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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet the board did not find TransCanada met those reqirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: TransCanada via Youtube

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

A panel of leading environmental groups expressed concern last week over findings in an Ontario Energy Board commissioned report that suggest oil tanker trains could replace TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline if the project isn't approved. 

“We believe the report makes a number of flawed assumptions on rail capacity, and actually goes beyond the oil industry’s own projections,” Ben Powless, a panel presenter at the province's Energy East stakeholder meeting and pipeline community organizer for Ecology Ottawa, said.

The energy board's report, written by Navius Research, estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of the pipeline — which is project to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil per day — will be "modest" since the oil could could just as easily be brought to market by rail.

“It is highly unlikely that 1.1 million barrels of oil or even half of that could be shipped by rail,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, countered. Scott and Powless joined panel members from the Council of Canadians and the Ottawa chapter of 350.org to argue against the report's findings at a stakeholders meeting on Energy East in Ottawa last week.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) projects oil-by-rail in Canada will only hit 700,000 barrels per day by 2016. Even if sufficient additional rail capacity were proposed, the panel found it “overly optimistic” to assume public support in light of recent oil tank car explosions, such as the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic.

“We have trouble believing more oil-by-rail won’t cause public opposition,” Powless said.  

Climate impacts of Energy East debated

Navius’ report is one of only two studies assessing the GHG emissions from a fully operational Energy East pipeline. By assuming Energy East’s 1.1 million barrels will be extracted regardless of the pipeline's approval, the report sees only a 1.2 and 10.2 megatonnes-of-carbon increase in Canada’s carbon footprint due to Energy East. 

“Energy East will likely increase emissions from 'well-to-tank' (extraction to refineries) in the rest of Canada, but the impact is likely to be relatively modest,” the report concludes.

Navius’s findings differ greatly from the first study on Energy East’s potential GHG emissions by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy think tank:

“The crude production needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would generate an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads.” 

The Pembina study does not assume oil-by-rail will replace Energy East if the pipeline is not constructed, leading to constraints on production in the oil patch.

Ontario’s environmental leadership on the line with Energy East

“Energy East is Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Keystone," Muthanna Subbaiah of the Ottawa chapter of 350.org said at the meeting. 

"President Obama said he will veto Keystone XL. Wynne needs to reject Energy East.” 

The province has talked much about being a climate leader and is hosting an international climate summit this summer, but attracted criticism over its position on Energy East. Ontario Premier Wynne recently stated her government will only consider the GHG emissions from Energy East that occur within Ontario, meaning the climate impacts from developing oil in the Alberta oilsands will be excluded from consideration.

Navius’ report for the Ontario Energy Board finds the pipeline will cause an 0.4 per cent increase in GHG emissions in Ontario. These emissions will be almost exclusively from pipeline pumping stations running on either natural gas or Ontario's relatively clean electricity.

“The Ontario government needs to step up and protect us,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, told the audience attending the public meeting.

The panel also voiced concerns about TransCanada’s safety record, the effects of a oil spill on the province’s natural environment and the fact TransCanada’s application for the pipeline is incomplete.

“I don’t know of a clearer warning than the Kalamazoo spill,” Harden-Donahue stated.

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 remains the largest inland pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, and cost well over one billion dollars in cleanup costs. The Enbridge pipeline ruptured when the pipeline's external polyethylene tape coating became unglued, allowing moisture to corrode the pipe.

Ninety-nine kilometers of the existing natural gas pipeline TransCanada plans on converting for the Energy East project in Ontario is coated with polyethylene tape.

Image Credit: Ecology Ottawa

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

“I do not want to be the grand chief who consented to a pipeline that’s going to destroy 30 per cent of the fresh water in Ontario, in Treaty 3 territory,” Treaty 3 Grand Chief Warren White said in a speech outlining his objections to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East oil pipeline last week.

“I did not come here for consultation. I came here to let everyone know what Energy East is all about…In unity in Treaty 3 we will be the ones to stop this. Our communities, our youth, our leadership are being called on by other nations,” White, while presenting at a public meeting hosted by the Ontario Energy Board in Kenora, Ontario, stated.

