ship 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Hardisty, Alta., to Steele City, Nebraska, where the crude would enter existing pipes en route to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The pipeline was expected to be in service by 2023.

Natural Resources Minister O’Regan has said the federal government is “intent on getting it done” and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to the Biden permit cancellation by vowing to fight to save the project.

Alberta, meanwhile, bet $1.5 billion dollars on the project moving forward. Premier Jason Kenney’s United Conservative Party government announced a $1.5 billion investment in TC Energy through stocks, as well as a $6 billion loan guarantee in 2021 to help complete the pipeline.

Kenney said should the project get cancelled, his province would pursue legal avenues for compensation. Kenney also called on Trudeau to pressure the Biden administration to reconsider its decision by raising the prospect of trade sanctions.

Construction on the 269-kilometre Canadian portion of the pipeline began last summer. According to a fall update, construction was underway at the five pump stations in Alberta and along the pipeline right-of-way.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney greets workers in Oyen, Alta, on July 3, after announcing the provincial government’s financial support of Keystone XL. Photo: Chris Schwarz / Government of Alberta / Flickr

Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline

Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline aims to replace the existing 34-inch diameter pipe running from outside of  Edmonton to Superior, Wisconsin, with a 36-inch pipe along most of the route to nearly double its capacity to 760,000 barrels per day, according to the U.S. project page.

Construction of the $5.3 billion Canadian portion of the Line 3 replacement is complete and began operating at the end of last year, but there are fresh delays on construction south of the border.

Significant construction work was put off until 2021 when a Minnesota pollution regulator said in June it would hold public hearings on key water permits for the Enbridge project. The contested case hearing was requested by environmental groups and two Indigenous Nations. 

In an opinion released in October, the judge who presided over the hearing said the groups challenging the permits had not proven the project would cause permanent harm to water quality and wetlands, the Star Tribune reported.

The Minnesota pollution regulator must decide in November whether to approve the water permits.

On energy transitions, ‘the sooner we start, the better’

Overhauling the energy system — shifting from a reliance on fossil fuels to clean energy — is no easy task. 

“The only thing we know is that the sooner we start, the better,” said Moreno-Cruz of the University of Waterloo. “We should have started a long time ago.”

Even as governments and industry continue to invest in fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada and around the world, Sarah Petrevan, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, said there are signs the clean energy transition is taking off.

Globally, “publicly traded renewable power portfolios have posted significantly higher returns for investors and lower volatility than fossil fuels during the past 10 years,” she said, referencing research from the International Energy Agency and the Imperial College of London.

At the same time, Clean Energy Canada’s own research shows that while 50,000 jobs could be lost in fossil fuels over the next decade, there could be more than 160,000 created in clean energy, she said.

“Based on some of the stats and the trends that we’re looking at, there is more bang for your buck for governments to invest in a clean energy future,” she said.

Update Jan. 21, 2021 10:37 a.m. PST: This article has been updated to reflect reaction to the Biden administration’s cancellation of a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

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.

It’s the largest project in the history of Enbridge, itself the largest oil and gas pipeline company in North America. If completed as planned in mid-2019, it will boost oilsands export capacity by 375,000 barrels per day — over half of what the Trans Mountain Expansion will add.

But it’s likely you’ve never heard of Line 3.

“A lot of people don’t even know it exists,” said Laura Cameron, a community organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition, in an interview with The Narwhal. “There just hasn’t been very much conversation around it.”

The Line 3 Replacement Program, or Line 3 for short, spans almost 1,700 kilometres and transports diluted bitumen from the oilsands from Hardisty, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin.

Due to the age and jeopardized quality of the existing pipeline, capacity of Line 3 has been cut in half. Installing a new and slightly wider pipe means that the company can return it to original levels.

In an era of hotly contested oilsands pipelines, Line 3 hasn’t received much attention.

“They wanted this one to happen quietly and under the radar,” said Adam Scott, senior advisor at Oil Change International, in an interview with The Narwhal.

