This is a guest post by Mitchell Beer. It originally appeared on GreenPAC.

The pitched media battle between Mayors Denis Coderre of Montreal and Naheed Nenshi of Calgary shows just how quickly the political debate can get nasty when the things that matter most to us are at stake.

It also points to what’s been missing so far in a suddenly much more open federal conversation on Canada’s energy choices and climate responsibilities.

The firestorm began last Thursday when Coderre, representing the 82 municipalities of the Montreal Metropolitan Community, came out against TransCanada Corporation’s controversial Energy East project. After careful study, he said, the MMC determined that the 1.1-million-barrel-per-day pipeline would deliver $2 million per year in economic gain to the Montreal region, against $1 to $10 billion in clean-up costs in the event of a major diluted bitumen spill.

‘Call a Spade a Spade. It’s a Bad Project.’

“An oil spill can’t just be turned off, and it would affect multiple waterways, including water basins and groundwater — you have to take all of this into consideration,” Coderre said. “Call a spade a spade: It’s a bad project.”

While groups like Montreal’s Équiterre applauded the MMC’s “courageous decision,” Nenshi went on the offensive — alongside premiers Rachel Notley of Alberta, Brian Gallant of New Brunswick and Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, Alberta opposition leader Brian Jean and federal opposition leader Rona Ambrose.

“The prime minister said he didn’t like Northern Gateway, he has said he did like Keystone,” Nenshi told CBC Radio’s The House Saturday morning. “I think it’s time for him to say he does like Trans Mountain and he does like Energy East.”

Nenshi went so far as to frame Energy East as a nation-building project, while comedian Rick Mercer scolded Coderre (and, presumably, the 299 other Quebec mayors who oppose the project) for thinking locally, rather than nationally. Veteran Quebec affairs correspondent Chantal Hébert was quick with her retort: “What has not panned out is their Pollyannaish strategy of selling the plan for an oil pipeline as a nation-building project—liable to bring the country together in the way that the railroad did in the 19th century,” she wrote.

We All Want the Same Things

But if you cut through the immediate controversy, it looks like Nenshi, Coderre and most of the rest of us are looking for the same things.

We all want steady, secure, well-paid jobs for ourselves, our families and our communities.

We all want clean water, whether it flows through the Bow River or the St. Lawrence River. (And we want a stable enough climate to reduce the likelihood of the Bow River overflowing its banks.)

Most of us want climate action that aligns with the 1.5°C long-term goal for average global warming that Canada and 186 other countries adopted at the United Nations climate summit in Paris last month.

We can all get carried away by an inspiring nation-building project that brings the country together on the eve of its 150th birthday. (Admit it. You know you can.) Even if Energy East is not that project.

And we should all want to see Alberta recover quickly and well from what Notley herself described as the “boom and bust roller coaster ride” of fossil fuel development in her election night victory speech last May 5. Anyone outside the western oilpatch who’s celebrating Alberta’s pain should consider some emergency nation-building of their own.

But that doesn’t make Energy East the solution. We’ve known for years that the large majority of the world’s fossil fuels are unburnable in any reasonable climate scenario, and there’s little reason to expect the project to survive a multi-trillion-dollar carbon bubble. With oil prices expected to stay low through 2018, and competing renewable energy options becoming more affordable by the day, it’s hard to imagine why TransCanada would even want to try.

So, yes, we should all be prepared to get behind a grand nation-building project that will deliver stable, secure jobs and put Canada on a path to drastically lower carbon emissions. We could start by committing to a plan to deliver a million climate jobs (actually, a million person-years of climate employment) over the next five years by investing in energy retrofits, public renewable energy, transit and “higher-speed’ rail.

That’s the kind of nation-building that brings people, cities and regions together, rather than driving them apart.

Mitchell Beer is President of Ottawa-based Smarter Shift and curator of The Energy Mix, a thrice-weekly digest on climate, energy, and low-carbon solutions.

Photo: Clive Clamm 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.

Several prominent western Canadian politicians came out firing at Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre’s announcement yesterday that Montreal-area municipalities will oppose TransCanada’s Energy East oil pipeline project. The outraged western leaders were not exactly polite in their criticism either.