TransCanada “low balled” and “tried to pull a fast one” on Treaty 3 chiefs, according to White. The pipeline company agreed to participate in a consultation process based on Treaty 3 Resource Law or Manito Aki Inakonigaawin in Anishinaabe (Ojibwe), but failed to actually engaged in the process. TransCanada was a no-show for a meeting with Treaty 3 chiefs on December 21st last year.

“I am very upset right now and you put that in your report that Energy East, TransCanada whatever you wanna call it, are there for the dollar signs, and nothing about the land, nothing about how we survive,” White said.

"I do not want to be the grand chief that’s remembered as, 'all he wanted was the money.' I do not want to be the grand chief known as the destroyer of the lands, waters, sacred sites, rivers, trees, animals, birds…We are going to get another Grassy Narrows situation, an oil spill will happen no matter how safe you guys say it is.”

If approved, the 1.1 million barrel a day pipeline stretching from Alberta to New Brunswick would operate on Treaty 3 territory. The Treaty 3 First Nation represents over twenty-five Anishinaabe First Nations whose traditional territory covers an area of northwestern Ontario larger than Newfoundland.

White’s speech was part of the ongoing public consultations Ontario’s energy regulator – Ontario Energy Board – is conducting with communities and First Nations along Energy East’s proposed route in northern and eastern Ontario. The board will be in Ottawa Thursday.

The provincial government claimed it will partly base its position on Energy East in light of the board’s findings. Ontario plans on arguing its case for or against Energy East at the National Energy Board (NEB) hearings on the pipeline project expected to take place later this year.

Ontario has identified seven conditions for its approval of the pipeline. Included is the condition that “proponents and governments” fulfill their constitutional duty to consult with the province’s First Nations on the project.

“When you send me correspondence and I never participated that does not constitute consultation. We keep hearing [from] government about meaningful consultation, the duty to consult. I never consented to be part of this [regulatory] process,” White told the Ontario Energy Board.

The federal government has the constitutional duty to consult with First Nations, Metis and Inuit on projects that may infringe upon their aboriginal and treaty rights according to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haida First Nation vs British Columbia in 2004. There is no indication yet that the federal government plans to fulfill this legal duty in the case of Energy East.

White expressed his lack of faith that the Ontario Energy Board and National Energy Board processes are interested in protecting Treaty 3 rights:

“No matter what we say as intervenor or [in] protest to the Ontario Energy Board and National Energy Board we know you are still going to move forward [with the pipeline], but without our consent,” White said.

Ontario, although calling itself a “climate leader,” has come under fire recently from pipeline critics for weakening its stance on Energy East. Premier Kathleen Wynne announced last December the province would not take into account the potential upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of Energy East when deciding whether to support the project.

The Ontario Energy Board has also been criticized for its claims Energy East, North America’s largest proposed pipeline project, will likely have a “relatively modest” impact on GHG emissions in Canada.

Image Credit: Ontario.ca

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 economic benefits for Ontario of TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline are “likely inflated” according to a study commissioned by the province’s energy regulator.

“The economic impact of the project in Ontario should not be treated as a significant factor when considering the merits of Energy East,” the study states.

The authors of the study, the Mowat Centre, a public policy think tank at the University of Toronto, found the modeling system TransCanada used to predict the economic benefits of the project assumes past and present economic conditions will remain unchanged for the entire operational life of the Energy East project and inflates the project’s indirect benefits on Ontario’s economy.

“Due to the uncertainty around many broader policy questions that will materially impact the economics of the project, any estimates of possible economic impacts in Ontario should be treated with a high degree of caution,” the study concludes.

Carbon pricing in Canada or a decrease in the global demand for oil were not assessed by TransCanada when looking into the economic impacts of the 1.1 million barrels-a-day oil pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick.

Direct jobs creation in the construction of the pipeline is marginal according to the study. In northern and eastern Ontario, where Energy East will operate, the construction phase of the project will only account for 0.7 – 1 per cent of the workforce. Most of Ontario’s section of Energy East exists already as a natural gas pipeline that will be converted to oil.

