Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB public hearings
[ http://globalnews.ca/news/2865575/energ ... -hearings/ ]
By Andrew Cromwell Video Journalist Global News
WATCH ABOVE: Saint John will be the first stop in a series of panel sessions on the Energy East Pipeline, which will hear from interveners both for and against the project. As Global’s Andrew Cromwell reports, Energy East officials began arriving Thursday.
Officials involved in the Energy East pipeline [ http://globalnews.ca/tag/energy-east-pipeline/ ] are reassuring the public of the rarity of a leak ahead of the National Energy Board (NEB) [ http://globalnews.ca/tag/national-energy-board/ ] public hearings on the proposed project next week.
The NEB will hear from both proponents and opponents starting Monday morning in Saint John.
The port city would be the end-point of the pipeline, if it’s approved, and would be on the receiving end of about 1.1 million barrels of Alberta crude per day.
The NEB hearings come just weeks after hundreds of thousands of litres of oil spilled into the North Saskatchewan river. [ http://globalnews.ca/news/2854117/husky ... ine-spill/ ]
Energy East admits that spill could impact how the public perceives pipelines in general, but says it was an isolated incident.
- - - SNIP - - -
Both government and businesses have been supportive of the pipeline coming to Saint John, but opponents have also been very vocal and will have a strong presence at the hearings.
National Energy Board hearings move on to Fredericton following Saint John.
- - - -
READ MORE:
Husky oil spill: Oil spills common in Saskatchewan, though usually small - July 29, 2016
[ http://globalnews.ca/news/2856367/husky ... lly-small/ ]
Energy East pipeline: National Energy Board has 21 months for review June 16, 2016
[ http://globalnews.ca/news/2767222/energ ... or-review/ ]
Brad Wall promotes Energy East in Saint John - June 15, 2016
[ http://globalnews.ca/video/2764789/brad ... saint-john ]
= = =
Oil spills happening at a rate of about 2 per day in Saskatchewan: researcher
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon ... -1.3696261 ]
Researcher Emily Eaton told CBC Radio there are 100,000 kilometres of oil pipeline in Saskatchewan. (Reuters)
A researcher says oil spills are happening at a rate of about two per day in Saskatchewan.
University of Regina researcher Emily Eaton runs an independent website that tracks oil impact. Eaton said that there have been 8,000 spills in Saskatchewan since 2006 (about 17 per cent involved Husky Energy).
Smaller pipelines, she said, are the provincial government's responsibility.
"The province should and could do a lot more," said Eaton.
Eaton said the province does not have enough inspectors.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon ... -1.3696261 ]
Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB public
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB public
by Oscar » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:56 pm
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:03 pm
Husky oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River strengthens opposition to Energy East crossing the Ottawa River (Video below . . )
[ http://canadians.org/blog/husky-oil-spi ... ing-ottawa ]
August 4, 2016 - 8:47am
The Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River is making it harder for TransCanada to cross the Ottawa River with its proposed 1.1 million barrel per day Energy East pipeline.
The Globe and Mail reports, "TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East project is encountering a major logjam at the Ottawa River, with Quebec officials refusing to issue permits to the company that would allow it to determine how to cross the waterway – citing Husky Energy Inc.’s spill in a Saskatchewan river last month as a troubling warning sign."
The article explains, "In filings with the National Energy Board, TransCanada said its usual method for river crossing was 'not feasible' at its preferred Ottawa River crossing site, near the junction with the St. Lawrence River. It had promised to provide an alternative scenario this summer, but that work is delayed because county officials from Vaudreuil-Soulanges are denying the company the permits for geological testing of the riverbed. [That's because] local government officials remain worried about the potential for a disastrous spill into the river, which would contaminate drinking water for millions of residents in the Montreal region."
The article also notes, "The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake [and the] Quebec wing of the Assembly of First Nations have voiced their opposition to the pipeline, and argue that neither the company nor the government has adequately consulted them before launching the review process. Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon said the Husky spill in Saskatchewan and one by CNOOC’s Nexen Energy ULC in Alberta last summer serve as a warning about what can go wrong. ...The Kanesatake leader said the provincial and county governments need to consult with his community on the issuing of the permit, which means work would be delayed even further."
On March 10, Le Devoir reported (in French) that the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire are against "the granting of a certificate of authorization [by the Quebec government] for carrying out seismic surveys in the Ottawa River". TransCanada is still waiting for that certificate of authorization for seismic testing near Pointe-Fortune, which is located about 125 kilometres east of Ottawa. The proposed crossing for Energy East is also about 25 kilometres upstream of Lake of Two Mountains, which is where the Ottawa River widens at its confluence with the St. Lawrence River.
On March 15, CBC reported, "The Grand Chief of Kanesatake, the Mohawk community hugging the north shore of Lake of Two Mountains, says the Energy East pipeline could be catastrophic for his people – and moving forward without the community's consent violates aboriginal and treaty rights under both Canadian and international laws. ...Simon said an oil spill around the Lake of Two Mountains would be disastrous for drinking water, and the proposed route cuts through traditional hunting and fishing grounds."
And on June 6, the Montreal Gazette highlighted, "A 2014 study commissioned by TransCanada deemed the Ottawa River crossing a 'high risk' proposition. The study, conducted by pipeline consulting firm Entec, concluded that directional drilling required to tunnel the structure under the river would be extremely challenging."
The Council of Canadians is campaigning to stop the Energy East pipeline and stands with both the community of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and the Mohawks in their opposition to seismic testing in the Ottawa River.
In December 2014, Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow was in Kanesatake to express her support for the Declaration by the Kanien'kehà:ka Kanehsatà:ke Territory. The declaration states, "We the Kanien'kehà:ka people of Kanehsatà:ke ... assert our authority and jurisdiction upon our un-ceded traditional. Resource extraction and their accompanying pipeline by companies like TransCanada, Enbridge, Gazoduc and condo development by GDB Construction violate the land rights of the Kanehsatà:ke Mohawks and threaten the health of the environment."
Barlow has also stated, "To protect the St. Lawrence River we must ban all transport of tar sands bitumen on or near the St. Lawrence River."
For more on our campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline, please click here: [ http://canadians.org/energyeast ].
Brent Patterson's blog
Political Director of the council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
= = = = =
WATCH: Whistleblower warns about Energy East - Scroll down . . .
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]
[VIDEO: Should you be concerned about Energy East? "It’s not just an old pipeline, it’s antiquated technology. We would never build it that way anymore," says Evan Vokes, former TransCanada engineer at TransCanada Pipelines and a pipeline safety advocate, blew the whistle on TransCanada's poor safety record and practices. He is warning Canadians about the danger posed by the Energy East pipeline proposal which includes re-purposing an antiquated gas pipeline for shipping raw bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to Quebec where it will connect with another pipeline to the Bay of Fundy.
[ http://canadians.org/blog/husky-oil-spi ... ing-ottawa ]
August 4, 2016 - 8:47am
The Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River is making it harder for TransCanada to cross the Ottawa River with its proposed 1.1 million barrel per day Energy East pipeline.
The Globe and Mail reports, "TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East project is encountering a major logjam at the Ottawa River, with Quebec officials refusing to issue permits to the company that would allow it to determine how to cross the waterway – citing Husky Energy Inc.’s spill in a Saskatchewan river last month as a troubling warning sign."
The article explains, "In filings with the National Energy Board, TransCanada said its usual method for river crossing was 'not feasible' at its preferred Ottawa River crossing site, near the junction with the St. Lawrence River. It had promised to provide an alternative scenario this summer, but that work is delayed because county officials from Vaudreuil-Soulanges are denying the company the permits for geological testing of the riverbed. [That's because] local government officials remain worried about the potential for a disastrous spill into the river, which would contaminate drinking water for millions of residents in the Montreal region."
The article also notes, "The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake [and the] Quebec wing of the Assembly of First Nations have voiced their opposition to the pipeline, and argue that neither the company nor the government has adequately consulted them before launching the review process. Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon said the Husky spill in Saskatchewan and one by CNOOC’s Nexen Energy ULC in Alberta last summer serve as a warning about what can go wrong. ...The Kanesatake leader said the provincial and county governments need to consult with his community on the issuing of the permit, which means work would be delayed even further."
On March 10, Le Devoir reported (in French) that the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire are against "the granting of a certificate of authorization [by the Quebec government] for carrying out seismic surveys in the Ottawa River". TransCanada is still waiting for that certificate of authorization for seismic testing near Pointe-Fortune, which is located about 125 kilometres east of Ottawa. The proposed crossing for Energy East is also about 25 kilometres upstream of Lake of Two Mountains, which is where the Ottawa River widens at its confluence with the St. Lawrence River.