The Line 3 replacement project: what you need to know

On the Canadian side, Line 3 runs from near Edmonton to the Manitoban bordertown of Gretna, crossing Saskatchewan near Regina on the way.

Once it crosses the 49th parallel, the pipeline travels through the upper northeast corner of North Dakota before charging through 542 kilometres of Minnesota and concluding at the mouth of Lake Superior in Wisconsin.

From there, oil can be transported to refineries across the continent.

The new project requires the installation of 18 new pump stations and three new storage terminals in Alberta.

Line 3 was given the go-ahead by the federal government in late November 2016, at the same time Trans Mountain was approved and after the plug was pulled on Enbridge’s beleaguered Northern Gateway pipeline.

The project passed the final major regulatory hurdle in June after being approved by Minnesota’s Public Utilities Board after a lengthy delay.

The existing pipeline will be decommissioned and left in the ground. This concerns many who argue that it could represent an environmental liability for decades to come.

Cameron of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition said the abandoned line “has the potential to damage local environments through metal deteriorating and making farmland pretty unstable.”

In an e-mail, Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner wrote: “Enbridge will continue to monitor the deactivated pipeline and maintain the right-of-way. Independent engineering research and analysis have determined that deactivated pipelines with adequate cover will have a very long life as load-bearing structures, even after decades of deactivation. Environmental regulatory requirements prohibit altering current hydrology. Therefore, the Line 3 deactivation process will protect water resources to ensure that the deactivated pipeline will not drain any fields, lakes, rivers, streams or other wetland areas.”

Concerns over Enbridge pipeline safety

In 2010, Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline spilled more than 20,000 barrels of diluted bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River.

As part of the subsequent settlement with the federal government, the pipeline company was required to replace the U.S. portion of Line 3 by the end of 2017, pending state approvals.

That hasn’t been a simple process.

In early 2017, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs filed a court challenge to stop the pipeline.

Ojibwe activist Winona LaDuke and her organization Honor the Earth have led the charge in Minnesota against its construction, which will transport diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands along a new route through ancestral wild rice fields and waterways.

Because of the Kalamazoo spill — which has cost more than $1 billion to clean up — many eyes in Minnesota are on the newly proposed project.

Line 3 has also seen a series of spills over the years.

In 1991, Line 3 spilled 40,000 barrels near Grand Rapids. In 1999, the pipeline spilled 20,000 barrels of heavy crude near Regina. In 2007, two workers in Minnesota were killed in an explosion while attempting to repair the pipeline. Such fears are compounded by multiple spills on the nearby TransCanada Keystone pipeline. And earlier this month, an Enbridge pipeline transporting natural gas exploded near Prince George, requiring evacuations and residents to reduce gas consumption.

“The idea of cleanup is always overstated,” Scott said. “It’s not technically possible in a lot of cases. You’ll end up with toxic bitumen getting into aquifers and sediment, and the impacts can be generational.”

Pipeline emissions

There are also major concerns about long-term carbon lock-in effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently published its latest report which warned of catastrophic impacts if the world fails to slash emissions by 2030.

Given the high costs for the pipeline, Enbridge will be very motivated to ship as much oil as possible for as long as possible.

Scott said that itself will incentivize new upstream production, such as Teck’s proposed Frontier mine — which will emit at least four megatonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

By offering lower cost shipping for the foreseeable future, marginal oilsands projects are made more economical.

Why haven’t I heard of this thing before?

Patrick McCurdy, professor of communication at the University of Ottawa and expert in oilsands advertising, noted in an interview with The Narwhal that Line 3 doesn’t pass through many dense urban centres. That’s compared to Trans Mountain, which has faced its greatest opposition in Burnaby and Vancouver.

“Media requires novelty or numbers, and neither of those boxes have been ticked,” McCurdy said.