Operating the pipeline in Ontario will create two hundred annual direct jobs but it is unclear how many of these jobs will be assumed by workers already employed by TransCanada in operating the to-be-converted natural gas pipeline.

The Mowat Centre estimates municipalities along Energy East’s proposed route will see a small bump in property tax revenue, ranging between a 1% – 3.7 per cent increase, because of the pipeline project.

Differing Reports on Carbon Emissions from Pipeline

The Mowat Centre’s study was released today by the Ontario Energy Board – the provincial energy regulator – along with three other studies covering the pipeline’s safety, impacts on the natural environment and climate change. The Board’s investigation is part of a public forum on Energy East the Ontario government initiated in November of 2013.

On climate change, the study completed by Navius Research Inc. acknowledges the overall greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) in Canada will increase if Energy East is approved, but it states “the impact is likely to be relatively modest.”

“The increase in Canadian GHG emissions from “well-to-tank” [operations of Energy East] are mostly offset by a decline in the rest of the world,” the report concludes.

Comparison between Navius (see OILTRANS) and Pembina findings on Energy East GHG emissions

Navius Research estimates Energy East will produce in Canada an extra 1 to 10.2 megatonnes of carbon in extracting the bitumen from the western Canadian oilsands (also called tar sands) and refining it in New Brunswick and Quebec. These findings are in direct contradiction with a report by the Pembina Institute, which projects in extraction alone Energy East will create thirty to thirty-two megatonnes of carbon, the equivalent GHG production of all Ontario’s now closed coal-plants.

Image Credit: TransCanada, Government of Canada, Ontario Energy 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.

The government of Ontario is holding community discussions in northern Ontario to hear opinions on TransCanada’s proposed Energy East oil pipeline project. Part of the $12 billion pipeline project involves converting 1,900 kilometres of pipeline from natural gas to oil in northern Ontario and constructing one hundred kilometers of new pipeline in southeastern Ontario.

Ontario’s public forum on Energy East may be the first of its kind in the country. Provinces do not usually hold community meetings on oil pipelines that cross provincial boundaries such as Energy East. The National Energy Board (NEB) – Canada’s energy regulator – has jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, not the provinces.  

The forum appears to be the result of public outcry in Ontario over Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline project and restrictions the National Energy Board (NEB) placed on public participation in the project's review process. Last March, the NEB approved Line 9 despite public safety concerns about transporting oilsands bitumen through the pipeline.

“The erosion of the National Energy Board process, in both accessibility and scope, has left a void in need of being filled. That is why the Ontario government stepping in is so commendable and needed. The Ontario Energy Board process is much more inclusive to the broad range of concerns the public has,” says Yan Roberts of North Bay, Ontario. North Bay’s community discussion took place on April 2nd.   

The Ontario Energy Board – Ontario's energy regulator – has been instructed by the province to consult the public, First Nations and Metis, a wide range of provincial organizations, and technical experts on what they believe the impacts of the Energy East pipeline will be. All Ontarians regardless if they live along the proposed pipeline’s route are invited to participate in the community discussions and send in written comments to the Board.

The schedule of Ontario's Energy East public forum.

Even though the NEB must decide whether pipeline projects are “in the public interest,” the NEB relies on pipeline companies to inform communities on new projects. In recent years, the NEB has limited public hearing participation to only those members of the public that can demonstrate they are “directly affected” by pipeline projects or have “relevant expertise.”

“Visiting the towns along Energy East’s route for their community discussions and allowing testimony to be submitted easily really shows that the Ontario government is sincere about listening to and representing the many concerns Ontario has with Energy East,” Roberts told DeSmog Canada. Roberts, who has been following the Energy East project closely, is a farmer and community organizer for North Bay’s local citizens’ group. 

All Issues Including Climate Change and the Expansion of the Oilsands Are Heard

“I feel quite confident that citizens’ comments and concerns are being properly heard and reported to the OEB (Ontario Energy Board), and that the OEB is listening,” says Teika Newton of Kenora, Ontario.