“He’s wrong on this one. There’s no better way to put it,” Calgary Naheed Nenshi told CTV’s Power Play. “The alternative is more oil by rail and people in Quebec know the dangers of oil by rail, tragically.”

“I trust Montreal area mayors will politely return their share of $10B in equalization supported by (the) west,” Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said on Twitter.

The 82 municipalities of the Communauté Municipale de Montréal (Montreal Metropolitan Community) voted yesterday to oppose the 1.1 million barrels a day proposed pipeline going through their jurisdictions. The environment risks outweighed the meager economic benefits of the project, according to the political body representing nearly four million Quebecers.

"We are against it because it still represents significant environmental threats and too few economic benefits for greater Montreal," Coderre told reporters in a press conference yesterday.

“Call a spade a spade: It’s a bad project,” Coderre said.

Alberta’s provincial politicians also took shots at Montreal’s concerns about Energy East. Alberta’s Wildrose Leader tweeted that the Montreal-area municipalities cannot “benefit from equalization and then reject our pipelines.” The Alberta government called the announcement “both ungenerous and short-sighted.”

Earlier this month, the British Columbia government came out against Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain pipeline project and Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan requested the regulatory review of the project be suspended. Neither announcement was met with the same outrage from politicians in the oil patch.

Some of the criticism showed a clear lack of understanding of the Energy East project by pro-pipeline politicians.

Nenshi seems to have mixed up Energy East with Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline when he tried to justify Energy East as “a pipeline that already goes to Montreal. This is a project to modernize it, to bring it up to even better standards.”

Some 3,000 kilometres of the 4,600 kilometre proposed Energy East pipeline do exist as a TransCanada natural gas line stretching from Alberta to the Ontario-Quebec provincial boundary. The remaining kilometers of pipe will be a newly constructed pipeline in Quebec and New Brunswick.

The new pipeline would be built in the northern municipalities of Montreal should the project receive regulatory approval.

Nenshi’s and other western Canadian pro-Energy East politicians’ praising the pipeline for its potential to supply eastern Canada with western Canadian oil overlooks eastern Canada’s inability to refine large amounts of oilsands (tarsands) bitumen. The three eastern refineries lack the equipment to process heavy bitumen.

As Andrea Harden-Donahue of the Council of Canadians points out in a recent article, by the time Energy East comes on line eastern Canadian refining needs will likely already be met by rail, tanker and the existing Line 9 pipeline with Atlantic Canada offshore oil, U.S. light crude as well as western Canadian crude.

“When it comes to U.S. imports, the fact is it is cheap light crude and a likely ongoing choice given refineries desire for the best bang for their buck,” Harden-Donahue writes. “This leads to the conclusion that 978,000 barrels of the 1.1 million BPD is destined for export.”

How bitumen is going to help eastern Canadian refineries has yet to be adequately explained by Energy East supporters.

Alberta and Saskatchewan politicians’ condemnation that Montreal is sucking oil and gas provinces dry through equalization payments smacks of typical ‘Quebec bashing’ seen before in Canada. It also skirts around the issue that only half of natural resources wealth is subject to the equalization system because natural resources are under provincial control.

“Despite having a higher than average ability to fund services, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland receive more in federal spending and transfer payments than they contribute,” the Mowat Centre states in a 2014 press release on Canada’s “broken system of federal redistribution.”

At the end of the day, the most diplomatic response to Coderre’s announcement from the pro-pipeline side came from Energy East’s proponent TransCanada:

“[We] will continue to listen to other elected leaders in Quebec and stakeholders across the province as we take their concerns and input seriously.”

Image Credit: City of Calgary 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.

Montreal Mayor Denise Coderre announced Thursday the city's formal opposition to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline. The 4,600-kilometer west-to-east oil pipeline project would see 1,600 kilometres of new pipe built along the St. Lawrence River in Quebec and in New Brunswick.

"We are against it because it still represents significant environmental threats and too few economic benefits for greater Montreal," Coderre said in a press conference.

Groups opposed to the 1.1 million barrels-a-day project, which is significantly larger than TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, welcomed the announcement.

