Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) has quietly stopped requiring pipeline companies to post the geographic coordinates of repairs, DeSmog Canada has learned.

The federal pipeline regulator cites “public safety” as the reason for deciding to limit information on the specific location of “integrity digs” to examine cracks, corrosion or dents — but critics argue the decision compromises the ability of Canadians to access information about the safety of pipelines.

Often times, hundreds of integrity digs will take place in certain areas of pipeline, raising questions about the quality of that section of line, said Emily Ferguson, an environmental consultant and founder of Line 9 Communities.

“When you see integrity data on a map, you can see these clusters of where there might be issues,” Ferguson said. “I think that’s something that is obviously in the best interest of the pipeline companies not to have that publicly released.”

Integrity Digs Used to Patch and Repair Faulty Pipelines

Integrity digs are conducted by pipeline companies when their “in-line inspection” tool — often a “smart pig” that travels inside the pipe without disrupting flow — flags an anomaly.

An integrity dig exposes the pipeline and allows for maintenance such as patching and other repairs.

Until recently, the National Energy Board published the GPS coordinates of these digs — but sometime in the last few months, the board quietly began allowing companies to keep that information secret.

“There are places where the drinking water is only a couple of feet deep under the surface, where the pipe is, depending on the time of year, actually lying below the water table,” said Ian Stephen, campaign director of the Chilliwack-based WaterWealth Project.

“I think it’s a very legitimate concern for the public to want to be able to verify that best practices are used in any kind of maintenance work that goes on around here.”

In 2015 DeSmog Canada revealed that the National Energy Board allowed Kinder Morgan to keep its oil spill response plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline secret, while the response plan for the same pipeline was publicly available across the border in Washington state. At the time, the NEB claimed “security concerns” prevented the company from making the plan publicly available. After a media storm, the NEB announced last year that it will now require companies to disclose their oil spill response plans publicly.

NEB and Kinder Morgan Point to Alleged Safety Risks

A spokesperson from the NEB told DeSmog Canada via e-mail that it “removed the coordinates of this type of work from its information to avoid a safety risk of the public accessing worksites.”

The spokesperson noted that “companies are expected to notify nearby landowners, indigenous groups and other affected parties” when activities such as integrity digs are being conducted.

In response to a query about its requests for confidential operations and maintenance filings, a spokesperson for Kinder Morgan told DeSmog Canada, “the safety and security of our of our pipeline, staff and the communities we operate in is our top priority.”

Neither the NEB nor Kinder Morgan provided examples of recent safety risks due to posting geographic coordinates of integrity digs.

EXCLUSIVE: NEB Quietly Grants #Pipeline Companies Permission to Keep Repair Locations Secret https://t.co/ST4CpyUNlv #cdnpoli #KinderMorgan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 11, 2017

Stephen noted the decision by the NEB to no longer require geographic coordinates for integrity digs happened shortly after Kinder Morgan filed two requests for “confidential treatment of filings related to proposed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities to be undertaken along the Trans Mountain Pipeline System.”

While the specific requests were denied by the NEB, Stephen suggests it’s a case of “tail wags dog with our industry-captured regulator.” A federal panel recently recommended that the National Energy Board be replaced by a new commission and be moved from Calgary, home to the majority of Canada’s oil and gas industry headquarters, to Ottawa.

“In our consultations we heard of a National Energy Board that has fundamentally lost the confidence of many Canadians,” the five-member panel wrote. “We heard that Canadians have serious concerns that the NEB has been ‘captured’ by the oil and gas industry.”

Geographic Coordinates Allow Public to Track Pipeline Problems

It’s still possible to track down information on when the digs are scheduled to happen, as well as the location based on mileposts, girth welds and legal subdivisions — but not via specific coordinates.

Companies will sometimes provide maps, some with street names and others without.

“It’s not always presented in a way that anybody could understand,” Ferguson said.

Stephen suggests this matters more than ever, especially given the current push to expand the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline system.

“Trust goes two ways: if you want us to trust you then show us, because their past maintenance history is the best indicator I think of how much weight their claims that the new pipe will be safe will be given,” he said.

Integrity Digs Only Posted If Near Residences, Schools, Water Bodies

The geographic coordinates issue is only one of many issues the NEB has with transparency around integrity digs, Ferguson said.

Integrity digs are only required to be posted under certain parameters, including when the “exposure of the pipe” occurs within 200 metres of residences, schools, hospitals, prisons or “other institutions where people “routinely congregate in large groups” of 50 people or more, or within 30 metres of a wetland or waterbody.

That means there’s likely a whole lot more happening than we know about. After all, Canada is a large country with great swathes of low-density occupation, meaning that many integrity digs would be unreported.