Kenora in northwestern Ontario was the Ontario Energy Board’s first stop in its community discussions that began last week. Newton says the community meeting was well attended and all issues pertaining to the pipeline could be discussed. Unlike the NEB process on pipelines, residents were permitted to express concerns of Energy East’s impacts on climate change and the expansion of the oilsands (also called tar sands) in Alberta. The NEB no longer considers ‘upstream’ impacts of pipelines in its decisions.

TransCanada's Energy East's prosposed route in Ontario

“The OEB process involves engaging directly with communities, hearing concerns from citizens, and dutifully recording what has been heard, even if it is not flattering to government or the project proponents. It is unbiased and objective, as a regulator should be,” says Newton, who is a project manager of a university research project in Kenora and co-founder of Transition Kenora, a local sustainability group.

Feedback From Ontarians Will be the Basis of a Provincial Report

“Only time will tell if the OEB’s final report to the Minister of Energy will be as clear in articulating citizen opposition and concerns,” Newton told DeSmog Canada.

The Ontario Energy Board will file a report based on the feedback it receives over the coming months with Ontario’s Ministry of Energy. The Ministry will use the report in shaping Ontario’s position on the pipeline project, which will be presented to the NEB in the upcoming Energy East hearings. The hearings will be scheduled once TransCanada has submitted an official project application to the NEB. TransCanada is expected to apply this summer.

The current round of community discussions will wrap up in Cornwall, near Quebec on April 8th, but this is by no means the end of Ontario’s Energy East public forum. A second round of discussions will take place after TransCanada submits its application for the pipeline with the NEB. A conference for provincial organizations – from oil industry advocacy groups to environmental organizations – to present evidence on Energy East will also take place this summer.

“The OEB has created an avenue for people to have their concerns represented, whereas the NEB increasingly seems to have the public's concerns rejected. It will now be for the people of Ontario to come out and make their voices heard,” Roberts told DeSmog Canada. Roberts is also a local tourism operator in North Bay, Ontario.

Involvment in Pipeline Process Easy

The Ontario Energy Board’s consideration of the Energy East project questions what the loss of a natural gas pipeline will mean for the province’s natural gas supply and investigates the pipeline’s safety, economic impacts and the impacts on the local environment, communities, and First Nations and Metis.

“I am hopeful that through this careful and comprehensive process of engagement, they will obtain a clear picture of how Ontarians feel with regard to Energy East,” says Newton of Kenora, Ontario.

The Ontario Energy Board has created an easy to navigate website for the public forum, complete with information backgrounders on Energy East and ‘toolkits’ for Ontarians to start and record discussions on the pipeline with friends, family and co-workers. Written comments on Energy East will accepted until April 30th. A second round of written submissions will take place in the summer.

Neither the Ontario Energy Board nor the province have the legal power to stop the project. But neither does the NEB. The federal government assumed final decision-making power over all pipeline projects after the passage of the 2012 federal omnibus bill c-38. NEB decisions on pipeline projects are now considered 'recommendations.' 

If approved, Energy East will be the largest pipeline in North America stretching some 4,600-kilometers from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick.

TransCanada claims Energy East will transport 1.1 millions barrels of oil and oilsands bitumen a day. DeSmog Canada reported last month the majority of Energy East’s oil and bitumen will be exported overseas, and will not be refined domestically.

Image Credit: Ontario Energy Board, 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.

The Ontario Energy Board’s approval of three natural gas projects last week puts the province’s plans to significantly reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint in jeopardy.

The ruling also gives Ontario the green light to import controversial shale gas from the U.S. This type of gas is trapped in rock-like shale and is extracted using a process called hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, which involves pumping a chemical mix underground at high temperatures to break apart the rock and free the gas. The practice has caused controversy worldwide due to fracking chemicals and methane contaminating drinking water.