On March 15, CBC reported, "The Grand Chief of Kanesatake, the Mohawk community hugging the north shore of Lake of Two Mountains, says the Energy East pipeline could be catastrophic for his people – and moving forward without the community's consent violates aboriginal and treaty rights under both Canadian and international laws. ...Simon said an oil spill around the Lake of Two Mountains would be disastrous for drinking water, and the proposed route cuts through traditional hunting and fishing grounds."
And on June 6, the Montreal Gazette highlighted, "A 2014 study commissioned by TransCanada deemed the Ottawa River crossing a 'high risk' proposition. The study, conducted by pipeline consulting firm Entec, concluded that directional drilling required to tunnel the structure under the river would be extremely challenging."
The Council of Canadians is campaigning to stop the Energy East pipeline and stands with both the community of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and the Mohawks in their opposition to seismic testing in the Ottawa River.
In December 2014, Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow was in Kanesatake to express her support for the Declaration by the Kanien'kehà:ka Kanehsatà:ke Territory. The declaration states, "We the Kanien'kehà:ka people of Kanehsatà:ke ... assert our authority and jurisdiction upon our un-ceded traditional. Resource extraction and their accompanying pipeline by companies like TransCanada, Enbridge, Gazoduc and condo development by GDB Construction violate the land rights of the Kanehsatà:ke Mohawks and threaten the health of the environment."
Barlow has also stated, "To protect the St. Lawrence River we must ban all transport of tar sands bitumen on or near the St. Lawrence River."
For more on our campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline, please click here: [ http://canadians.org/energyeast ].
Brent Patterson's blog
Political Director of the council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
= = = = =
WATCH: Whistleblower warns about Energy East - Scroll down . . .
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]
[VIDEO: Should you be concerned about Energy East? "It’s not just an old pipeline, it’s antiquated technology. We would never build it that way anymore," says Evan Vokes, former TransCanada engineer at TransCanada Pipelines and a pipeline safety advocate, blew the whistle on TransCanada's poor safety record and practices. He is warning Canadians about the danger posed by the Energy East pipeline proposal which includes re-purposing an antiquated gas pipeline for shipping raw bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to Quebec where it will connect with another pipeline to the Bay of Fundy.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:39 pm
On First Day of Energy East NEB Panel Sessions, Groups, Indigenous People, Fishers and Locals Say Bitumen Risk to Water is Too Great
[ http://canadians.org/media/first-day-en ... locals-say ]
August 5, 2016
Media Advisory
Saint John, NB – Monday, August 8 marks the beginning of the National Energy Board’s panel sessions reviewing the Energy East pipeline. These sessions are taking place at the time as communities across Saskatchewan are still reeling from the recent Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River.
Fishers, Indigenous People, local residents and environmental groups will gather on Monday morning near the entrance to the NEB hearings to declare their opposition to the Energy East pipeline and tanker project. Some of them will be presenting to the NEB.
WHAT: A press conference with representatives from First Nations, fishing, environmental, and social justice groups to highlight the risks that the Energy East pipeline poses to the Bay of Fundy (see below for group names). There will be local, regional and national groups present.
WHEN: Monday, August 8 at 8:30 a.m.
WHERE: Near the entrance to the Hilton Saint John, 1 Market Square, Saint John, NB
WHY: The Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River highlights the real threats that the Energy East pipeline would pose to the Bay of Fundy and the industry’s consistent inability to prevent or contain spills. The Bay of Fundy is an important source of biodiversity and is one of the most productive regions on the Atlantic Coast, providing thousands of sustainable jobs for people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
The groups taking part in the press conference include the Wolastoq Grand Council, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Air, the Council of Canadians, the Ecology Action Centre, the Red Head - Anthony’s Cove Preservation Society and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation - 30 -
For more information, please contact:
Daniel Cayley-Daoust,
Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians
819-593-4579,
ddaoust@canadians.org
TAGS:
Energy East
Water
New Brunswick
bay of fundy
red head
[ http://canadians.org/media/first-day-en ... locals-say ]
August 5, 2016
Media Advisory
Saint John, NB – Monday, August 8 marks the beginning of the National Energy Board’s panel sessions reviewing the Energy East pipeline. These sessions are taking place at the time as communities across Saskatchewan are still reeling from the recent Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River.
Fishers, Indigenous People, local residents and environmental groups will gather on Monday morning near the entrance to the NEB hearings to declare their opposition to the Energy East pipeline and tanker project. Some of them will be presenting to the NEB.
WHAT: A press conference with representatives from First Nations, fishing, environmental, and social justice groups to highlight the risks that the Energy East pipeline poses to the Bay of Fundy (see below for group names). There will be local, regional and national groups present.
WHEN: Monday, August 8 at 8:30 a.m.
WHERE: Near the entrance to the Hilton Saint John, 1 Market Square, Saint John, NB
WHY: The Husky Energy oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River highlights the real threats that the Energy East pipeline would pose to the Bay of Fundy and the industry’s consistent inability to prevent or contain spills. The Bay of Fundy is an important source of biodiversity and is one of the most productive regions on the Atlantic Coast, providing thousands of sustainable jobs for people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
The groups taking part in the press conference include the Wolastoq Grand Council, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Air, the Council of Canadians, the Ecology Action Centre, the Red Head - Anthony’s Cove Preservation Society and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation - 30 -
For more information, please contact:
Daniel Cayley-Daoust,
Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians
819-593-4579,
ddaoust@canadians.org
TAGS:
Energy East
Water
New Brunswick
bay of fundy
red head
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:46 pm
Environmental Health Expert: Critical questions remain unanswered as capacity of tank farm/terminal doubles in Red Head, Saint John
[ http://canadians.org/media/environmenta ... rmterminal ]
August 8, 2016
Media Release
No Energy East March in Red Head
Saint John, NB - TransCanada’s human health risk assessment falls short in many crucial areas, says an independent expert with over 20 years experience in health and environmental risk assessment. This warning raises new concerns about TransCanada’s announcement that it plans to double the capacity of the Red Head tank farm and terminal following the cancellation of the Cacouna terminal in Quebec.
“As the National Energy Board (NEB) panel sessions open up in Saint John, New Brunswick, many questions and concerns remain unanswered,” says Dr. Ken Froese. “Since my last report in December, TransCanada’s updated assessments still have important gaps and shortcomings that need to be addressed.”
Dr. Ken Froese is in Saint John to present findings to residents and city staff and available for interviews on Monday, August 8th and Tuesday August 9th until 4pm.
“TransCanada still has not assessed impacts in case of catastrophic events at the tank farm, has not developed remediation plans in case problems arise with odours in the neighboring community, nor have they assessed associated health impacts such as stress or economic disruptions,” says Dr. Froese.
On Monday evening, Dr. Froese will be meeting with local residents to present his findings and discuss potential impacts an Energy East pipeline spill could have on their lives.
“In light of the recent oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River that continues to deprive over 70,000 people of drinking water it is highly irresponsible of TransCanada to not properly assess and prepare for catastrophic incidents at the tank farm and marine terminal,” says Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
Irving Oil, which has jointly invested with TransCanada in the tank farm project, made headlines again in June for excessive amounts of potentially carcinogenic and toxic catalyst ash released in the community near its refinery between 2010 and 2015 with no proper contingencies or monitoring in place by either the company or the government.
Dr. Froese was commissioned by the Council of Canadians to provide a credible examination of TransCanada’s assessment of the human health impacts of the proposed Energy East project in Red Head, Saint John. He has worked with industry, government, First Nations, and non-governmental organizations, providing senior project direction and management, writing technical reports, appearing as an expert witness, providing courtroom testimony and serving on international peer review panels. - 30 -
For more information or to arrange interviews with Ken Froese please contact:
Daniel Cayley-Daoust,
Energy and Climate Campaigner, The Council of Canadians
ddaoust@canadians.org Cell: (819) 593-4579
Dr. Froese's updated report, Environmental Health in Red Head: The Energy East Project (2015), can be found here:
[ http://canadians.org/gatepost-update ]
- - -
Questions raised in Environmental Health in Red Head: The Energy East Project:
• An addendum to Volume 6 (Accidents and Malfunctions) of the Application was referred to in the Health section. Has TC completed such an assessment? What is the scope of that assessment? Does it include reasonable worst-case scenarios for the Saint John oil storage tanks and marine terminal?
• Why was the Alberta guideline for benzene used rather than the more stringent Ontario guideline? This question remains outstanding, as a discussion was not found in the updated documents regarding this issue.