Ferguson adds that any pipeline replacement less than 40 kilometres in length can proceed without a public hearing; she says that she’s seen hillsides of 10 or more integrity digs in a row, suggesting the company is patching the pipeline instead of replacing a section that would require a public hearing.

“I wish that there was change in the rules where if you had a certain amount of digs within a certain distance, it would open up to more of a public hearing,” she said.

“There’s so much that flies under the radar.”

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

The National Energy Board (NEB) ordered high-pressure testing of a segment of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline before the line, a west-to-east oil pipeline, can begin operating according to a press release issued Thursday.

“Before Line 9B becomes operational, hydrostatic testing results of three segments of the pipeline must be provided to and approved by the NEB,” the National Energy Board — Canada’s federal pipeline regulator — said.

Enbridge requested permission to reverse the flow of a 639-kilometre portion of the Line 9B pipeline between North Westover, Ontario and Montreal. Line 9B is part of the larger Line 9, which Enbridge hopes will carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to Eastern Canada.

Community groups, particularly in Quebec, have long requested the high-pressure, hydrostatic test. A hydrotest or hydrostatic test is a commonly used method of determining if a pipeline can operate safely at its expected operating pressure. Recently a number of groups demanded the NEB explain why it would not order a hydrotest of Line 9.

Map of Enbridge's Line 9.

The NEB’s recent announcement appears to be in response to public concern.

“Line 9B is located in a heavily urbanized area with a large number of waterways; any released would travel rapidly to the water systems and affect a large number of people,” the NEB press release stated. “A higher degree of confidence in the integrity, or condition, of the pipeline is required to show that the pipeline is safe to operate.”

The public has expressed concern over the age of the pipeline, its out-of-date design features and the possible effects of transporting diluted oilsands (also called tarsands) bitumen on the pipeline’s integrity.

The entire pipeline will not be hydrostatically tested. Three small sections of the pipeline have been selected for testing by the NEB. In Ontario, the sections between Kingston and Brockville and around Hilton will be tested. One section in Mirabel, Quebec near Montreal will also undergo a hydrotest. 

Little detail is given as to why these three sections were chosen for the safety test.

“The number and location of the segments to be tested were identified by NEB professional engineers to provide the best results to validate existing data. The learnings gained will be applied, as appropriate, to the entire pipeline,” the NEB stated.

The NEB also gave the go-ahead or “leave to open” for the 39-year old pipeline to begin pumping oil to Montreal via southern Ontario. Enbridge must comply with the regulator’s conditions first.

“Enbridge is granted leave to open the North Westover ‘B’, Hilton ‘A’, Cardinal ‘A’ and Montreal ‘A’ facilities for the transmission of crude oil,” states an NEB regulatory order dated June 18th. The “facilities” are the pipeline’s pumping stations.  

First Nation Requests Delay While Line 9 Legal Challenge Underway

If Enbridge meets the board’s conditions, the Calgary-based pipeline company is free to put Line 9 back into operation despite an unresolved First Nation legal challenge against the project.  The Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing in the Anishinaabe language had their first day in federal court this week.

"Canada has never consulted us on this project and it's their constitutional obligation to do so. They can't appoint a third party. It should be a nation-to-nation discussion," Myeengun Henry, Deshkaan Ziibing band councilor, told VICE. 

The southwestern Ontario First Nation argues in their case before the Federal Court of Appeal the Line 9 project could negatively impact their constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights. The federal government has the legal duty to consult with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit when projects may infringe upon their rights.

No consultations between the federal government and any of the First Nations along Line 9 have taken place to date.

Deshkaan Ziibing asked the NEB earlier this month to delay Line 9’s start up until their legal challenge had reached its conclusion.

“Chippewa of the Thames First Nation is requesting they be granted a stay until after the issue is heard in court. If the NEB moves forward before the legal questions are settled, the legal process will hold no validity and the chance to properly consult and accommodate will be lost forever,” Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy said in defense of Deshkaan Ziibing’s request.

“The NEB can grant the stay order and avoid causing irreparable harm.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A group of citizens fighting to speak about climate change and the oilsands at National Energy Board (NEB) reviews of pipeline projects, like the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, are taking their battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The group, comprised of landowners, academics, owners of business and many others, filed a constitutional challenge against the NEB’s restrictive policies that limit public participation and prevent discussion of climate and upstream oil and gas activities.

The purpose of taking the challenge to the Supreme Court “is to ask that Court to direct the NEB to do its job properly," David Martin, legal counsel, explained in a statement.

“The NEB's claim that it cannot consider scientific evidence regarding the long term impacts of the export of bitumen is simply wrong," Martin said.