Shane Gunster, associate professor in communication at Simon Fraser University, told The Narwhal that independent online media outlets in B.C. helped popularize knowledge of both Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway — which in turn forced traditional media outlets such as the Vancouver Sun to pay attention.

Gunster said Line 3 also lacks “charismatic species” like orcas to capture public attention.

“I hate to say it, but I think people just aren’t as concerned about prairies and wetlands as they are about the ocean and coastal environments,” he said.

Another factor is the clever rhetorical construction by Enbridge. Unlike Trans Mountain, which is explicitly named as an expansion, Line 3 has been portrayed as a means of preventing leaks: replacing an old rusty pipe with a new and improved version.

“Enbridge has done a really good job in billing this as a replacement project,” said Cameron of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition. “They’ve constructed this narrative that it’s just replacing the existing pipeline which is aging, and it’s just sort of a routine maintenance project. That’s been a big part of the fact that people have just accepted it as common practice and necessary.”

So how close is Line 3 to completion?

Enbridge is banking on an in-service date by the second half of 2019.

Cameron of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition said the pipeline is being constructed right now in Manitoba, with other portions already completed in Saskatchewan and the U.S.

But resistance continues to mount.

In July, the Spirit of the Buffalo prayer camp launched near Gretna, Manitoba. Meanwhile, in late September, a group of Indigenous land defenders and allies named Great Plains Resistance stopped construction for a day near Morden, Manitoba. A collective of Indigenous and environmental organizations also requested a reconsideration of the Line 3 approval by Minnesota’s Public Utilities Board.

Gunster of Simon Fraser University said that while Line 3 hasn’t received much public attention, that could quickly change, as it did for the Dakota Access Pipeline in light of Standing Rock.

So stay tuned — this may be the first but probably won’t be the last you hear of the Line 3 pipeline.

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 cancellation of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline in early October had major consequences for a rather unexpected player: Manitoba Hydro.

The company had been counting on the energy demand from the pipeline, and now the cancellation is putting extra strain on a company already plagued by debt and in the middle of building an $8.7 billion dam.

Back in 2014, the provincial utility company anticipated that almost 40 per cent of electricity generated by its proposed 695-megawatt Keeyask dam in northern Manitoba would be allocated to “pipeline load” for the Alberta Clipper, Line 3 and Energy East pipelines.

Specifically, the electricity would be used to run pumping stations, which force crude oil through pipelines via a series of pumps and motors. Among those pumping stations were those that would move bitumen from the oilsands to New Brunswick through the Energy East pipeline.

But Energy East is now officially dead.

A recent document filed by Manitoba Hydro to the province’s public utilities board estimated that will result in a loss of 534 gigawatt-hours in annual demand, equivalent to 12 per cent of the dam’s production — which comes at an awfully bad time given the utility’s ongoing debt issues, proposed rate hikes and cost overruns, which have resulted in the utility laying off  900 staff.

Building Renewables for the Fossil Fuel Industry

The connection between the Keeyask Dam and the Energy East pipeline raises important questions about renewable energy projects that are built, at least in part, to meet the demands of the fossil fuel industry.

On the one hand, powering the industry with cleaner electricity is a step in the right direction. But on the other hand, building new electricity, even when it is renewable, has serious impacts, and hydro is no exception.

It’s not the first time a hydro dam has been proposed to meet the electricity demands of the fossil fuel industry. In British Columbia, the rationale given for the controversial $10.7 billion Site C dam has at times included powering the liquefied natural gas export industry and Alberta’s oilsands.

What has been talked about a lot less in B.C. is that the new Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline would use 1,046 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year (PDF, page 64), or the equivalent of about 20 per cent of the production of the Site C dam (about half of that power will be consumed in B.C. with the other half being consumed in Alberta).

In B.C. that power will be sold at a subsidized rate and is expected to result in a cost to BC Hydro of $27 million a year. In Alberta, the Trans Mountain pipeline will use nearly a quarter of the new generating capacity created by the newly announced wind contracts.