• Currently, a monitoring program related to human health concerns is considered unnecessary because the effects assessment concludes there will be no risks of health effects. The company should discuss their anticipated response to future community or individual concerns. As a starting point, CASA’s guide11 offers various tools for tracking odour character and health symptoms, prevention and mitigation, and on-going odour assessment tools.
TAGS:
New Brunswick
Energy East
red head
bay of fundy
[ http://canadians.org/media/environmenta ... rmterminal ]
August 8, 2016
Media Release
No Energy East March in Red Head
Saint John, NB - TransCanada’s human health risk assessment falls short in many crucial areas, says an independent expert with over 20 years experience in health and environmental risk assessment. This warning raises new concerns about TransCanada’s announcement that it plans to double the capacity of the Red Head tank farm and terminal following the cancellation of the Cacouna terminal in Quebec.
“As the National Energy Board (NEB) panel sessions open up in Saint John, New Brunswick, many questions and concerns remain unanswered,” says Dr. Ken Froese. “Since my last report in December, TransCanada’s updated assessments still have important gaps and shortcomings that need to be addressed.”
Dr. Ken Froese is in Saint John to present findings to residents and city staff and available for interviews on Monday, August 8th and Tuesday August 9th until 4pm.
“TransCanada still has not assessed impacts in case of catastrophic events at the tank farm, has not developed remediation plans in case problems arise with odours in the neighboring community, nor have they assessed associated health impacts such as stress or economic disruptions,” says Dr. Froese.
On Monday evening, Dr. Froese will be meeting with local residents to present his findings and discuss potential impacts an Energy East pipeline spill could have on their lives.
“In light of the recent oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River that continues to deprive over 70,000 people of drinking water it is highly irresponsible of TransCanada to not properly assess and prepare for catastrophic incidents at the tank farm and marine terminal,” says Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
Irving Oil, which has jointly invested with TransCanada in the tank farm project, made headlines again in June for excessive amounts of potentially carcinogenic and toxic catalyst ash released in the community near its refinery between 2010 and 2015 with no proper contingencies or monitoring in place by either the company or the government.
Dr. Froese was commissioned by the Council of Canadians to provide a credible examination of TransCanada’s assessment of the human health impacts of the proposed Energy East project in Red Head, Saint John. He has worked with industry, government, First Nations, and non-governmental organizations, providing senior project direction and management, writing technical reports, appearing as an expert witness, providing courtroom testimony and serving on international peer review panels. - 30 -
For more information or to arrange interviews with Ken Froese please contact:
Daniel Cayley-Daoust,
Energy and Climate Campaigner, The Council of Canadians
ddaoust@canadians.org Cell: (819) 593-4579
Dr. Froese's updated report, Environmental Health in Red Head: The Energy East Project (2015), can be found here:
[ http://canadians.org/gatepost-update ]
- - -
Questions raised in Environmental Health in Red Head: The Energy East Project:
• An addendum to Volume 6 (Accidents and Malfunctions) of the Application was referred to in the Health section. Has TC completed such an assessment? What is the scope of that assessment? Does it include reasonable worst-case scenarios for the Saint John oil storage tanks and marine terminal?
• Why was the Alberta guideline for benzene used rather than the more stringent Ontario guideline? This question remains outstanding, as a discussion was not found in the updated documents regarding this issue.
• Currently, a monitoring program related to human health concerns is considered unnecessary because the effects assessment concludes there will be no risks of health effects. The company should discuss their anticipated response to future community or individual concerns. As a starting point, CASA’s guide11 offers various tools for tracking odour character and health symptoms, prevention and mitigation, and on-going odour assessment tools.
TAGS:
New Brunswick
Energy East
red head
bay of fundy
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:56 pm
Risk of Energy East to Water and Atlantic Coast Too Great - Groups Tell NEB on First Day of Hearings in Saint John
[ http://canadians.org/media/risk-energy- ... ings-saint ]
August 8, 2016 - Media Release
A bitumen spill would bring widespread, devastating economic and environmental impacts to region
Saint John, NB - As oil from the Husky Energy pipeline spill continues to wreak havoc on the water supply of over 70,000 people in Saskatchewan, groups representing indigenous people, fishers, environmentalists, social justice advocates, and local residents in Saint John gathered this morning at the opening of the National Energy Board (NEB) panel sessions for the Energy East pipeline and tanker project with one unified message — the risk to water and the Atlantic Coast are too great and Energy East must be rejected.
“Our values are connected spiritually to the land, water and air and we follow the original instructions from the Great Mystery to protect and preserve our homeland,” said Ron Tremblay, Grand Chief of the Wolastoqewi Kci-putuwosuwinuwok or Maliseet Grand Council. “For this reason, we oppose the Energy East Pipeline in order to protect our non-ceded homeland and waterways, our traditional and cultural connection to our lands, waterways, and air.”
Across Canada opposition is mounting to the Energy East pipeline. Two months ago, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador also expressed opposition to Energy East. More than half the population of Quebec and 300 of its municipalities are opposed, including Montreal. Last week, the MRC of Vaudreuil-Soulanges refused to give TransCanada a permit to run tests it needed to find the best way for the pipeline to cross the Ottawa River saying that the risk to the water is too great following the Saskatchewan spill.
“We’re hearing real concerns from our communities and fishers about this pipeline and the high risk of a catastrophic spill. We have come to know the ins and outs of the Bay of Fundy for many generations,” explained Colin Sproul, spokesperson for the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. “The bottom line is we have not been consulted during TransCanada’s assessments even though we know these waters better than they do and will be among the first impacted.”
He added the new tar sands supertankers would carry over 330 million barrels per year through their fishing grounds in the Bay of Fundy.
While TransCanada said last week that oil spills are rare, the facts prove otherwise. Catastrophic pipeline failures, spills and the inability of pipeline companies to prevent, predict or contain spills across Canada are regular occurrences.
“Alberta has had over 37,000 oil spills in 37 years, which amounts to 2 oil spills every single day, while Saskatchewan has had around 18,000 spills since 1990,” said Lynaya Astephen of the Red Head - Anthony’s Cove Preservation Association. “Pipeline spills are common not rare and for us residents who live adjacent to the proposed end terminal it is a risk we are not prepared to take.”
“It is shocking we are even considering a new pipeline in the context of our commitment as a nation to tackle climate change,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Program Director of the Sierra Club Foundation of Canada. “The tanker traffic associated with this proposal will threaten the critically endangered right whale, the Bay of Fundy ecosystem, and other aquatic species that live in rivers and streams in its 4500 km long path .”
“This is an export pipeline, and I think that folks don’t always realize that. These supertankers pose great risk to fishers, tourism and coastal communities here in the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Coast of the US”, said Stephen Thomas, Energy Campaign Coordinator with the Ecology Action Centre.
“There is a strong appetite across Canada for more climate jobs, jobs that will help fight climate change and build a future where we aren’t dependant on fossil fuels,” explains Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. “The truth is that the Energy East pipeline will only provide 105 direct long term jobs in New Brunswick, will deepen New Brunswick’s and Canada’s addiction to oil, and put thousands of jobs at risk. That doesn’t sound like good economic foresight to me.” -30-
For more information please contact:
Ron Tremblay, Grand Chief of the Wolastoq Grand Council - 506-455-1577
Lynaya Astephen, Red Head - Anthony’s cove preservation association - 506-653-7959
Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Council of Canadians - 819-593-4579, ddaoust@canadians.org
Gretchen Fitzgerald, Sierra Club Foundation of Canada - 902-444-7096
Colin Sproul, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association - 902-247-5458
Stephen Thomas, Ecology Action Centre - stephen@ecologyaction.ca, 902-441-7136
TAGS:
Energy East
New Brunswick
bay of fundy
[ http://canadians.org/media/risk-energy- ... ings-saint ]
August 8, 2016 - Media Release
A bitumen spill would bring widespread, devastating economic and environmental impacts to region
Saint John, NB - As oil from the Husky Energy pipeline spill continues to wreak havoc on the water supply of over 70,000 people in Saskatchewan, groups representing indigenous people, fishers, environmentalists, social justice advocates, and local residents in Saint John gathered this morning at the opening of the National Energy Board (NEB) panel sessions for the Energy East pipeline and tanker project with one unified message — the risk to water and the Atlantic Coast are too great and Energy East must be rejected.
“Our values are connected spiritually to the land, water and air and we follow the original instructions from the Great Mystery to protect and preserve our homeland,” said Ron Tremblay, Grand Chief of the Wolastoqewi Kci-putuwosuwinuwok or Maliseet Grand Council. “For this reason, we oppose the Energy East Pipeline in order to protect our non-ceded homeland and waterways, our traditional and cultural connection to our lands, waterways, and air.”