"Instead the NEB is making a misguided choice to adopt an unconstitutionally narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction so as to avoid having to address the real competing public interests that pipeline approval applications necessarily entail."

In 2012, the federal government amended the National Energy Board Act, giving the NEB the final say in major infrastructure projects including pipelines.

The change, made through the infamous omnibus budget bill C-38, was accompanied by new rules limiting the length of hearings, who can participate in those hearings and what they can speak about.

“Given the potential environmental and health impacts of these pipeline projects, full public hearings on the merits and risks of the proposals are necessary to properly assess the public interest. This is precisely what the NEB has refused to do,” Martin said.

Over 468 individuals were prevented from participating in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearing process in April 2014. A group of 27 climate experts were prevented from participating on the basis that they wanted to dicuss the implications of the project for Canada's climate targets. 

The following month a small group including ForestEthics Advocacy Association and long-time environmentalist and author Tzeporah Berman, filed two motions with the NEB, challenging the constitutionality of the board’s exclusion of members of the public.

The NEB struck down the motions in October 2014, stating public hearings are not a forum for free expression.

Following a failed attempt to challenge the NEB in the Federal Court of Appeals, the group was left with no choice but to seek leave for appeal at the highest level in the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Due to rising public concern, the new CEO of the NEB Peter Watson has been touring the country telling Canadians the NEB does not have the mandate to look at issues related to climate change, and this is simply untrue,” Berman, applicant in the Supreme Court challenge, said.

“This case makes it clear that the Harper government gave them the mandate in Bill C-38 when they eliminated independent environmental assessments and gave the NEB broad jurisdiction to consider environmental impacts.”

The group argues the NEB’s role in assessing the long-term impacts of projects like pipelines — including expansion of the oilsands and associated climate impacts — “is a quintessential issue of national importance.”

Public participation in such assessments, the group also states, “is essential to democracy under the rule of law, particularly in a country whose economy and future is closely tied to the intelligent exploitation of our natural resources.” 

The Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to review any decisions made in the Federal Court of Appeal that involves matters of public importance.

The group advancing the challenge hopes the Supreme Court will restore the purpose of the NEB Act, to enable public participation and include public interest in a long-term assessment of major infrastructure projects like pipelines.

The decision will affect not only the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, but will have implications for the Enbridge Line 9 project planned to carry oilsands crude between Ontario and Quebec as well as TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, a massive project projected to carry more than 1 million barrels of oilsands crude to export facilities in New Brunswick each day.

Last month a coalition of groups including 350.org and LeadNow delivered a petition signed by more than 100,000 Canadians that demanded the NEB consider climate change in its review of the Energy East oilsands pipeline project.

Image Credit: Zhu 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.

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

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

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

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

Why Participate in a Broken Process?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearings Drive Public Awareness, Opposition

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

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

The Northern Gateway pipeline is a prime example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Public Forces Unique Pipeline Issues To the Surface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quebec will gain “minimal economic benefits” from west-to-east oil pipeline projects such as TransCanada’s Energy East and Enbridge’s Line 9 according to a new report released this month. Both projects would transport western Canadian oil and oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen to refineries and ports in Quebec, but would only make a combined 0.50 per cent contribution to economic activity and 0.30 per cent to jobs in the province.

“Quebec will bear almost all of the risks and costs associated with spills and other environmental impacts, without any offsetting economic gains,” Brigid Rowan, senior economist with the consulting firm The Goodman Group Ltd., and co-author of the report says.

Oilsands producers, pipeline companies, and the owners of the two refineries in Quebec have the most to gain from Line 9 and Energy East concludes the report by The Goodman Group Ltd. in collaboration with Greenpeace and Equiterre. The fifty-five-page report also refutes claims by pipeline proponents that supplying Quebec with cheaper western Canadian bitumen will make things cheaper at the gas pump for Quebecers.

“Refineries will not provide discounts for Quebec markets when they can also sell their refined products to profitable markets outside Quebec,” the report states.

“Consumers who think that oil companies will give them a break at the gas pump have another thing coming,” Pierre-Olivier Pineau, an energy specialist at HEC Montreal Business School warns.

“The extra profit margin from cheaper Canadian crude oil will most likely be pocketed by the refineries,” Pineau predicts.

Quebec’s coastal location gives both refiners and oilsands producers the opportunity to sell their product overseas if the price is right. DeSmog Canada reported last March as much as ninety per cent of the oil and bitumen TransCanada wants to ship through its proposed 4,600 kilometre Energy East pipeline will be exported out of Canada.