“Today, 82 municipal counsellors, representing 3.9 million citizens in the greater Montreal region, have issued a resounding ‘no’ to the Energy East project and to TransCanada Corporation,” Steven Guilbeault, Senior Director at Équiterre, said in a media release.

Coderre’s announcement came after 82 municipalities comprising the Communauté Municipale de Montréal (Montreal Metropolitan Community) voted this morning on whether to approve or oppose the project. Energy East’s proposed route would go through the northern municipalities of the greater Montreal-area.

“We’re really happy,” Audrey Yank, spokesperson for Montreal-based citizens-group Coalition Vigilance Oleoducs told DeSmog Canada. “It feels like a another small victory to give us hope.”

“TransCanada is asking us to bear all the risks of Energy East in exchange for very small benefits,” Yank said.

Energy East has faced stiff opposition in Quebec for over a year now. TransCanada’s plan to build an export tanker terminal in Quebec near the calving waters of endangered beluga whales was met by public outcry. Even Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is not an Energy East opponent, suggested publicly TransCanada should look some place else for its terminal.

In the face of growing Quebec public opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada scrapped plans for building a terminal anywhere in Quebec last November.

But by canceling plans to build a terminal in Quebec, selling the project to Quebecers on the basis of economic benefits has become difficult. The Montreal Metropolitan Community conducted public consultations on Energy East last fall and the majority of those who participated were against the project.

In a 2015 poll, 57 percent of Quebecers expressed their opposition to Energy East.

Montreal is the first major city to come out against the project to transport oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen across the country from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. Winnipeg and Ottawa also sit along Energy East’s purposed route, but neither has shown the same degree of opposition as Montreal as of yet.

Ottawa-resident Mike Fletcher is hoping this will change soon.

“Ottawa has more risk and potentially less benefit than Montreal from this horrible proposal. The pipe through Ottawa is used, as opposed to proposed new pipe in Montreal,” Fletcher told DeSmog Canada.

“But so far Ottawa's reaction has been mixed. We are glad that the City will produce a letter of comment to the National Energy Board, but most of our municipal elected officials need to square up against Energy East,” Fletcher said. The 3,000 kilometres of the proposed pipeline situated west of Quebec is an existing natural gas line TransCanada plans on converting to oil.

Fletcher has played a key role in local group Ecology Ottawa’s campaign against the Energy East pipeline over the last two years. Ecology Ottawa was one of several environmental organizations targeted by a botched TransCanada PR campaign to undermine pipeline opponents in 2014.

Provincial governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick support the project. Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have all been guarded in their statements about Energy East, neither denouncing nor fully endorsing their provinces acting as a thoroughfare for the pipeline.

Ontario’s energy regulator examined TransCanada’s application for Energy East and concluded the project was not in the best interest of Canada’s most populous province.

Audrey Yank from Coalition Vigilance Oleoducs is concerned that Montreal’s analysis of the Energy East project does not cover the potential impacts the pipeline could have on climate change. 

“It appears the analysis does not address green house gas emissions. Climate change should be part of the analysis, especially after the Paris climate talks,” Yank said.

“We can’t build fossil fuels infrastructure that lasts 40 or 50 years if we need to get to a zero-carbon economy by 2050,” Yank told DeSmog Canada.

Montreal’s announcement comes amongst a flurry of protests and calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to keep his election promise to initiate new regulatory reviews of Energy East and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline in B.C. that will include climate impacts, and stronger recognition of First Nations’ concerns.

Image Credit: Ville de Montréal via Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NEB Can Order A Hydrotest of Line 9

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

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

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

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

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

Line 9 Approved, But Still Contested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Oil Change International

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

As the death toll of the tragic Lac-Mégantic derailment rises to 28, with another 22 presumed dead, the environmental impact of the crude oil spilled during the disaster is also becoming clearer. Further risk of environmental damage comes from the one million litres of crude oil still trapped in tankers at the blast site, according to the Montreal Gazette.

Aaron Derfel writes for the Gazette, that "cleanup crews must wait to begin the months-long decontamination — which is projected to cost tens of millions of dollars — because a police investigation and a coroner's search for human remains must first be completed."