Across Canada opposition is mounting to the Energy East pipeline. Two months ago, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador also expressed opposition to Energy East. More than half the population of Quebec and 300 of its municipalities are opposed, including Montreal. Last week, the MRC of Vaudreuil-Soulanges refused to give TransCanada a permit to run tests it needed to find the best way for the pipeline to cross the Ottawa River saying that the risk to the water is too great following the Saskatchewan spill.
“We’re hearing real concerns from our communities and fishers about this pipeline and the high risk of a catastrophic spill. We have come to know the ins and outs of the Bay of Fundy for many generations,” explained Colin Sproul, spokesperson for the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. “The bottom line is we have not been consulted during TransCanada’s assessments even though we know these waters better than they do and will be among the first impacted.”
He added the new tar sands supertankers would carry over 330 million barrels per year through their fishing grounds in the Bay of Fundy.
While TransCanada said last week that oil spills are rare, the facts prove otherwise. Catastrophic pipeline failures, spills and the inability of pipeline companies to prevent, predict or contain spills across Canada are regular occurrences.
“Alberta has had over 37,000 oil spills in 37 years, which amounts to 2 oil spills every single day, while Saskatchewan has had around 18,000 spills since 1990,” said Lynaya Astephen of the Red Head - Anthony’s Cove Preservation Association. “Pipeline spills are common not rare and for us residents who live adjacent to the proposed end terminal it is a risk we are not prepared to take.”
“It is shocking we are even considering a new pipeline in the context of our commitment as a nation to tackle climate change,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Program Director of the Sierra Club Foundation of Canada. “The tanker traffic associated with this proposal will threaten the critically endangered right whale, the Bay of Fundy ecosystem, and other aquatic species that live in rivers and streams in its 4500 km long path .”
“This is an export pipeline, and I think that folks don’t always realize that. These supertankers pose great risk to fishers, tourism and coastal communities here in the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Coast of the US”, said Stephen Thomas, Energy Campaign Coordinator with the Ecology Action Centre.
“There is a strong appetite across Canada for more climate jobs, jobs that will help fight climate change and build a future where we aren’t dependant on fossil fuels,” explains Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Energy and Climate Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. “The truth is that the Energy East pipeline will only provide 105 direct long term jobs in New Brunswick, will deepen New Brunswick’s and Canada’s addiction to oil, and put thousands of jobs at risk. That doesn’t sound like good economic foresight to me.” -30-
For more information please contact:
Ron Tremblay, Grand Chief of the Wolastoq Grand Council - 506-455-1577
Lynaya Astephen, Red Head - Anthony’s cove preservation association - 506-653-7959
Daniel Cayley-Daoust, Council of Canadians - 819-593-4579, ddaoust@canadians.org
Gretchen Fitzgerald, Sierra Club Foundation of Canada - 902-444-7096
Colin Sproul, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association - 902-247-5458
Stephen Thomas, Ecology Action Centre - stephen@ecologyaction.ca, 902-441-7136
TAGS:
Energy East
New Brunswick
bay of fundy
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:00 pm
Catherine McKenna meets Environment Ministers today in Halifax
[ http://canadians.org/blog/catherine-mck ... ay-halifax ]
August 8, 2016 - 12:14pm
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is in Halifax today for a meeting with the region’s ministers of the environment, and her visit is steeped in fossil fuel and indigenous justice issues. While she attends meetings, media conferences, and a reception in Halifax’s trendy north end climbing gym/café/bar, people in Saint John attend the first day of the National Energy Board community sessions to voice their unwavering opposition to the Energy East pipeline. People in the Prince Albert and North Battleford areas are drawing their water from a far-away watershed as oil slicks coat the North Saskatchewan River. People in Nova Scotia watch the Shubenacadie River get turned into a dumping group for thousands of tons of salt to make way for the Alton Gas project despite mass Mi’kmaq and non-indigenous opposition.
TransCanada communications staff has been saying that pipeline spills are “rare” ever since the Husky pipeline burst and sullied North Saskatchewan waters, no doubt in an effort to make Energy East, which would have thousands of water crossings, sound acceptable. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says otherwise – 2014 had 104 pipeline spills and 2015 had 69. That’s somewhere between one and two spills a week, and far from rare. This morning at the NEB hearing I heard a TransCanada employee say: “our objective is to have no spills,” which is at best wishful thinking and at worst delusional. But I digress.
The context in which Minister McKenna’s presence in Halifax takes place matters. The Liberal government continues to brand themselves as climate leaders. It matters that our own MP, Andy Fillmore, who is hosting this meeting, is the chair of the committee on Indigenous Affairs at a time when the government has named reconciliation a political priority. It matters that NS Environment Minister Margaret Miller continues to allow the Alton Gas project to continue while Sipekne’katik First Nation organizes on the ground and in court to stop the destruction of the Shubenacadie River. These three politicians are hyperaware of the realities of climate change, the urgent need to stop burning fossil fuels, the devastating impacts of oil spills on environments and people, and the fact that dirty energy infrastructure has (to) be forced into Indigenous communities for hundreds of years at great cost to these communities.
With these pressing issues, we can expect that the Liberal Party will rely on their historical tendency to find a middle-of-the-road compromise. It is difficult, however, to find a compromise for a tar sands pipeline. There is no way to compromise around the reality of climate change and the cold fact that leaving the vast majority of fossil fuels unburned and untouched is an existential necessity. We can’t dialogue until we find an acceptable location and frequency for pipeline bursts. We can’t find middle-of-the-road solutions for communities trying to protect their land and water from bitumen spills.
Minister McKenna, Andy Fillmore, and the whole Liberal government have two options at this point: build Energy East, or don’t. Build it, and threaten our climate, our water, and Canada’s already tenuous relationship with Indigenous people. Or don’t, and don’t.
Tags:
Energy East: [ http://canadians.org/tags/energy-east ]
climate: [ http://canadians.org/tags/climate\ ]
Indigenous rights: [ http://canadians.org/tags/indigenous-rights ]
Blog Categories:
Energy & environment: [ http://canadians.org/categories/energy-environment-0 ]
Robin Tress
Atlantic Regional Organizing Assistant
Council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/robin-tress ]
= = = = = =
Energy East: Deciphering the NEB review process
[ http://canadians.org/blog/energy-east-d ... ew-process ]
June 28, 2016 - 11:53am
NEB Review process 101
The first thing that we need to understand is that this is a unique process designed by the NEB for the Energy East pipeline partly in response to the interim measures [http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1029989 ] (that fall short on a number of issues [ http://canadians.org/blog/take-action-l ... eal-change ]) announced by the liberals while they complete the four separate review processes they more recently announced for the NEB , CEAA, Fisheries Act, and Navigable Water Protection Act [ http://canadians.org/blog/council-canad ... ew-process ]. However, this process should not be seen as the holy grail of pipeline processes, but as an opportunity that can be used to build opposition to a risky project that is better left in the past.
Second the NEB review process for Energy East includes 3 streams as outlined in this graphic: 1) Main NEB Review Panel, 2) Public Consultations and 3) Upstream GHG Assessment. Below we delve into what each of these streams entail. (NUMEROUS LINKS at Original URL above. Ed.)
Finally, there are 3 official roles you can have in the NEB Review Process: A) Member of the public, B) Intervenor and C) Commenter. Below we describe each of these roles for you. (NUMEROUS LINKS at Original URL above. Ed.)
MORE:
[ http://canadians.org/blog/energy-east-d ... ew-process ]
[ http://canadians.org/blog/catherine-mck ... ay-halifax ]
August 8, 2016 - 12:14pm
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is in Halifax today for a meeting with the region’s ministers of the environment, and her visit is steeped in fossil fuel and indigenous justice issues. While she attends meetings, media conferences, and a reception in Halifax’s trendy north end climbing gym/café/bar, people in Saint John attend the first day of the National Energy Board community sessions to voice their unwavering opposition to the Energy East pipeline. People in the Prince Albert and North Battleford areas are drawing their water from a far-away watershed as oil slicks coat the North Saskatchewan River. People in Nova Scotia watch the Shubenacadie River get turned into a dumping group for thousands of tons of salt to make way for the Alton Gas project despite mass Mi’kmaq and non-indigenous opposition.
TransCanada communications staff has been saying that pipeline spills are “rare” ever since the Husky pipeline burst and sullied North Saskatchewan waters, no doubt in an effort to make Energy East, which would have thousands of water crossings, sound acceptable. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says otherwise – 2014 had 104 pipeline spills and 2015 had 69. That’s somewhere between one and two spills a week, and far from rare. This morning at the NEB hearing I heard a TransCanada employee say: “our objective is to have no spills,” which is at best wishful thinking and at worst delusional. But I digress.