Petro-Chemical Industry Is A Small Share of Quebec’s Economy

Refining jobs in Quebec are well paying and mostly union jobs, but much like the oil industry itself the refining sector involves large sums of money and yet employs very few people.

Ultramar’s Quebec City refinery (owned by Texas-based Valero) and Suncor’s refinery in Montreal employ five hundred people each or less than 0.03 per cent of Quebec’s working population. The production of plastics and chemicals by the Montreal Petrochemical Complex employs 7, 500 or 0.40 per cent of the working population in the city.  

“If it is assumed that each of the jobs directly at Quebec refineries results in up to 11 other jobs elsewhere in the Quebec economy (i.e. for every direct job, there are 11 other jobs from contractors, suppliers and spin-offs), the total for the entire economy is still about 12,000 jobs (or less), equivalent to about 0.30 per cent (or less) of the provincial total. Likewise, even if it is assumed that the Quebec refineries result in a very wide range of spin-offs, the impact on overall economic activity (Quebec GDP) is around $1.5 billion (or less), equivalent to about 0.50 per cent (or less) of the provincial total,” the report states.

Pipeline Construction Will Create A Few Short-Term Jobs in Quebec

The report estimates the economic impact of the construction of Energy East and Line 9 on Quebec’s economy will be 0.20 per cent annually over a four-year period. Line 9 will require very little construction whereas Energy East will involve laying of 1,600 kilometres of pipeline from southeast Ontario to Saint John New Brunswick and the building of marine oil transport ports in Quebec and New Brunswick.

“Once the initial capital investment (i.e. construction phase) is completed and the pipelines are in service, ongoing operations would have minuscule labour requirements and impact (less than 0.04 per cent/year with the Suncor coker and less than 0.02 per cent/year without it) on overall economy activity,” the report concludes.

A Pipeline Rupture Would Cost Billions

If the economic benefits of west-to-east pipelines for Quebec are “insignificant” a pipeline rupture “could have a huge impact on the environment, waterways, human society and public safety.” The Goodmann Group, a consulting firm specializing in energy economics estimates a major pipeline rupture in an urban centre such as Montreal could cost between five to ten billion dollars to clean up and result in a major loss of economic activity.

“Typically spill risks are socialized with local inhabitants (human, wildlife and plants) bearing large costs: the area where the spill occurs is often never fully restored; waterways and drinking water can be polluted; humans can lose their homes and livelihood and/or be subject to a deterioration in their quality of life; and wildlife and plant life are killed. Tar sands heavy crude is particularly difficult to clean up,” the report states.

Pipeline companies in Canada do not carry liability insurance for pipeline spills anywhere close to five billion dollars. Canada’s largest pipeline operator – Enbridge – has $685 million for all its operations.

“Quebec citizens should be concerned,” the report warns.

Refining Bitumen Puts Quebec’s GHG Reduction Targets in Jeopardy

“In the current Canadian context Quebec can play a key role: if the province rejects the pipeline projects, then tar sands expansion will be constrained – allowing more time for the emergence of green alternatives. Moreover, Quebec has tremendous risk exposure from Energy East, as this pipeline will use Quebec as a conduit to export enormous quantities of dirty oil from the tar sands", says Patrick Bonin of Greenpeace Canada.

Quebec has proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets of a twenty-five per cent cut (1990 baseline) in the GHG emissions the province produces by 2020. These targets to reduce global warming emissions far surpass Canada’s own national emission reduction goals. Refining bitumen in Quebec, a heavy unconventional oil that produces up to forty per cent more GHG emissions to extract and refine than conventional oil, will put these provincial targets in jeopardy.  

“Not only would approval of the projects increase greenhouse emissions from refining more heavy crude in Quebec; but they have the potential to have a much greater incremental impact on Canada’s overall GHGs by enabling tar sands expansion,” the report concludes.

Refineries in Quebec currently lack the necessary equipment to refine large quantities bitumen, although it appears Suncor may make the two billion dollar investment to retrofit its Montreal refinery for bitumen. Bitumen needs to be ‘cooked’ longer during the refining process and at higher temperatures than conventional oil to be turned into liquid fuels.

Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline project from Sarnia to Montreal was approved by the National Energy Board – Canada’s federal energy regulator – last March but faces two legal challenges that are ongoing. TransCanada announced earlier this month the pipeline company will apply for its 1.1 million barrels a day Energy East pipeline from Alberta to Saint John New Brunswick in mid-August of this year.

Image Credit: David Suzuki Foundation, Economics of Transporting and Processing Tar Sands Crudes in Quebec report, Enbridge, TransCanada's Energy East: Export Pipeline, Not For Domestic Gain Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enbridge's Line 9 Pipeline. Credit: Enbridge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario Is Still Paying Off Past Investments In Its Power Grid

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Sharon Drummond via Flickr.