Shifting Justifications for New Dams

Manitoba Hydro’s game plan for the Keeyask dam became clear during two sets of hearings during late 2013 and early 2014.

Peter Kulchyski, professor of Native studies at the University of Manitoba and long-time critic of impacts of hydroelectric projects on northern Indigenous communities, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that Manitoba Hydro presented two very different narratives.

The first presentations — made to the Clean Environment Commission, which explores social and environmental impacts — saw the energy utility boast about the potential for new hydro projects to help fight climate change by exporting electricity to other jurisdictions and displacing the use of coal and natural gas.

In 2016-17, Manitoba Hydro exported $460 million of electricity to other jurisdictions. But that number has effectively flatlined due to the shale gas boom in the United States. In its most recent annual report, Manitoba Hydro listed “loss of export market access” as one of its most significant risks, alongside “catastrophic infrastructure failure” and “extreme drought.”

Kulchyski said the review of the project then moved on to the Public Utilities Board, which looks at economic modelling. At that point, some of the early financials from the newly built and way over budget 211-megawatt Wuskwatim Dam were emerging. They weren’t good.

At the time, Kulchyski said the Wuskwatim Dam was selling power at four cents per kilowatt-hour while it was costing seven cents per kilowatt-hour to actually produce power. The dam hadn’t ever been profitable (and still hasn’t been to this day, resulting in a restructuring of the agreement with local First Nations).

That’s when the “pipeline load” first entered the picture, Kulchyski said.

“As they were scrambling for where they would sell the power, they publicly came out saying they could sell power to the pipelines that are being built,” he said. “On one hand they’re fighting climate change, on the other hand they’re quite willing to sell to the pipelines.”

The connection between the Keeyask Dam and the Energy East pipeline raises important questions about renewable energy projects that are built, at least in part, to meet the demands of the fossil fuel industry. https://t.co/zn9yyRNL9w

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 10, 2018

Manitoba Could Sell Excess Power to Saskatchewan

Despite these concerns, Keeyask is still being constructed, anticipated to be in operation by late 2021. A $5 billion transmission line, Bipole III, is also being built to transport electricity from the dam to the south of the province.

Enbridge — which owns both the Alberta Clipper and Line 3 pipelines — didn’t respond to a request for comment by DeSmog Canada.

Manitoba Hydro still expects Keeyask to have a “pipeline load” of more than 1,000 gigawatt-hours, meaning that one-quarter of the dam’s capacity (4,400 gigawatt-hours) will go to helping pump Alberta bitumen through Line 3 and Alberta Clipper.

That leaves a lot of excess electricity without a clear market though, which could require future ratepayers to cover the difference. Manitoba Hydro is already requesting significant hikes in rates — currently pushing for 7.9 per cent increases per year until 2023-24.

Electrification Will Bring New Demand: Clean Energy Analyst

But there are plenty of opportunities for Manitoba to use the excess electricity from Keeyask in positive ways, Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada. That includes moving to electric vehicles (including freight trucks and buses) and heating buildings with electricity instead of with natural gas.

“In a hydro-dominated system like Manitoba where you’ve got plentiful, affordable, clean power, the emissions benefit of applying that to transportation is particularly significant,” Woynillowicz said. “We certainly need to be capitalizing on that from a climate change perspective.”

He added there’s also the potential for increased exports to the U.S. and other Canadian provinces —especially Saskatchewan, given that it’s right next door and “still has one of the dirtiest electricity grids in Canada.”

“There’s still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of cleaning up Saskatchewan’s system,” he said. “Definitely one element of that could be increased imports of hydro from Manitoba.”

Canada May Need 150 More Keeyasks to Meet 2050 Climate Targets

Canada’s mid-century long-term low-greenhouse gas development strategy reported that over 100,000 megawatts of additional hydro capacity will be required by 2050 to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets.

That’s equivalent to almost 150 Keeyask dams in capacity.