The context in which Minister McKenna’s presence in Halifax takes place matters. The Liberal government continues to brand themselves as climate leaders. It matters that our own MP, Andy Fillmore, who is hosting this meeting, is the chair of the committee on Indigenous Affairs at a time when the government has named reconciliation a political priority. It matters that NS Environment Minister Margaret Miller continues to allow the Alton Gas project to continue while Sipekne’katik First Nation organizes on the ground and in court to stop the destruction of the Shubenacadie River. These three politicians are hyperaware of the realities of climate change, the urgent need to stop burning fossil fuels, the devastating impacts of oil spills on environments and people, and the fact that dirty energy infrastructure has (to) be forced into Indigenous communities for hundreds of years at great cost to these communities.
With these pressing issues, we can expect that the Liberal Party will rely on their historical tendency to find a middle-of-the-road compromise. It is difficult, however, to find a compromise for a tar sands pipeline. There is no way to compromise around the reality of climate change and the cold fact that leaving the vast majority of fossil fuels unburned and untouched is an existential necessity. We can’t dialogue until we find an acceptable location and frequency for pipeline bursts. We can’t find middle-of-the-road solutions for communities trying to protect their land and water from bitumen spills.
Minister McKenna, Andy Fillmore, and the whole Liberal government have two options at this point: build Energy East, or don’t. Build it, and threaten our climate, our water, and Canada’s already tenuous relationship with Indigenous people. Or don’t, and don’t.
Tags:
Energy East: [ http://canadians.org/tags/energy-east ]
climate: [ http://canadians.org/tags/climate\ ]
Indigenous rights: [ http://canadians.org/tags/indigenous-rights ]
Blog Categories:
Energy & environment: [ http://canadians.org/categories/energy-environment-0 ]
Robin Tress
Atlantic Regional Organizing Assistant
Council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/robin-tress ]
= = = = = =
Energy East: Deciphering the NEB review process
[ http://canadians.org/blog/energy-east-d ... ew-process ]
June 28, 2016 - 11:53am
NEB Review process 101
The first thing that we need to understand is that this is a unique process designed by the NEB for the Energy East pipeline partly in response to the interim measures [http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1029989 ] (that fall short on a number of issues [ http://canadians.org/blog/take-action-l ... eal-change ]) announced by the liberals while they complete the four separate review processes they more recently announced for the NEB , CEAA, Fisheries Act, and Navigable Water Protection Act [ http://canadians.org/blog/council-canad ... ew-process ]. However, this process should not be seen as the holy grail of pipeline processes, but as an opportunity that can be used to build opposition to a risky project that is better left in the past.
Second the NEB review process for Energy East includes 3 streams as outlined in this graphic: 1) Main NEB Review Panel, 2) Public Consultations and 3) Upstream GHG Assessment. Below we delve into what each of these streams entail. (NUMEROUS LINKS at Original URL above. Ed.)
Finally, there are 3 official roles you can have in the NEB Review Process: A) Member of the public, B) Intervenor and C) Commenter. Below we describe each of these roles for you. (NUMEROUS LINKS at Original URL above. Ed.)
MORE:
[ http://canadians.org/blog/energy-east-d ... ew-process ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:24 am
Pipeline politics could fuel fiery national crisis
[ http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/13 ... nal-crisis ]
CHANTAL HÉBERT | NATIONAL AFFAIRS Published August 9, 2016 - 2:25pm
With the regulatory process on the Energy East pipeline underway, the countdown to what could become Canada’s next big existential crisis is officially on.
As of this week and until the end of the year, the National Energy Board (NEB) is hearing from proponents and opponents of TransCanada’s plan to link Alberta’s oilsands to the Atlantic coast via a 4,600-kilometre pipeline.
From New Brunswick, the panel will be moving on to Quebec, Ontario and points west over the next four months.
But the process is only a warm-up act for an expanding national debate that could rival for its length, but also its divisiveness, the constitutional wars of the early 1990s. Reconciling the economic aspirations of some regions with the concerns for their ecosystems of many of the others will not come easily. If anything, the NEB’s recommendation will pave the last stretch of the way to a high-stake political fight that could impact the future of some of Canada’s leading elected figures.
- - - - SNIP - - - -
And then there is Justin Trudeau’s government. It has been sitting on a fence whose pickets can only become more uncomfortable over time. As prime minister, Trudeau has nodded in the direction of more pipelines on a number of occasions. But little could do more to diminish his appeal to the left-leaning voters who have abandoned the NDP for the Liberals, including many of the Quebec and B.C. voters who have been key to his majority victory than forcing a pipeline through either province.
For the record, the last time an issue caused internal tensions in so many different provincial and federal political quarters, the Meech Lake constitutional accord was on the table.
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tues
[ http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/13 ... nal-crisis ]
CHANTAL HÉBERT | NATIONAL AFFAIRS Published August 9, 2016 - 2:25pm
With the regulatory process on the Energy East pipeline underway, the countdown to what could become Canada’s next big existential crisis is officially on.
As of this week and until the end of the year, the National Energy Board (NEB) is hearing from proponents and opponents of TransCanada’s plan to link Alberta’s oilsands to the Atlantic coast via a 4,600-kilometre pipeline.
From New Brunswick, the panel will be moving on to Quebec, Ontario and points west over the next four months.
But the process is only a warm-up act for an expanding national debate that could rival for its length, but also its divisiveness, the constitutional wars of the early 1990s. Reconciling the economic aspirations of some regions with the concerns for their ecosystems of many of the others will not come easily. If anything, the NEB’s recommendation will pave the last stretch of the way to a high-stake political fight that could impact the future of some of Canada’s leading elected figures.
- - - - SNIP - - - -
And then there is Justin Trudeau’s government. It has been sitting on a fence whose pickets can only become more uncomfortable over time. As prime minister, Trudeau has nodded in the direction of more pipelines on a number of occasions. But little could do more to diminish his appeal to the left-leaning voters who have abandoned the NDP for the Liberals, including many of the Quebec and B.C. voters who have been key to his majority victory than forcing a pipeline through either province.
For the record, the last time an issue caused internal tensions in so many different provincial and federal political quarters, the Meech Lake constitutional accord was on the table.
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tues
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:49 pm
NEB's call on Energy East must be independent, McKenna says, as Charest talks revealed
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neb-jea ... -1.3714660 ]
Environment minister urges confidence in Energy East process after NEB revelations
The Canadian Press THE CANADIAN PRESS Published on: August 9, 2016 | Last Updated: August 9, 2016 4:22 PM MDT
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna urged Canadians on Tuesday to have confidence in the evaluation process of large-scale energy projects like Energy East.
McKenna declined to comment directly on new revelations surrounding the National Energy Board, the body responsible for conducting consultations on TransCanada’s proposed pipeline project.
The National Observer revealed last week that the NEB’s chairman and two of its commissioners met with ex-Quebec premier Jean Charest in January 2015 while he was acting as a consultant to TransCanada. The NEB, which initially denied the meeting had taken place, apologized to the online news site and called it an honest mistake.
NEB spokesman Craig Loewen said there was no ill intent behind its initial denial.
The federal regulator had asked to meet with Quebec representatives from a wide range of groups: municipal associations, chambers of commerce, mayors and a former premier.
The exercise was in an effort to learn how to engage with the province, said Marc-Andre Plouffe, a NEB director at its Montreal office.
Plouffe said the board wasn’t aware of any ties Charest had with any particular company.
With the board’s credibility under fire, McKenna told a news conference in Halifax that Canadians must have faith in the system.
“We must have confidence in our system, we must have confidence in our institutions, and we must ensure we have decisions that are independent,” McKenna said, adding the Liberal government is committed to reviewing the environmental assessment process rigorously.
A spokesman for Charest at McCarthy Tetrault law offices where he works was unavailable for comment Tuesday.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neb-jea ... -1.3714660 ]
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neb-jea ... -1.3714660 ]
Environment minister urges confidence in Energy East process after NEB revelations
The Canadian Press THE CANADIAN PRESS Published on: August 9, 2016 | Last Updated: August 9, 2016 4:22 PM MDT
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna urged Canadians on Tuesday to have confidence in the evaluation process of large-scale energy projects like Energy East.
McKenna declined to comment directly on new revelations surrounding the National Energy Board, the body responsible for conducting consultations on TransCanada’s proposed pipeline project.
The National Observer revealed last week that the NEB’s chairman and two of its commissioners met with ex-Quebec premier Jean Charest in January 2015 while he was acting as a consultant to TransCanada. The NEB, which initially denied the meeting had taken place, apologized to the online news site and called it an honest mistake.