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

The National Energy Board (NEB), the federal regulator responsible for inter-provincial pipelines, appears to have jumped the gun on TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline proposal by releasing a 'list of issues' to be considered for the project's approval, before the company submitted an official application for the project. If approved, Energy East will transport 1.1 million barrels of oil and oilsands bitumen 4,600 kilometres across the country from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick each day.

“It is highly irregular and, as far as I know, unprecedented," Jason MacLean, an assistant professor of law, and specialist in environmental law, at Lakehead University, said. "Releasing the list of issues in advance is acting impermissibly in favour of the proponent of the pipeline project.”

MacLean is also acting counsel for a legal challenge announced Thursday against the NEB as a result of the 'list of issues' release. In the past the NEB has waited for pipeline companies to apply for projects before deciding what issues are relevant to their approval.

“The NEB is acting in bad faith and demonstrating how biased it is in favour of the oil industry by tailoring the list of issues to be considered to the company’s advantage,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said. The Council of Canadians – one of Canada’s largest civil society organizations – is spearheading the legal challenge.

The legal challenge states the NEB rigged the list of issues to favour TransCanada and the oil industry. According to the suit, issues disadvantageous to the project, such as impacts to climate change and First Nations living downstream from the oilsands, are absent from the list.

“This raises serious concerns of how under the Harper government the NEB, a federal body with a history of ruling in favour of industry, has been given more authority to limit the public’s voice in major pipeline decisions,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. 

The NEB claims it “does not have regulatory authority over upstream or downstream activities associated with the development of oilsands, or the end use of the oil to be transported by the Project. Therefore, the Board will not consider these issues.”

MacLean argues the NEB's position is "hypocritical" since the board will consider upstream (how it affects the oil industry) and downstream (how it affects oil refineries) economic impacts of the Energy East pipeline project.

“It is inconsistent, improper, and to a certain extent, hypocritical to consider the upstream and downstream economic and commercial impacts of a pipeline – which should definitely be considered – and then ignore the upstream and downstream environmental impacts,” MacLean told DeSmog Canada.

MacLean also points out that by not considering environmental issues connected to pipelines the Board is in contravention of its own mandate. According to the NEB, the Board exists to promote “safety and security, environmental protection and economic efficiency in the Canadian public interest within the mandate set by the Parliament of Canada.”

“It's impossible to square it – that it is not 'in the public interest' to consider the adverse effects of climate change. The relationship between increased greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is quite clear,” MacLean said from Thunder Bay, Ontario.

When polled last November 84 per cent of Canadians said they wanted action on climate change. It is estimated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Energy East pipeline project will be the equivalent of Ontario deciding to maintain all their coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down. Ontario’s successful phase out of coal plants has been heralded as the single most significant GHG emissions reduction initiative in North America.

“Canadians believe the federal government and its federal pipeline regulator should act neutrally and in the public interest, not govern for special interests,” MacLean told DeSmog Canada.

The Federal Court of Appeal will decide after the NEB and federal government respond to the legal challenge whether the it will move through to appeals court. This is the second legal challenge in less than year against an NEB list of issues for a pipeline project. ForestEthics Advocacy also has an ongoing case against the Line 9 pipeline project.

ForestEthics argues limiting the Line 9 issues the public can comment on and restricting members of the public from participating in the decision making process is a violation of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The NEB approved Line 9 last March. 

Image Credit: University of Alberta

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

TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline is more likely to be an export pipeline than supplier of western Canadian oil to eastern Canadian refineries. A new report released this week revealed as much as 90 per cent of Energy East’s oil and bitumen from the Alberta oilsands will be shipped out of Canada.

“Publicly available information from TransCanada, as well as sources from industry, government reports and legal documents show that most of the pipeline’s oil would be exported unrefined, with little benefit to Canadians,” reads the report, released by Environmental Defence, the Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, and Equiterre.

The report finds eastern Canadian refineries – two in Quebec and one in New Brunswick – will be nearly fully supplied with oil from Atlantic Canada, rail and tanker shipments from the United States and the recently approved Line 9 pipeline by the time Energy East begins pumping in 2018. Eastern Canada can refine 672,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd). TransCanada wants to ship 1.1 million barrels via Energy East every day.

“250,000 bpd of eastern Canada’s capacity will be served by Line 9. Take away another 100,000 bpd of Canadian offshore crude from Newfoundland, and 200,000 bpd of US crude and you're left with a pretty small gap to fill, of 122,000 bpd,” says Shelley Kath, energy consultant and lead researcher of the report.