Canada is the third-largest hydro producer in the world, with over 80,000 megawatts of capacity already in place. One of the benefits of large quantities of hydropower is its ‘dispatchable’ nature, meaning reservoirs essentially act as giant batteries that can be drawn from when needed.

ICYMI: What’s the Future of Hydroelectric Power in Canada?

Yet often left unaddressed by proponents of additional hydroelectric power are the devastating impacts that dams can have on local and Indigenous communities, especially the ability to hunt, fish, trap and gather on traditional lands and waters.

Opponents of hydro dams also point out the high costs of building large dams crowd out small-scale and more localized sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal.

And Manitoba, a hydro-heavy province, hasn’t seriously explored renewable electricity sources other than hydro. In 2014, a former NDP energy minister accused the utility of making it “virtually impossible to build wind [power] here.” The province has just 260 MW of installed wind energy capacity, less than New Brunswick.

But outside of rapid innovations in battery storage, transmission lines and the emergence  of alternative low-carbon baseload power (such as geothermal), it’s unclear how Canada will dodge the conflict over hydro.

There are some obvious options to help reduce demand, such as energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings and reducing industrial load.

Woynillowicz noted that the biggest chunks of new demand come from large industrial projects. For instance, in B.C., a single large LNG plant could consume the equivalent of all of the power created by the Site C dam.

Ultimately, the public needs to know the planned end use of new electricity projects before being able to form an educated opinion on them.

With files from Emma Gilchrist.

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.

Of the 30 million Canadians and Americans depending on the Great Lakes for water very few would guess there is an oil pipeline sitting in their drinking water supply. It is anyone’s guess if this 61-year old Enbridge pipeline, known as Line 5, is pumping bitumen from the Alberta oilsands through the Great Lakes.

U.S. pipeline regulations do not require Enbridge to make public if Line 5 is transporting bitumen. Enbridge says the pipeline carries light crude oil mainly from the Bakken shale in North Dakota. The pipeline begins in Superior, Wis., and cuts through Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Huron and Lake Michigan meet, in the U.S. to get to its end destination of Sarnia, Ont.

“(U.S.) Pipelines in general are considered a national security risk,” says Beth Wallace, a regional coordinator with the National Wildlife Federation based in Ann Arbor, Mich.

“So PHMSA is not willing to provide records of Line 5 that provide detailed information about the location, integrity or product transported,” Wallace told DeSmog Canada. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA) oversees pipelines for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The National Wildlife Federation conducted an underwater dive last year to investigate and film the condition of Line 5. The federation discovered some of the pipeline’s steel supports meant to keep Line 5 secured to the bottum of the Straits had broken. Other sections of the pipeline were covered with debris.

Line 5 To Transport Bitumen Soon, If Not Already

The National Wildlife Federation believes if Line 5 is not transporting bitumen now, it will be in the near future.

“If Enbridge is granted authority to increase capacity on the Alberta Clipper pipeline, there will be an incredible increase in the amount of heavy bitumen pushed into Superior, Wisconsin, where Line 5 begins,” Wallace says.

Map of Enbridge pipelines including Line 5 and estimated response times to a rupture. The yellow ring indicates it would take Enbridge three hours to respond to a Line 5 spill in the Straits of Mackinac.

A U.S. decision on Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper is expected next year. Earlier this week, Enbridge announced its Line 3 pipeline will be replaced by a new pipeline with expanded capacity. Both pipelines ship oil and bitumen from Alberta to Superior, Wis.

Concerns of a Bitumen Spill in the Great Lakes

Residents of Michigan experienced the worst bitumen spill in U.S. history when Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline ruptured, spilling more than three million liters of bitumen and oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. Bitumen — the tar-like form of petroleum in oilsands — sinks in water, unlike conventional oil. Enbridge has dredged the Kalamazoo multiple times in an attempt to remove the bitumen from the river. The cleanup is still going on four years after the spill.

Underwater footage of Line 5.