NEB spokesman Craig Loewen said there was no ill intent behind its initial denial.
The federal regulator had asked to meet with Quebec representatives from a wide range of groups: municipal associations, chambers of commerce, mayors and a former premier.
The exercise was in an effort to learn how to engage with the province, said Marc-Andre Plouffe, a NEB director at its Montreal office.
Plouffe said the board wasn’t aware of any ties Charest had with any particular company.
With the board’s credibility under fire, McKenna told a news conference in Halifax that Canadians must have faith in the system.
“We must have confidence in our system, we must have confidence in our institutions, and we must ensure we have decisions that are independent,” McKenna said, adding the Liberal government is committed to reviewing the environmental assessment process rigorously.
A spokesman for Charest at McCarthy Tetrault law offices where he works was unavailable for comment Tuesday.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neb-jea ... -1.3714660 ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:26 pm
Canadian military official fears pipeline will lead to "disaster of epic proportions"
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... aster-epic ]
By National Observer in News, Energy | August 9th 2016
Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) has serious concerns that a major pipeline project proposed by Calgary-based energy company TransCanada Corp. will lead to a "disaster of epic proportions," reported Radio-Canada on Tuesday, based on a series of internal emails. [ http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Po ... -eau.shtml ]
The Department also doubts whether the company has the capacity to clean up in the event of a disaster, the French-language public broadcaster reported.
The report noted that the pipeline's proposed route would go near a half dozen Canadian Forces bases as well as cutting right through a base in Petawawa, to the northwest of Ottawa. But the emails, obtained by Radio-Canada through federal access to information legislation, indicated that the DND officials were having trouble getting answers from the company in response to questions
The concerns raised by the military add on to other concerns raised by environmentalists, First Nations leaders and dozens of mayors along the pipeline's proposed 4,500 kilometre route. If approved, Energy East would have the capacity to ship more than 1.1 million barrels per day of oil from Alberta to New Brunswick.
The internal emails show military officials were warned that in a worse-case scenario, the pipeline could lead to a spill of more than three million litres of oil, causing a "disaster of epic proportions to the environment, the economy and society."
MORE:
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... aster-epic ]
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... aster-epic ]
By National Observer in News, Energy | August 9th 2016
Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) has serious concerns that a major pipeline project proposed by Calgary-based energy company TransCanada Corp. will lead to a "disaster of epic proportions," reported Radio-Canada on Tuesday, based on a series of internal emails. [ http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Po ... -eau.shtml ]
The Department also doubts whether the company has the capacity to clean up in the event of a disaster, the French-language public broadcaster reported.
The report noted that the pipeline's proposed route would go near a half dozen Canadian Forces bases as well as cutting right through a base in Petawawa, to the northwest of Ottawa. But the emails, obtained by Radio-Canada through federal access to information legislation, indicated that the DND officials were having trouble getting answers from the company in response to questions
The concerns raised by the military add on to other concerns raised by environmentalists, First Nations leaders and dozens of mayors along the pipeline's proposed 4,500 kilometre route. If approved, Energy East would have the capacity to ship more than 1.1 million barrels per day of oil from Alberta to New Brunswick.
The internal emails show military officials were warned that in a worse-case scenario, the pipeline could lead to a spill of more than three million litres of oil, causing a "disaster of epic proportions to the environment, the economy and society."
MORE:
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... aster-epic ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:49 am
Harper’s hand-picked National Energy Board panel risks public confidence in pipeline approval process
[ http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/11/har ... L_CAMPAIGN)&goal=0_207adb2c89-844750266a-90669285&mc_cid=844750266a&mc_eid=37c29b0f13 ]
Stephen Harper went to considerable lengths to ensure that the National Energy Board panel—tasked with vetting the controversial Energy East pipeline—be made up of commissioners hand-picked by the Conservatives, regardless of the election outcome.
By CHANTAL HÉBERT PUBLISHED : Thursday, Aug. 11, 2016 1:09 PM
In the dying days of his government, Stephen Harper went to considerable lengths to ensure that the National Energy Board panel—tasked with vetting the controversial Energy East pipeline—be made up of commissioners hand-picked by the Conservatives, regardless of the election outcome.
In the months prior to the election call, Harper reappointed to various boards and agencies dozens of people whose terms were not due to expire until after the federal election.
In the case of the NEB, Harper handed Justin Trudeau a full roster. The Liberals will not have a vacancy to fill among the temporary members of the board until 2018—by which time it will have reported on all major pipeline projects currently in the works. The next permanent vacancy will not come up until after the next federal election.
Two of the three members of the Energy East panel that, as of this week, has been conducting hearings into TransCanada’s plan to link Alberta’s oilfields to the Atlantic Coast were among Harper’s posthumous appointments.
- - - SNIP - - - -
On Tuesday, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna declined to comment on the panel’s behind-closed-doors dealings with parties that have a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of its review of Energy East, or their potential impact on the NEB’s credibility as an independent agency.
But ignoring the elephant in the room will not make it go away.
Since he has become prime minister, Trudeau has reiterated his government’s determination to restore public confidence in the pipeline approval process.
With NEB reform out of their reach for the foreseeable future, the Liberals have committed to hold separate additional consultations focused on the environment and the rights of indigenous people prior to the cabinet coming to a final decision on a project.
But the NEB, whose official task it is to determine if a pipeline is in the national interest and recommend accordingly a way forward to the government, remains a cornerstone of the process—and it is hard to build on sand.
- - -
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
news@hilltimes.com
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer for The Toronto Star. She can be reached at news@hilltimes.com. Follow her on Twitter at @ChantalHbert.
[ http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/11/har ... L_CAMPAIGN)&goal=0_207adb2c89-844750266a-90669285&mc_cid=844750266a&mc_eid=37c29b0f13 ]
Stephen Harper went to considerable lengths to ensure that the National Energy Board panel—tasked with vetting the controversial Energy East pipeline—be made up of commissioners hand-picked by the Conservatives, regardless of the election outcome.
By CHANTAL HÉBERT PUBLISHED : Thursday, Aug. 11, 2016 1:09 PM
In the dying days of his government, Stephen Harper went to considerable lengths to ensure that the National Energy Board panel—tasked with vetting the controversial Energy East pipeline—be made up of commissioners hand-picked by the Conservatives, regardless of the election outcome.
In the months prior to the election call, Harper reappointed to various boards and agencies dozens of people whose terms were not due to expire until after the federal election.
In the case of the NEB, Harper handed Justin Trudeau a full roster. The Liberals will not have a vacancy to fill among the temporary members of the board until 2018—by which time it will have reported on all major pipeline projects currently in the works. The next permanent vacancy will not come up until after the next federal election.
Two of the three members of the Energy East panel that, as of this week, has been conducting hearings into TransCanada’s plan to link Alberta’s oilfields to the Atlantic Coast were among Harper’s posthumous appointments.
- - - SNIP - - - -
On Tuesday, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna declined to comment on the panel’s behind-closed-doors dealings with parties that have a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of its review of Energy East, or their potential impact on the NEB’s credibility as an independent agency.
But ignoring the elephant in the room will not make it go away.
Since he has become prime minister, Trudeau has reiterated his government’s determination to restore public confidence in the pipeline approval process.
With NEB reform out of their reach for the foreseeable future, the Liberals have committed to hold separate additional consultations focused on the environment and the rights of indigenous people prior to the cabinet coming to a final decision on a project.
But the NEB, whose official task it is to determine if a pipeline is in the national interest and recommend accordingly a way forward to the government, remains a cornerstone of the process—and it is hard to build on sand.
- - -
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
news@hilltimes.com
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer for The Toronto Star. She can be reached at news@hilltimes.com. Follow her on Twitter at @ChantalHbert.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:12 pm
1000 fishermen are thrown overboard by the NEB on Day #1 Energy East hearing
[ http://canadians.org/blog/1000-fisherme ... st-hearing \
August 12, 2016 - 7:15am
It was a stunning public relations blunder by the NEB. On the very first day of the Energy East review process, instead of welcoming and accepting comments and concerns from a 1000+ fishermen association in Nova Scotia, the three NEB Board members took only two (2) minutes before deciding to strike down their remarks from the hearing record.
The NEB Board members did not make this decision on their own. They were instructed to consider taking this position by one of the lawyers for TransCanada seated at the head tables of the room.