“That means the rest, some 978,000 bpd is likely export bound,” Kath told DeSmog Canada.

The report punches a major hole in claims by TransCanada and the federal government that Energy East will be a “nation building” project strengthening regional energy security with western Canadian oil. The 4,600-kilometer proposed pipeline will begin in Alberta and end in Saint John, New Brunswick, crossing through every province in between.

Valero, operator of the refinery in Quebec City, announced this week it has “no firm interest” in the Energy East project because the oil company already has made commitments to receive oil from other sources.

Energy East Will Have A Larger Carbon Footprint than an Atlantic Province

“Energy East will be the largest pipeline in North America. It will increase production in the tar sands by 40 per cent at a time when First Nations living downstream are asking industry to slow down,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, climate and energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

Energy East will carry more oil than TransCanada’s controversial and stalled proposed Keystone XL pipeline (830,000 bpd) and more than the Northern Gateway and Line 9 pipelines combined (525,000 and 300,000 bpd respectively). 

“The greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project alone will be more than the emissions of any Atlantic Canadian province,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada.

Last month the Pembina Institute released a report indicating Energy East would produce thirty-two million megatons of greenhouse gas emissions, similar to the output of Ontario's recently retired fleet of coal-fired power plants.

Marine Oil Tanker Export Terminals To Play a Big Role in Energy East Project

TransCanada recently submitted its project description for Energy East with the National Energy Board noting the project could serve 3.3 million barrels of oil tanker traffic.   

TransCanada has not denied that some of Energy East’s oil and bitumen would be exported. The pipeline company publicly stated part of the $12 billion pipeline project is to construct two marine oil tanker terminals – one in Quebec and one in Saint John – for the purpose of shipping oil by sea. A proposal for a third terminal has been floated for Nova Scotia as well.

Pipeline Companies Have Little Say On What Happens to Oil at End Destination

“TransCanada has not been forthcoming on how much of Energy East’s oil will be shipped overseas. The report confirms what we have suspected for a long time – Energy East is an export pipeline,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog from Ottawa.

“It may sound strange to say, but pipeline companies like TransCanada aren't actually in business to supply refineries – they're in business to move crude from point A to point B. Once that delivery is done, their role is over,” says Kath.

Kath says pipeline companies make 'Transportation Service Agreements' with refineries or oil producers to deliver oil to a certain destination. The contracts are about selling space on the pipeline not about what happens to the crude when it reaches its destination via the pipeline. The product could be exported, stored or refined by the shipper.

Refining Oilsands Bitumen

It is unlikely crude shipments from Energy East will displace current and soon-to-be oil suppliers to eastern Canadian refineries, especially if Energy East is shipping oilsands bitumen. As DeSmog Canada reported last October only a specialized refinery can refine bitumen. Eastern Canadian refineries lack the necessary equipment – usually a coker unit – to process large volumes of bitumen.

“Ample supplies of light crude from growing U.S. and offshore production may also dissuade refiners from making costly investments aimed at converting refineries in order to process heavy crude,” concludes the report. Retrofitting a refinery to process bitumen can cost as much as $2 billion.

Jeff Rubin, former CIBC economist, argues the price for bitumen will only increase when oilsands producers can get their product to global markets. At the moment, bitumen is sold at a discount because there is a glut in production and oilsands producers can only sell in North America. Constructing Energy East means bitumen can finally fetch higher global prices, which may be another financial disincentive for refineries in eastern Canada to start refining bitumen.

The report concludes the vast majority of Energy East’s product will be shipped to the U.S. and overseas destinations such as Europe and India.

TransCanada is expected to submit its application for the Energy East project with the National Energy Board sometime this year. The project involves converting a 3,000-kilometre natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and building an additional 1,600 kilometers of pipeline in Quebec, along the St. Lawrence River, to the pipeline’s proposed end destination in Saint John, New Brunswick.

Image Credit: TransCanada's Energy East: Export Pipeline, Not For Domestic Gain Report

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

Last week’s approval of the Line 9 pipeline project by the National Energy Board (NEB) hinges on thirty conditions being met by the pipeline’s operator, Enbridge. The conditions are meant to enhance the safety of the project that involves shipping 300,000 barrels of crude oil and oilsands bitumen everyday from Sarnia to Montreal. Critics of the project say the requirements are not “meaningful conditions” and do not protect communities living along the 38-year old pipeline.

"By giving the green light without actually imposing conditions, the NEB is complacent towards the oilsands industry and demonstrates its inability to protect [our] health, public safety and our environment," Sidney Ribaux, executive director of Équiterre, says of Line 9’s approval in a statement from Montreal.