The environmental damage a bitumen spill can cause plus Enbridge’s spill record — estimated at eight hundred pipeline spills between 1999 and 2010 — has Canadians worried about a Line 5 rupture as well. Georgian Bay, Ontario’s most vibrant bay, makes up the eastern part of Lake Huron.

“We are very concerned about Line 5,” says Therese Trainor of the Manitoulin Area Stewardship Area Council in Manitoulin Island, Ont.

“Georgian Bay is one of the most unique ecosystems in the world. We have flora and fauna here you cannot find anywhere else. We could lose this in an oil spill,” Trainor told DeSmog Canada.

There is no land between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan to stop the Straits of Mackinac’s swift water currents from spreading an oil spill into either lake. The National Wildlife Federation estimates in its Sunken Hazard report that if Line 5 has a large oil spill it could reach Georgian Bay.

Underwater dive of Line 5 conducted by the National Wildlife Federation.

Condtions in Straits of Mackinac Make it a Terrible Place For A Oil Spill

“This (Straits of Mackinac) is a terrible place for a rupture,” says pipeline safety expert Richard Kuprewicz.

Kuprewicz, a pipeline safety expert with 40 years of experience in the energy sector, says pipeline ruptures are difficult enough to cleanup, but conditions in the Straits of Mackinac would make things much worse. Line 5 at its deepest is 90 metres underwater and the straits freeze over in the winter. 

What emergency responders could do about a burst pipeline nearly 100 metres below in the either stormy or frozen straits is questionable.

"Pardon the expression, but cleaning up and containing a Line 5 rupture in the straits would be a crap shoot," says Wallace of the National Wildlife Federation.

There are no reports of Line 5 rupturing in the Straits of Mackinac. The 76-centimeter (30-inch) wide pipeline splits into two smaller 50-centimeter (20-inch) wide pipelines with thicker pipe walls (2.5 cm) in the straits. An external coal-tar coating minimizes corrosion on the pipeline. Coal-tar coating has had “mixed success” in the past protecting pipelines, according to Kuprewicz.

 “Just because a pipeline hasn’t leaked or ruptured in the past doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. The past does not predict the future,” Kuprewicz, president of research group Accufacts Inc.,  told DeSmog Canada.

Line 5 has ruptured on land, notably in 1999 at Crystal Falls, Mich., spilling 850,000 litres of oil and natural gas liquids.

Underwater photo of Line 5.

Michigan Needs To Protect the Great Lakes Commons

Liz Kirkwood, executive director of the Michigan-based Great Lakes advocacy group FLOW (For Love of Water), argues Enbridge should be required to secure permission from the state of Michigan under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act before the pipeline company can transport bitumen through the Straits of Mackinac.

“As a trustee of the Great Lakes, the state of Michigan is obligated to assess possible impairments to the public’s use of the Great Lakes and protect the lakes for the enjoyment of present and future generations,” Kirkwood says.

Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act requires companies to obtain state permits to build or modify structures in the Great Lakes. Line 5 was built in 1953. The Act came into effect in 1955.

Image credit: PHMSA, all underwater photos of Line 5 courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation. 

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.

In its largest capital project in history, Enbridge plans to do what Transcanada so far can't — ship more than half a million barrels of heavy oil across the U.S. border without President Barack Obama's direct approval.

Late Monday evening, Enbridge announced plans for its largest capital project in history— a $7 billion replacement of its Line 3 pipeline.

The existing Line 3 pipeline is part of Enbridge’s extensive Mainline system. The 34-inch pipe was installed in 1968 and currently carries light oil 1,660 km from Edmonton to Superior, Wis. 

While the Line 3 pipeline currently has a maximum shipping capacity of 390,000 barrels of light crude oil per day, pumping stations along the line have a much larger capacity (and can accommodate heavier oils). Enbridge plans to take advantage of this. Under the company's replacement plans, the new Line 3 pipeline will be widened by two inches, and built "using the latest available high-strength steel and coating technology." By the time it goes into service in 2017, Line 3 will ship 760,000 barrels of oil across the border every day, nearly double what it currently moves. 