Fortunately, I captured this remarkable exchange on video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBYSX0TO1lk ] while attending the NEB panel session in Saint John on August 8, 2016. The words from the lawyer for TransCanada, Mr. Kemm Yates, sounded more like a directive to the NEB rather than an legal objection for their consideration:
(13:02) Mr. Kemm Yates, lawyer for TransCanada Pipelines Limited and Energy East Pipeline Ltd. (from law firm Blakes, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Calgary, Alberta). "I would take the position that the Panel will not respond to the question about the Panel Session in Nova Scotia for the reasons articulated by Mr. Watton. Secondly, the jurisdictional question is a question of law and the Panel will not be responding to that either." "…..Mr. Chairman I submit that all of this submission on behalf of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association cannot form part of the record since they are not an Intervenor and they are not entitled to make a presentation here, leaving aside entirely the question of whether the Ecology Action Centre would have any entitlement to make a submission on behalf of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishery Association."
The NEB panel members quickly huddled together to discuss their response. After only two minutes, they turned on their microphone to deny the Nova Scotia fishery association's comments and concerns:
(15:15) NEB Panel members. "Any submission by the Ecology Action Centre here will be considered but we cannot accept without - there are many other ways of doing it - but that fishery organization that you are talking about is not an Intervenor, and this is a process for Intervenors. So we will have to agree with TransCanada Council that this cannot stand here."
The above denial is proof that the restrictive limitations on public participation imposed on the NEB Hearing process in 2012 are still in place. The Harper Government included these changes in the omnibus budget Bill C-38.
It is worth noting that the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the largest fishers' association in Nova Scotia, have never been consulted by TransCanada on this proposed project or associated tanker traffic through the Bay of Fundy.
The NEB review process is a sham. Open, fair public hearings on Energy East are required. [ http://canadians.org/blog/3-essential-s ... nergy-east ] Anyone wishing to make a presentation should be able to appear before the NEB Review Board. Without this opportunity to give oral arguments to the NEB Review Board, the NEB will only generate more opposition against Energy East as they continue their hearings across Canada.
For more on the Council of Canadians campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline, please click here:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]
OTHER LINKS:
YOUTUBE OF PRESS CONFERENCE [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEqUTZXEYOk ]: At a Press Conference earlier in the morning of August 8, 2016, Colin Sproul outlined the reasons why their fishermen feel a tar sands bitumen spill in the Bay of Fundy would devastate their $2 Billion industry. "The fastest tides in the world mean the fastest spreading oil in the world, with no means to mitigate it our stop it in a quick fashion."
MEDIA RELEASE FOR PRESS CONFERENCE [ http://canadians.org/media/risk-energy- ... ings-saint ]: (Council of Canadians, 2016. "Risk of Energy East to Water and Atlantic Coast Too Great Groups Tell NEB on First Day of Hearings in Saint John". August 8.)
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS BY THE BAY OF FUNDY INSHORE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
The Bay of Fundy is one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world; a bitumen spill in the Bay of Fundy could end their multi-billion dollar fishery industry which significantly contributes to the food security of Canada; further industrialization with tanker traffic will increase uncompensated fishing gear loss and threaten the critically-endangered North Atlantic Right Whale; the extreme tides of the Bay of Fundy is an unsafe place to navigate Post-Panamex supertankers; question how a bitumen spill could ever be cleaned up from the seafloor or the surface of the sea of the Bay of Fundy; surface oil spills in the Bay of Fundy would spread faster than almost anywhere else in the world and enter it's critically important estuaries in a very short period of time; flow through a single tide cycle is greater than all of the river systems in the world combined and this would carry any spill with it.
Mark D'Arcy's Blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/mark-darcy ]
[ http://canadians.org/blog/1000-fisherme ... st-hearing \
August 12, 2016 - 7:15am
It was a stunning public relations blunder by the NEB. On the very first day of the Energy East review process, instead of welcoming and accepting comments and concerns from a 1000+ fishermen association in Nova Scotia, the three NEB Board members took only two (2) minutes before deciding to strike down their remarks from the hearing record.
The NEB Board members did not make this decision on their own. They were instructed to consider taking this position by one of the lawyers for TransCanada seated at the head tables of the room.
Fortunately, I captured this remarkable exchange on video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBYSX0TO1lk ] while attending the NEB panel session in Saint John on August 8, 2016. The words from the lawyer for TransCanada, Mr. Kemm Yates, sounded more like a directive to the NEB rather than an legal objection for their consideration:
(13:02) Mr. Kemm Yates, lawyer for TransCanada Pipelines Limited and Energy East Pipeline Ltd. (from law firm Blakes, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Calgary, Alberta). "I would take the position that the Panel will not respond to the question about the Panel Session in Nova Scotia for the reasons articulated by Mr. Watton. Secondly, the jurisdictional question is a question of law and the Panel will not be responding to that either." "…..Mr. Chairman I submit that all of this submission on behalf of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association cannot form part of the record since they are not an Intervenor and they are not entitled to make a presentation here, leaving aside entirely the question of whether the Ecology Action Centre would have any entitlement to make a submission on behalf of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishery Association."
The NEB panel members quickly huddled together to discuss their response. After only two minutes, they turned on their microphone to deny the Nova Scotia fishery association's comments and concerns:
(15:15) NEB Panel members. "Any submission by the Ecology Action Centre here will be considered but we cannot accept without - there are many other ways of doing it - but that fishery organization that you are talking about is not an Intervenor, and this is a process for Intervenors. So we will have to agree with TransCanada Council that this cannot stand here."
The above denial is proof that the restrictive limitations on public participation imposed on the NEB Hearing process in 2012 are still in place. The Harper Government included these changes in the omnibus budget Bill C-38.
It is worth noting that the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the largest fishers' association in Nova Scotia, have never been consulted by TransCanada on this proposed project or associated tanker traffic through the Bay of Fundy.
The NEB review process is a sham. Open, fair public hearings on Energy East are required. [ http://canadians.org/blog/3-essential-s ... nergy-east ] Anyone wishing to make a presentation should be able to appear before the NEB Review Board. Without this opportunity to give oral arguments to the NEB Review Board, the NEB will only generate more opposition against Energy East as they continue their hearings across Canada.
For more on the Council of Canadians campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline, please click here:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]
OTHER LINKS:
YOUTUBE OF PRESS CONFERENCE [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEqUTZXEYOk ]: At a Press Conference earlier in the morning of August 8, 2016, Colin Sproul outlined the reasons why their fishermen feel a tar sands bitumen spill in the Bay of Fundy would devastate their $2 Billion industry. "The fastest tides in the world mean the fastest spreading oil in the world, with no means to mitigate it our stop it in a quick fashion."
MEDIA RELEASE FOR PRESS CONFERENCE [ http://canadians.org/media/risk-energy- ... ings-saint ]: (Council of Canadians, 2016. "Risk of Energy East to Water and Atlantic Coast Too Great Groups Tell NEB on First Day of Hearings in Saint John". August 8.)
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS BY THE BAY OF FUNDY INSHORE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
The Bay of Fundy is one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world; a bitumen spill in the Bay of Fundy could end their multi-billion dollar fishery industry which significantly contributes to the food security of Canada; further industrialization with tanker traffic will increase uncompensated fishing gear loss and threaten the critically-endangered North Atlantic Right Whale; the extreme tides of the Bay of Fundy is an unsafe place to navigate Post-Panamex supertankers; question how a bitumen spill could ever be cleaned up from the seafloor or the surface of the sea of the Bay of Fundy; surface oil spills in the Bay of Fundy would spread faster than almost anywhere else in the world and enter it's critically important estuaries in a very short period of time; flow through a single tide cycle is greater than all of the river systems in the world combined and this would carry any spill with it.