“The NEB may pretend to have put adequate safeguards in place but it has only safeguarded the profits of pipeline companies and externalized the risks associated with pipelines onto landowners as the Board always does,” says Dave Core, president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowners Associations (CAEPLA).

The conditions largely require Enbridge to provide the NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – with the most recent information about the Line 9 project. This includes information regarding the current state of the pipeline, revised emergency response plans and the pipeline company’s updated pipeline leak detection system manual.

Why this information was not required before the NEB decided the Line 9 project was in “the public’s interest” has baffled critics. The difficulties of participating in the eighteen-month decision-making process frustrated participants who were unable to review and comment on the most recent and relevant information about the project.

“The decision and its conditions do not reflect the concerns raised by the public about Line 9 and shipping tar sands bitumen through their communities,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager for Environmental Defence Canada told DeSmog.

Public’s Concerns Absent from Decision

Scott points to a hydrostatic test of Line 9 as the one condition the governments of Ontario and Quebec, environmental groups, and landowners asked for, but the Board chose not to impose:

“The Board elects to make no order at this time regarding hydrotesting of the pre-existing portions of Line 9,” reads page 49 of the NEB’s 140-page document on the Line 9 decision.

A hydrostatic test or hydrotest involves flushing a pipeline with high-pressure water to determine if it can safely operate at maximum pressure.

Line 9 has not operated at its maximum pressure in recent years. Evidence submitted to the NEB by an international pipeline safety expert indicated the best way to ensure the existing cracks on Line 9 do not turn into a rupture is to conduct a hydrotest.

Protests London, Ontario against Line 9's approval 

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

The Board did not disagree with the argument for a hydrotest, but appears to have sided with Enbridge’s view the test could have “detrimental effects” or damage the pipeline. The decision to order a hydrotest was punted to a later time and date. 

Safety Tests to be 'Revisited'

“The Board has imposed Condition 11…[and]… may revisit the issue of requiring hydrotesting prior to granting LTO (leave-to-operate),” concludes the Board.

Before ordering a hydrotest the Board wants to review Enbridge’s approach to hydrotesting (Condition 11) and the company’s updated engineering assessment of Line 9’s state (Condition 9). The assessment must include a reliability study of the inline pipeline inspection tool Enbridge uses to evaluate the threat of cracks and corrosion to the line.

The engineering assessment Enbridge submitted during the Line 9 hearings is primarily based on the pipeline's condition ten years ago.

Two other conditions strongly recommended by critics of the project and the government of Ontario – a third party independent review of Enbridge’s data on Line 9 and the requirement of $1 billion in liability insurance in the event of a spill – were also absent from the Board’s conditions.

“There’s nothing of substance [in the conditions]. It’s pretty basic stuff that’s already required in legislation that already exists, like how you’re going to mitigate the damage you’re going to do to water crossings when you dig up a pipeline,” said Adam Scott of Environmental Defence in an interview with NOW Magazine.

Canadians Need To Determine Their Energy Future Outside of the NEB

“With these conditions, the Board is of the view that the IMP (integrity management plan) which Enbridge has implemented to date, and proposed steps going forward, sufficiently protect the facilities from cracking to enable safe operation of Line 9,” the NEB decision reads.

Although Line 9’s approval surprised no one, critics of the project held out hope for stronger conditions.

Dave Core, president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowners Associations (CAEPLA), has been dealing with pipelines, and the NEB for over twenty years and thinks Canadians need to rethink the regulator.

“Canadians need to realize the NEB is doing exactly what it was designed to do over sixty years ago – protect pipeline company shareholder profits and protect politicians from the public. The Board cannot be relied on to protect the public, the environment, or landowners’ rights,” says Core, who is originally a farmer from southwestern Ontario where Line 9 lies.

"We need to have a discussion about the future of the NEB and whether there even ought to be a future for the Board. It is only through ironclad contracts with the discipline of the courts and insurance that our safety, the environment and landowner stewardship responsibilities will be protected," Core told DeSmog Canada from Vancouver. 

The fate of Line 9 now depends on the NEB deciding whether Enbridge has met all imposed conditions on Line 9’s approval. Because Line 9 is an existing pipeline the project does not require approval from the federal government. 

Image Credit: Enbridge, Robert Cory

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

Canada’s National Energy Board announced on Thursday the approval of Enbridge’s request to reverse and expand a portion of the company’s Line 9 pipeline to allow for crude to flow east to Montreal, Quebec. This follows a July 2012 decision by the NEB to allow reversal of the western Line 9 segment from West Northover to Sarnia, Ontario. As a result, in the words of the NEB, “Enbridge will be permitted to operate all of Line 9 in an eastward direction in order to transport crude oil from western Canada and the U.S. Bakken region to refineries in Ontario and Quebec.”