“So often we see approvals given to pipeline and fossil fuel projects without a real understanding of the broader and long-term impacts on climate, water and public health,” says Emma Lui, a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

The interdependent projects — two by Union Gas and one from Enbridge Gas — will expand the natural gas supply and delivery network in southern Ontario. Consuming more natural gas, particularly a more polluting form of natural gas, are direct contradictions with the province’s strong greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

“Energy conservation is the lowest cost method to keep our homes warm. It creates jobs and reduces our greenhouse gas emissions and energy bills,” Jack Gibbons, director of the Ontario Clear Air Alliance, told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

Burning natural gas to heat homes and produce electricity accounts for 35 per cent of Ontario’s energy-related carbon footprint. Ontario plans to achieve a 15 per cent reduction in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a reduction of 80 per cent by 2050 (based on 1990 levels).

“Buildings are the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the province, making it important to save as much energy in heating them as possible,” Gillian McEachern, campaigns director of Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada. “Conservation needs to be a requirement before companies are given approval to expand infrastructure."

Environmental Defence, Council of Canadians and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance all found the Ontario Energy Boards’s decision a “disappointment.” They also disputed the need for the project because the alternatives were not properly considered.

The energy board criticized Enbridge Gas for only taking a “cursory” look at energy conservation as an alternative to its project, known as the GTA project. In the future, the board “expects applicants to provide a more rigorous examination of demand side alternatives, including rate options, in all gas leave to construct applications.”

Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates Ontario could save $1.4 billion over 10 years if spending on energy conservation is increased. Installing more insulation and high-efficiency windows in homes, replacing aging furnaces with new models and switching to geothermal energy for space and water heating are just some of the ways of achieving these savings.

Ontario Needs To Increase Incentives For Energy Conservation

Ontario provides financial incentives for Enbridge Gas and Union Gas — Ontario’s main natural gas distributors — to invest in energy conservation, but only to a point.

The Ontario Energy Board has put a cap on gas companies surpassing their energy conservation targets — meaning the financial rewards stop once a company exceeds its conservation targets by more than 50 per cent.

The caps on financial rewards for energy conservation are “penny wise and pound foolish” and do not benefit Ontario according to Ontario Clean Air Alliance. The organization recommends the energy board remove the caps “subject to the constraint that this must not lead to undue rate increases” for Ontarians.

Pinning Ontario’s Energy Future on Fracked Gas Is Precarious At Best

During the public hearings on the gas projects, the Council of Canadians, one of Canada’s leading water advocacy groups, argued pinning Ontario’s energy future on U.S. shale gas was precarious at best.

Three reports from U.S. experts provided by the Council of Canadians indicated upcoming bans and moratoriums on fracking and gas wells nearing the end of their lives will make importing fracked gas less economical for Ontario in the future. This could increase energy costs for Ontarians in the end.

“While the image of tap water on fire has become iconic about the risks of fracking shale gas, the climate impacts are less understood,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, a climate and energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

Fracking wells leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The world’s leading scientific body on climate issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, estimates methane has 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

The Ontario Energy Board appeared unmoved by the argument against using fracked shale gas:

“There are currently no regulations in Ontario or at the Canadian federal level which prohibit shale gas production or transportation.”

Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have all placed moratoriums on fracking.

Ontario Energy Board Decision Clears A Hurdle for Energy East Oil Pipeline

TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline proposal could benefit from Ontario’s decision to import large quantities of U.S. shale gas.

Part of the pipeline project to ship western Canadian oil to New Brunswick involves converting a natural gas pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario. Ontario receives almost half its natural gas through this particular pipeline system at the moment.

The prospect of Ontario losing a source of natural gas prompted the Ontario government to announce an assessment of the Energy East project on its costs and benefits for Ontarians. 

Now that Ontario will be able to tap into the booming shale gas industry of the U.S. the provincial government’s scrutiny of Energy East may not be that severe.

“The OEB decision helps lay the groundwork for Energy East,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. “This is bad news all around for the region which could have the biggest tarsands pipeline snacking through it and be increasingly reliant on socially and environmentally damaging fracked gas imports."

Image Credit: Allen York, OCAA, OEB, Fracking Resources

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.