Derfel reports Ghislain Bolduc, a member of the National Assembly for Mégantic riding, as saying that though the investigation must take top priority, "each day's delay in decontaminating the four-hectare site means that oil will continue seeping into the ground and sewage system, which will almost certainly have to be rebuilt."

CBC News reports that the investigation itself will "take months or more" to ensure "Canadians get the answers they need," according to Transportation Safety Board chair Wendy Tavos.

Bolduc emphasized the urgency of removing the five intact rail cars still in the town centre, each containing 100,000 litres of crude oil. This is in addition to residual oil in the damaged cars, which "altogether probably contain about 500,000 litres."

The Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway company gave Environment Quebec an estimate of 6.5 million litres of crude oil burned or spilled from damaged tanker cars in the hours following the derailment, with much of it "[flooding] the basements of more than 50 buildings and houses in the downtown core."

In comparison, the 2013 ExxonMobil pipeline oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, spilled an estimated 893,000 litres of crude oil, while the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill totalled about 41.6 million litres of crude.

The oil also leaked into the sewer system and burned there, causing "underground explosions [that] cracked sewage pipes and blew manhole covers, with geysers of flames shooting up 10 metres in the air," according to Bolduc.

The oil is not just in the water and the soil either, as "above-ground explosions sprayed oil droplets thousands of feet into the sky, and the wind carried that oily mist as far as eight kilometres from the derailment," with Lac-Mégantic residents reporting oil coating their cars.

The Chaudière River has also been contaminated, with "extensive oil slicks" seen on its surface as far as 80 kilometres away, in the town of St. Georges, northeast of Lac-Mégantic. SIMEC, a private company specializing in removing oil spills, was hired on Tuesday to place booms "designed to contain the oil and to prevent it from polluting shorelines" on the river, 1.5 km from the blast site.

"400,000 litres of oil have been pumped out of the sewers thus far," and "4 million litres of oil-tainted river and lake water, as well as sewage" recovered, Michel Rousseau, deputy Environment Quebec minister, told the Gazette. Rousseau added that the cleanup will "cost a lot of money" because "the quantity of oil is very, very big," and that Montreal, Maine & Atlantic will have to pay for most of the bill.

Derfel writes that "decontaminating thousands of tonnes of oily earth" in Lac-Mégantic will "take months and cost millions of dollars," whether done by excavating and replacing 30,000 truckloads of earth from the town or on-site by "setting up a temporary facility to clean the oily earth and then refill the site." This task would be followed by repairing of the sewer system–removing or replacing damaged and contaminated pipes, and "extensive repairs" to the town's sewage treatment plant, which is "clogged with oil as well." The town's water supply, which comes from reservoirs and wells, escaped damage.

"To repair all this, to rebuild the town centre and return to normal will take years," said Bolduc. Rousseau confirmed that soil decontamination could take months, though he couldn't provide an exact number.

Premier Pauline Marois has pledged $60 million in emergency aid to Lac-Mégantic. Bolduc says that this is "a good start," but warns that "millions more are needed, including from the federal government."

Image Credit: Transportation Safety Board

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.

“Line 9 was built at the wrong time with the wrong materials, and forms part of a pipeline system in which ruptures and leaks on very similar pipes have happened on a fairly regular basis,” stated Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association (OPLA) lawyer John Goudy in his final argument at the Line 9A hearing in London, Ontario in May 2012.

The 37-year old Line 9 pipeline runs from Sarnia to Montreal. The pipeline's operator – Enbridge – wants to increase the capacity of Line 9 from 250 000 barrels per day (bpd) to 300 000 bpd. Enbridge also wants to ship 'heavy crude' such as bitumen from the Alberta tar sands through Line 9.

Line 9 is almost identical in age and design to the Enbridge pipeline at the centre of the largest inland oil spill in US history – Line 6B of the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan. The 41-year old Line 6B pipeline ruptured in 2010, spilling over 800 000 gallons (3 million litres) of bitumen into the Kalamazoo River and the surrounding area. The cleanup is still going on and could cost up to one billion (US) dollars.  

“We are not anti-pipeline or anti-oil. We just want respect for our livelihoods and safe pipelines,” says Dave Core founding president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA).