At the same time, the new Line 3 will be designated as ‘mixed service,’ allowing it to carry a variety of different types of oil from heavy to light. Speaking on a conference call with investors and media this morning, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said "my lean would be more towards the heavier side, but it will carry both."

Line 3 will continue to operate at full current capacity during the construction period. All construction is expected to occur within the existing pipeline corridor.

No presidential permit required (because it already has one)

Unlike the Keystone XL pipeline or its predecessor Line 67 (also known by its more jovial name ‘Alberta Clipper’), this project is classified as "replacement" or "maintenance," meaning it operates under an existing presidential permit and does not require a new one. Enbridge proponents made a point of repeatedly affirming this during Tuesday's call with investors and media. 

Construction will be managed by two separate companies. The Edmonton to Hardisty segment and the Hardisty, Alta., to Gretna, Man., segments will be managed by Enbridge’s wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. will take responsibility for approvals and construction of the segment between Neche, N.D., and Superior, Wis.

Notably, both projects omit discussion of the tiny — but crucial — 3 km pipeline segment that crosses the Canada/U.S. border and links Gretna, Man., to Neche, N.D. On the U.S. webpage for the Line 3 project, Enbridge states:

"Segments of Line 3 from the Canadian border to Neche, N.D., and near the Minnesota/Wisconsin border to the Superior terminal are being replaced under separate segment replacement projects." The Canadian webpage has a similar message.

At the moment, it is not clear what those replacement projects are, or what stage of approval they are in. Enbridge did not return a call to clarify details.

Two Keystone XL pipelines per day

With its announcement, the Line 3 replacement joins three other large-scale expansion projects by Enbridge in varying stages of development or approval. 

• The 525,000 barrels per day Northern Gateway pipeline connecting Edmonton with Kitimat, B.C., has received a positive recommendation from the National Energy Board and will see a decision from the federal cabinet in the next three months.  
• Within the next few weeks, a decision is expected on the proposed reversal of Ontario and Quebec’s Line 9B pipeline. Currently the pipeline ships oil received via tankers from a Montreal terminal to Sarnia, Ont. If approved, the reversed pipeline would ship 300,000 barrel per dday of Canadian-sourced oil from Sarnia to Montreal for international export. 
• Enbridge has already completed Phase 1 of its planned expansion to the Alberta Clipper pipeline, increasing its capacity from 450,000  to 570,000 barrels per day. On Feb. 10, Canada’s National Energy Board approved Phase 2 of the pipeline expansion, allowing it to ship at its maximum capacity of 800,000 barrels per dday. Approval of the project on the U.S. side is currently delayed while the State Department updates its environmental regulations. 
• Applications for the Line 3 replacement project will be filed in late 2014.

Should all four of these projects go ahead, they will collectively increase Enbridge’s daily shipping volume by approximately 1.5 million barrels per day, or the equivalent of nearly two Keystone XL pipelines. The Keystone XL pipeline is expected to transport 830,000 bpd.

Addendum: Here's the math behind the projected Enbridge shipping volume. 

CURRENT SHIPPING VOLUMES: (Barrels Per Day)

• Line 9: 0 (its current 240,000 barrel per day capacity does not include Canadian-sourced oil, and flows in the opposite direction)
• Northern Gateway: 0
• Line 3: 390,000
• Alberta Clipper: 450,000
• TOTAL: 840,000 barrels per day

FUTURE SHIPPING VOLUMES (BPD):

• Line 9: 300,000
• Northern Gateway: 525,000
• Line 3: 760,000
• Alberta Clipper: 800,000
• TOTAL: 2, 385,000 barrels per day

For a difference of 1,545,000 barrels per day or the equivalent of 1.86 Keystone XLs.

Image Credit: Mack Male 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.