Canadian activists urged the NEB to fully consider the high risk and small reward of reversing the pipeline, pointing to the “DilBit Disaster” — when another reversed-flow Enbridge pipeline spilled over 800,000 gallons of diluted bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River — as a warning for what could occur on the Line 9 route.

As DeSmog Canada has reported, Enbridge’s Line 9 shares the same design deficiencies as the company’s Line 6B, which burst in Michigan. Canadian environmental groups are crying foul over the agency’s non-transparent and restrictive public comment process.

“It’s pretty obvious the entire regulatory system is broken,” Adam Scott, spokesperson for Environmental Defence, told the Vancouver Observer. “They restricted the public’s ability to even participate.” Language in a 2012 budget bill allowed the NEB’s decision to be made without a comprehensive environmental assessment, and the Canadian public was forced to complete a lengthy 10-page application (and given a short two week warning to do so) to even earn the right to submit a public comment.

“There were roughly 150 folks who were actually even allowed to comment or write a letter, and this was also the first major energy project not to have to go through an environmental assessment, so it’s clear the whole system has been stacked against the public’s interest in favour of oil companies,” said Scott.

Nader Hasan of Forest Ethics agrees that the decisionmaking process was rigged.

“Our position is that the decision isn’t just wrong, it’s invalid,” said Hasan. “The rules of the game were rigged in favour of Big Oil. We believed and continue to believe this decision is fundamentally flawed because the process is fundamentally unfair.”

Forest Ethics is challenging the restrictive public comment process with a lawsuit, launched last year, which they hope will be settled in time to impact future NEB decisions. 

Impacts in the United States

Though Enbridge's Line 9 terminates near Montreal, the flow reversal is an integral part of the company's plans to move diluted bitumen and crude from the Bakken shale to Eastern ports for export.

As we first reported on DeSmogBlog in 2012, internal documents revealed how Enbridge was resuscitating an old industry plan, once called Trailbreaker, to link the pipeline system in the American Midwest, where tar sands crude already flows, to a coastal terminal in Portland, Maine. Enbridge's Line 9, traveling through Ontario and Quebec, is a crucial link.

Image: NRDC

In 2012, 19 advocacy groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the National Wildlife Federation, and 350.org released a report, Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England, that laid out the then-secret plans to connect Enbridge's Line 9 with the Portland-Montreal Pipeline. 

Who runs the Portand-Montreal Pipeline system? As the “Going in Reverse” report explains:

The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line is managed by two linked companies: the Montreal Pipe Line Limited, which owns and operates the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line with its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, the Portland Pipeline Corporation.

The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line company, as well as Enbridge Inc., have been open about their intent to move tar sands oil east through central Canada and New England.

In 2011, Portland Pipe Line Corp. expressed publicly, “We’re still very much interested in reversing the flow of one of our two pipe lines to move western Canadian crude to the eastern seaboard,” treasurer Dave Cyr was reported saying. “We’re having discussions with Enbridge on their Line 9 and what it means to us.”

And then there's this: Montreal Pipe Line Limited is owned in large part by Imperial Oil Limited and Suncor Energy; both companies have major stakes in tar sands mining and refining operations in Alberta.

For the past two years, environmental groups and activists on this side of the border have been working to ensure that the 62-year-old Portland-Montreal Pipeline is never reversed. that travels through a number of ecologically-sensitive areas and crosses hundreds of waterways through Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. 

On Tuesday, Vermont residents of 13 towns passed resolutions during Town Meeting to prohibit the transport of tar sands crude through the pipeline. 

“Vermonters have already loudly signaled opposition to transporting tar sands across our rivers and farms, alongside lakes, and through communities of the Northeast Kingdom,” said Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation Senior Counsel. “A spill would have a devastating impact on our water supplies, wildlife habitat and tourism industry. And any transport of tar sands through Vermont would encourage growth of an industry that contradicts all of our state’s leadership and hard work on moving toward cleaner sources of energy.”

In South Portland, Maine, which hosts the potential export terminal, residents worked to pass a "Waterfront Protection Ordinance" on the ballot last fall, but were outspent 6-to-1 by Big Oil interests.  

The resistance of New Englanders might already be having an impact. While Enbridge was outspoken on a 2008 earnings call about the potential of linking its proposed tar sands pipelines to the Portland-Montreal Pipeline, this week a company spokesperson told VTDigger.org that Enbridge had "no interest" in using the Portland-Montreal Pipeline to move tar sands crude. 

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.