Design Deficiencies of Line 9

OPLA's argument against shipping bitumen through Line 9 is the pipeline suffers from “historical deficiencies”. Line 9 is covered in an outdated external protective coating called single-layer polyethylene tape (PE tape). A section of PE tape became unglued from Line 6B allowing water to corrode the pipe resulting Line 6B's rupture in 2010 according to the US National Transport and Saftey Board. 

The Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (CEPA), an industry group, warned in 2007 against the use of PE tape on new pipelines because it can stretch or become unglued from a pipeline, creating pockets of water that cause pipeline corrosion. CEPA concluded PE tape was ineffective in mitigating the effects of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) on pipelines.

Enbridge's Line 6B.

OPLA has also pointed out Line 9's pipe-wall thickness (6.35-7 mm) for most of its length is 30% thinner than a pipeline with the same diameter (762 mm) going into the ground today.  Enbridge’s engineering assessment admits this high diameter-to-pipe-thickness ratio makes Line 9 “susceptible” to mechanical damage. 

Line 6B of the Kalamazoo spill had the same pipe-wall thickness and diameter of Line 9. Enbridge is currently replacing Line 6B with a new pipeline with thicker walls and a lower diameter-to-pipe-thickness ratio.

There is no indication Line 9 will be replaced by a new pipeline.

Being a pipeline landowner in an expanding resource economy 

OPLA and CAEPLA represent the interests and rights of farmers and other rural landowners with oil and gas pipelines going through their property. The construction of Line 9 in 1975 sparked the pipeline landowner movement in Ontario. Two southwestern Ontario farmers mortgaged their farms to fight for compensation for soil degradation caused by Line 9's construction and won. One of the two farmers went on to found OPLA in 1993.

As the Canadian government pushes for more pipelines to be built to export bitumen, the rights of pipeline landowners are being reeled back.

Dave Core of CAEPLA told the Canadian Senate in a presentation earlier this year the 2012 omnibus bill C-38 introduced criminal penalties for landowners violating a contentious section of the National Energy Board Act; section 112. Depending on the conviction, the penalty for violations of section 112 is a $100 000 – $1 000 000 fine or up to 5 years in prison.  

Section 112 restricts landowners from driving their equipment over a buried pipeline on their own property without the permission of the pipeline's operator first. Land cultivation deeper than 30 centimetres within the pipeline's “safety zones” is not permitted. Safety zones can be as wide as thirty metres on either side of the pipeline's eighteen metre wide right-of-way. This effectively creates a 78-metre wide strip of land pipeline landowners cannot properly farm or utilize.

Landowners' disputes with pipeline companies can only be brought to the National Energy Board (NEB). Up until recently the NEB referred to itself as the partner of the energy industry, not the independent regulator it is mandated to be. Landowners have complained for years there is a 'revolving door' between the NEB and energy industry. The pipeline industry group CEPA's current president Brenda Kenny worked for the NEB from 1986 – 2001 .

“You get the feeling the NEB listens, but it does not really hear,” says Margaret Vance, president of OPLA.

“The NEB listens to landowners’ concerns because they have to, but they rarely do anything about them,” Vance told DeSmog. Vance is a farmer near Woodstock, Ontario.

Pipeline Companies Are Not Required to Remove Out-Of-Service Pipelines

One of OPLA's biggest concerns with Line 9 and other aging pipelines is pipeline companies are permitted to leave 80% of an out-of-service pipeline in the ground.  

“It is not safe and it is a liability for us,” says Vance.

OPLA unearthed an NEB discussion paper from 1985 on pipeline abandonment in the NEB archives while preparing for the Trailbreaker pipeline project hearings in 2007. The discussion paper stated pipeline companies should set aside funds for the removal of out-of-service pipelines. A fund was only recently established for partial removal of abandoned pipelines.

“The day the province (Ontario) wants abandoned pipelines out of the ground you can be sure it is not going to be the companies who profited from the pipelines who will have to pay for their removal. It is going to be landowners,” Vance told DeSmog.

Line 9 public hearings are expected to take place in October. The NEB could make its final decision on Line 9 as early as January 2014.

Image Credit: Environmental Defense

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.