Mark D'Arcy's Blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/mark-darcy ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Energy East says Husky oil spill ‘rare’ ahead of NEB pub
by Oscar » Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:53 pm
Husky Oil Spill a Stark Reminder of the Risks of Energy East
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/2016/08/ ... ergy-east/ ]
Aug 12 2016 Patrick DeRochie, Program Manager, Climate & Energy Categories: Energy East,
The oil industry keeps telling us that its pipelines are safe. But on July 20, a Husky oil pipeline in Saskatchewan ruptured [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon ... -1.3691306 ], leaking up to 250,000 litres of heavy crude oil and diluent into the North Saskatchewan River. The spill killed birds, fish and other animals [ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... -oil-spill ], forced a First Nation to declare a state of emergency [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3698261 ], and polluted the drinking water supplies of 70,000 people – for months to come. [ http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/08/02/husk ... ns-sought/ ]
The Husky spill is unfolding just as the National Energy Board (NEB) begins its review of the proposed Energy East pipeline [ http://environmentaldefence.ca/stopping-energy-east/ ]. The spilled crude has already contaminated hundreds of kilometres of river and shoreline, serving as a stark reminder of the risks of pipelines to our communities, environment and water. It’s one more reason to tell Ottawa to reject Energy East. [ http://action.environmentaldefence.ca/p ... _KEY=18206 ]
It will probably take months of investigations to get the full picture, but here’s what we know. The Saskatchewan spill was first detected by Husky Energy’s pipeline monitoring system on the evening of July 20th, but the company did not notify the Saskatchewan government until the next morning, 14 hours later. [ https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/0 ... spill.html ]
Equally outrageous, Husky didn’t dispatch a crew and didn’t shut down the pipeline until the morning of July 21st. The delayed response meant that the spill, equivalent to two full rail tanker cars, travelled 500 km down the North Saskatchewan River, forcing three downstream cities to shut down their water supply intakes [ http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/08/02/husk ... ns-sought/ ]and the Muskoday First Nation to declare a state of emergency. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3698261 ]
Over three weeks after the spill, water samples still show levels of hydrocarbons too high for healthy aquatic life and drinking water [ http://globalnews.ca/news/2877762/hydro ... ask-river/ ]. The Saskatchewan government has admitted that it is unlikely [ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... -oil-spill ] that cleanup crews will be able to recover all of the oil as portions have already sunk to the riverbed (similar to the behaviour of diluted bitumen in water). [ http://thestarphoenix.com/business/ener ... ommunities ]
Husky Energy has been roundly criticized for its poor spill response and for its initial misrepresentation of the chain of events. The company’s apology for the spill is cold comfort to the 70,000 residents who no longer have a clean supply of drinking water from the North Saskatchewan River. [ https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/0 ... spill.html ]
As much as oil companies talk about pipeline safety and emergency response, the reality is that the oil industry has an atrocious record on spills. The Transportation Safety Board reports that there were 69 significant pipeline spills in Canada in 2015 alone [ http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/pipeline ... 5-tbls.asp ]. The Husky spill was the third oil spill near the North Saskatchewan River in just eight months. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e31234893/ ]
TransCanada, the pipeline company behind Energy East, has a similarly bad record on the environment [ https://www.conservationcouncil.ca/tran ... ntability/ ]. Its Keystone I pipeline leaked oil a disastrous 12 times in its first year of operation [ https://thinkprogress.org/oil-leak-from ... .bwti2wa69 ]. A 2014 NEB audit found TransCanada failed to meet standards in hazard identification, risk assessment and control, operational control, and inspection, measurement and monitoring and management review. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/transca ... -1.2551321 ]
As the review of the proposed Energy East pipeline kicks off in New Brunswick, the Husky spill underscores that many Canadians are rightfully concerned about the risks the pipeline would bring. It shows that even a limited spill from a relatively small gathering pipeline poses unacceptable risks to our drinking water and environment.
For comparison, the Husky pipeline was just 16 inches in diameter [ http://www.pipelinenews.ca/news/local-n ... -1.2311092 ], while the proposed Energy East pipeline would be a whopping 42 inches across. If built, Energy East would transport 1.1 million barrels of tar sands oil per day 4,600 km across Canada, crossing nearly 3,000 lakes, rivers and streams before loading the oil onto tankers in the Bay of Fundy [ http://savefundy.ca/ ]. The export pipeline would put the drinking water of over 5 million Canadians at risk. [ http://environmentaldefence.ca/report/e ... ing-water/ ]
EE Drinking Water report
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/report/e ... ing-water/ ]
The question is not if pipelines spill, but when. Are Canadians really supposed to believe TransCanada when it says that Energy East, the largest tar sands pipeline ever proposed in this country, can deliver oil safely and responsibly? [ https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... aring.html ]
The Husky oil spill in Saskatchewan is a sad reminder of the risks of Energy East. We don’t need another massive oil pipeline that would put our communities, environment and water at risk. It’s time to reject Energy East. [ http://action.environmentaldefence.ca/p ... _KEY=18206 ]
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on Pinterest
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/2016/08/ ... ergy-east/ ]
Aug 12 2016 Patrick DeRochie, Program Manager, Climate & Energy Categories: Energy East,
The oil industry keeps telling us that its pipelines are safe. But on July 20, a Husky oil pipeline in Saskatchewan ruptured [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon ... -1.3691306 ], leaking up to 250,000 litres of heavy crude oil and diluent into the North Saskatchewan River. The spill killed birds, fish and other animals [ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... -oil-spill ], forced a First Nation to declare a state of emergency [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3698261 ], and polluted the drinking water supplies of 70,000 people – for months to come. [ http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/08/02/husk ... ns-sought/ ]
The Husky spill is unfolding just as the National Energy Board (NEB) begins its review of the proposed Energy East pipeline [ http://environmentaldefence.ca/stopping-energy-east/ ]. The spilled crude has already contaminated hundreds of kilometres of river and shoreline, serving as a stark reminder of the risks of pipelines to our communities, environment and water. It’s one more reason to tell Ottawa to reject Energy East. [ http://action.environmentaldefence.ca/p ... _KEY=18206 ]
It will probably take months of investigations to get the full picture, but here’s what we know. The Saskatchewan spill was first detected by Husky Energy’s pipeline monitoring system on the evening of July 20th, but the company did not notify the Saskatchewan government until the next morning, 14 hours later. [ https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/0 ... spill.html ]
Equally outrageous, Husky didn’t dispatch a crew and didn’t shut down the pipeline until the morning of July 21st. The delayed response meant that the spill, equivalent to two full rail tanker cars, travelled 500 km down the North Saskatchewan River, forcing three downstream cities to shut down their water supply intakes [ http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/08/02/husk ... ns-sought/ ]and the Muskoday First Nation to declare a state of emergency. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3698261 ]
Over three weeks after the spill, water samples still show levels of hydrocarbons too high for healthy aquatic life and drinking water [ http://globalnews.ca/news/2877762/hydro ... ask-river/ ]. The Saskatchewan government has admitted that it is unlikely [ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08 ... -oil-spill ] that cleanup crews will be able to recover all of the oil as portions have already sunk to the riverbed (similar to the behaviour of diluted bitumen in water). [ http://thestarphoenix.com/business/ener ... ommunities ]
Husky Energy has been roundly criticized for its poor spill response and for its initial misrepresentation of the chain of events. The company’s apology for the spill is cold comfort to the 70,000 residents who no longer have a clean supply of drinking water from the North Saskatchewan River. [ https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/0 ... spill.html ]
As much as oil companies talk about pipeline safety and emergency response, the reality is that the oil industry has an atrocious record on spills. The Transportation Safety Board reports that there were 69 significant pipeline spills in Canada in 2015 alone [ http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/pipeline ... 5-tbls.asp ]. The Husky spill was the third oil spill near the North Saskatchewan River in just eight months. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e31234893/ ]
TransCanada, the pipeline company behind Energy East, has a similarly bad record on the environment [ https://www.conservationcouncil.ca/tran ... ntability/ ]. Its Keystone I pipeline leaked oil a disastrous 12 times in its first year of operation [ https://thinkprogress.org/oil-leak-from ... .bwti2wa69 ]. A 2014 NEB audit found TransCanada failed to meet standards in hazard identification, risk assessment and control, operational control, and inspection, measurement and monitoring and management review. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/transca ... -1.2551321 ]
As the review of the proposed Energy East pipeline kicks off in New Brunswick, the Husky spill underscores that many Canadians are rightfully concerned about the risks the pipeline would bring. It shows that even a limited spill from a relatively small gathering pipeline poses unacceptable risks to our drinking water and environment.
For comparison, the Husky pipeline was just 16 inches in diameter [ http://www.pipelinenews.ca/news/local-n ... -1.2311092 ], while the proposed Energy East pipeline would be a whopping 42 inches across. If built, Energy East would transport 1.1 million barrels of tar sands oil per day 4,600 km across Canada, crossing nearly 3,000 lakes, rivers and streams before loading the oil onto tankers in the Bay of Fundy [ http://savefundy.ca/ ]. The export pipeline would put the drinking water of over 5 million Canadians at risk. [ http://environmentaldefence.ca/report/e ... ing-water/ ]
EE Drinking Water report
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/report/e ... ing-water/ ]
The question is not if pipelines spill, but when. Are Canadians really supposed to believe TransCanada when it says that Energy East, the largest tar sands pipeline ever proposed in this country, can deliver oil safely and responsibly? [ https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... aring.html ]
The Husky oil spill in Saskatchewan is a sad reminder of the risks of Energy East. We don’t need another massive oil pipeline that would put our communities, environment and water at risk. It’s time to reject Energy East. [ http://action.environmentaldefence.ca/p ... _KEY=18206 ]
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on Pinterest
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests