ACTION against ENERGY EAST PIPELINE

[Oscar]

TransCanada set to file with NEB: What to watch for; and need to know

[ http://canadians.org/blog/transcanada-s ... -need-know ]

Andrea Harden-Donahue's Blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/andrea-harden-donahue ]

October 14, 2014 - 12:48pm

TransCanada should be filing their Energy East pipeline project with the National Energy Board soon. This quick starts an up to 18 month process where the Board reviews TransCanada’s pipeline application and gives a final recommendation to the federal Cabinet which then has 180 days to make a final decision.

The Council of Canadians is opposed to the Energy East pipeline which is all risk and no reward. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]

What to look for in TransCanada’s filing:

Energy East: Where oil meets water

Energy East would cross at least 90 watersheds and 961 waterways along its route. This includes drinking water sources, important fishing waters, historically significant rivers, and the Gulf of St Lawrence and Bay of Fundy.

Will TransCanada change course and recognize the heightened risks of a diluted bitumen spill in water? What is the proposed spacing between valves along the route? Enbridge’s Line 9 was recently delayed because the company only had valves within 1km of both sides at 6 of the 104 Major Water Crossings, as required by regulations. How will TransCanada classify which waterways are ‘major’? Will they provide this list? [ http://www.canadians.org/blog/neb-delays-line-9-opening ]

Pipeline safety:

TransCanada will have a lot to say in media about why they are the best and safest company for transporting crude. They won’t mention their 4 pipeline leaks in the past year. They won’t mention that only one of the 9 incidents on TransCanada’s mainline pipeline system (one of these pipelines is slated for conversion) was discovered by remote sensors. The others were found by a police officer, TransCanada staff and passer-by’s. One rupture took up to 6 hours to completely shut off the supply of natural gas.

Will TransCanada come to its senses and recognize that converting an up to 40 year old natural gas pipeline to carry diluted bitumen is a recipe for disaster (highly unlikely seeing as converting the pipeline instead of building a new pipeline saves them over 5 billion dollars)? Will TransCanada commit to hydrostatic testing the full pipeline length?

Filling out the gaps in their pre-application:

TransCanada’s pre-application had a number of gaps. For example, the text and list of waterways doesn’t recognize that the pipeline crosses a tributary of Trout Lake, the drinking water source of 55,000 North Bay residents. This has been the source of considerable opposition led by local residents, volunteering their time. [ http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/ ... eline.html ] Nor does it recognize that the pipeline runs alongside Falcon Lake and High Lake which drains into Shoal Lake, the source of Winnipeg’s drinking water. The threat to Shoal Lake is a source of serious concern and opposition from members of First Nation’s whose land the pipeline crosses. Elder Nancy Morrison from Onigaming living near Kenora recently disrupted a TransCanada open house in Kenora over concerns with the pipeline. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbB3oNpG8o ]

Will TransCanada respect Free Prior and Informed Consent as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? This means recognizing no means no.

Predictably, TransCanada had no mention of the upstream impacts of their project in their pre-application when it comes to tar sands expansion and climate pollution (but they are more than happy to talk about the jobs it could generate). I expect this to stay the same. The National Energy Board (NEB) wants to let them get away with this. Despite logic and good sense, the NEB refuses to recognize the climate pollution impacts of pipelines in their reviews, suggesting it is outside the scope of their mandate. This is the source of considerable criticism and is being challenged in Court. [ http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/c ... eral-court ]

Send a message here to the NEB calling for a fair review of the Energy East pipeline:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast-neb ]

Challenging TransCanada’s spin:

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?

TransCanada will trumpet Energy East as creating over 10,000 job. They will fail to highlight that, after 4 years, their own report indicates there will be only 1087 long-term jobs. They won’t recognize the conflicting report by the Goodman group released by Equiterre and Greenpeace Canada finding that Energy East would provide few (if any) benefits for Quebec, "but would expose Quebec to substantial risks, costs, and negative environmental impacts." [ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global ... report.pdf ]

Bear in mind TransCanada’s track record on jobs. The Cornell Labour Institute has provided evidence that their Keystone XL job promises were seriously overblown. While TransCanada had referred to 20,000 jobs generated, even President Obama now talks about 50 to 100 long-term jobs. Conversely, investments in transit, energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy have far greater potential for generating jobs. [ http://bluegreencanada.ca/jobs-per-million ]

Nation-builder? Energy Export East pipeline

I expect TransCanada to continue to pitch the pipeline as a ‘nation-builder.’ With a little bit of prying, this position falls apart as quickly as a house of cards. This argument plays on the patriotic notion that that the pipeline will provide Atlantic Canadians with Canadian oil.

This simply isn’t accurate – and they know it. The three refineries along the Energy East path have limited capacity to accept the crude. Up to 1 million of the 1.1 million barrels to be shipped daily is expected for export, unrefined. [ http://www.canadians.org/publications/t ... estic-gain ] Meanwhile, Atlantic Canada is now supplied primarily by imports from the U.S. and Atlantic sources, not from so-called ‘foreign countries’ that TransCanada is so eager to displace.

Energy East is a nation-builder, just not for the reasons TransCanada claims. It is uniting people in their opposition to further expansion in the tar sands, to the risks along the route, and for better alternatives.

Find out more about our campaign [ http://canadians.org/blog/transcanada-s ... -need-know ] and upcoming Atlantic Canada tour. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast-atl-tour ]

[Oscar]

WATCH: We DON’T need ENERGY EAST !

[ http://www.canadians.org/energyeast101 ]

From: Mark Calzavara
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 8:45 AM
Subject: [Organize This!] LAUNCH: Energy East 101 animation!

This morning we have launched a short animated video about the Energy East pipeline. We can’t match TransCanada’s advertising budget but we can counter it with catchy, relevant, pop-ed like this “handimation”.

Please take a few minutes to watch it and share it on your own social media networks as much as possible.

[ https://www.facebook.com/CouncilofCDNS ]

Or directly to our website:
[ http://www.canadians.org/energyeast101 ]

[Oscar]

Maude Barlow to visit Atlantic Canada to raise alarm about Energy East pipeline

[ http://canadians.org/media/maude-barlow ... t-pipeline ]

Media Advisory October 21, 2014

Energy East: Our Risk - Their Reward

Ottawa – What happens when you put a rancher, a fisherman, a journalist and Maude Barlow into a room?

It might be the beginning of a joke, but it’s anything but. It is a sampling of some of the speakers who will tour Atlantic Canada to discuss the disastrous consequences of the Energy East pipeline. They will tour Halifax, Cornwallis, Saint John, Fredericton and Edmundston from October 26 to November 6.

TransCanada’s Energy East export pipeline project would ship 1.1 million barrels of oil every day, including tar sands crude, from Alberta to ports in Cacouna, Quebec and Saint John, New Brunswick. It would be the largest tar sands pipeline in North America.

Atlantic Canadians are concerned about how a spill would damage waterways including several major New Brunswick rivers and the Bay of Fundy. Boasting the highest tides in the world, the Bay of Fundy is both a playground for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and a source of livelihood for fishers and tourism outfits on both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia sides of the Bay.

The Council of Canadians and local partners will visit communities in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to hear about local concerns and talk about why TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline is all risk and little reward for Atlantic Canada.

“Atlantic Canada is at the precipice of a major decision: do they put their safety and environment, tourism and fishery industries in peril to help the Alberta tar sands expand? And the oil is not even for our own domestic use, but for export. Or are there other options?” said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, “As they have shown with fracking in the past, Atlantic Canadians know when a few jobs aren’t worth the risk. They can and should give TransCanada the boot.”

Council of Canadians Chairperson Maude Barlow, journalist and Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill speaker Cherri Foytlin, Energy Director of Bold Nebraska Ben Gotschall, and others will speak about, the overall project and the risks of a pipeline and tanker spill, and the protection of our waterways and possible alternatives.

Energy East: Our Risk - Their Reward

[ http://www.canadians.org/event/halifax- ... eir-reward ]

Dates:

Sunday, October 26 – Halifax, NS
Monday, October 27 – Cornwallis, NS
Wednesday, October 29 – Saint John, NB
Tuesday, November 4 – Fredericton, NB
Thursday, November 6 – Edmundston, NB

Speakers:

Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, on protecting our water
Cherri Foytlin, journalist and speaker, on the health and ecosystem of Gulf Coast communities after the BP oil spill
Ben Gotschall, Energy Director for Bold Nebraska, on ranchers’ opposition to Keystone XL
Catherine Abreu, Energy Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre
Maria Recchia, Executive Director, Fundy North Fishermen's Association
Matthew Abbott, Fundy Baykeeper for the Conservation Council of New Brunswick
Hubert Saulnier, local fisherman and President of Local 9 Maritime Fishermen's Union
Partners include the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Ecology Action Centre, Fundy Bay Keeper, Stop Energy East Halifax, 350.org and Leadnow.

Find out more about Energy East. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast101 ]

Our handimation on Energy East: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfCWlTBLDJE ]

Media contact

Sujata Dey, Media Officer
Cell: (613) 796-7724
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 226
E-mail: sdey@canadians.org

National Office
Reception: (613) 233-2773
Toll-free: 1-800-387-7177
TTY line 613-233-3744
9:00 to 17:00 hours Eastern Time, Monday to Friday.

[Oscar]

Energy East pipeline faces $1 billion obstacle

LINKS: [ http://canadians.org/blog/energy-east-p ... n-obstacle ]

October 22, 2014 - 9:01am

Calgary-based TransCanada is facing a demand by gas companies to build hundreds of kilometres of new pipeline and another $1 billion in costs for their proposed $12 billion Energy East pipeline project. If TransCanada wins out, 3.6 million people in Ontario and Quebec will be paying higher rates to heat their homes. If consumers win, it would be a serious blow to the pipeline proposal.

Bloomberg reports, "TransCanada Corp. will have to spend $1 billion more than planned on an oil pipeline to Canada’s Atlantic Coast if natural gas customers get their way, a move it says would threaten the viability of the project. TransCanada has delayed seeking regulatory approval of the $12 billion Energy East line as it negotiates with Quebec’s Gaz Metro Inc. and Ontario units of Spectra Energy Corp. and Enbridge Inc., said two people familiar with the talks who asked not to be identified discussing a private matter."

"Gas distributors claim that converting the mainline in eastern Ontario would lead to fuel shortages and higher prices. While TransCanada intends to build a new 250-kilometer gas line to meet demand, the distributors say it won’t be big enough. They want the company to build a standalone oil conduit or a gas line the same size as the existing one at no cost to customers. Building [a 350-kilometre] oil line from North Bay, Ontario, to Ottawa instead of altering the existing one would cost at least $1 billion more and put Energy East in jeopardy, the company says."

On this issue, Gaz Metro CEO Sophie Brochu says, "I don’t accept that we ask domestic consumers of natural gas to interfinance the exportations of petroleum." She also commented, “I refuse [to accept] that the Children’s Hospital of Montreal pays a higher price for its gas because Western Canada needs to export its oil to the international markets."

On October 15, the Globe and Mail reported, "The consultancy firm Wood Mackenzie told the [Quebec regulatory body] Regie [de l'energie at hearings] last week that TransCanada’s plan [to convert their natural gas pipeline to oil] would create a 20-per-cent shortfall in gas pipeline capacity in eastern Ontario and Quebec markets. ...Both Quebec and Ontario governments plan to intervene in the National Energy Board review... [They] are being urged to defend their natural gas customers who say their interests are being sacrificed to western oil producers."

Today's news report highlights, "A compromise is unlikely before TransCanada submits its application to the National Energy Board in a few weeks, [TransCanada's president of natural gas pipelines Karl] Johannson said. ...TransCanada planned a mid-year application for Energy East as of May and has revised its schedule multiple times since then."

The Energy East pipeline project involves a 4,600 kilometre 1.1 million barrels per day pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick, as well as a marine terminal in the St. Lawrence River to service export supertankers. It would convert 3,300 kilometres of natural gas pipeline from Alberta to Quebec for oil, with new pipeline constructed from Quebec to New Brunswick. The project would mean a 39 per cent increase in tar sands production from 2012 levels and would generate at least 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the crude oil production required to fill it.

In just four days time, the Council of Canadians and local partners will launch a tour against the Energy East pipeline in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This follows our tour against the project in Ontario this past April 7-28. The Atlantic tour will include public forums in Halifax (October 26), Cornwallis (October 27), Saint John (October 29), Fredericton (November 4) and Edmundston (November 6).

Further reading

Gaz Metro, Enbridge, Union Gas, even provinces may oppose Energy East pipeline (October 14 blog):
[ http://canadians.org/blog/gaz-m%C3%A9tr ... t-pipeline ]


Brent Patterson
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
Political director of the Council of Canadians.

[Oscar]

Liberals and Conservatives support Energy East oil terminal on the St. Lawrence River

LINKS: [ http://canadians.org/blog/liberals-and- ... ence-river ]

October 22, 2014 - 8:55am

The Council of Canadians has taken the position that, "To protect the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River we must ban all transport of tar sands bitumen on, under and near the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River."

Infodimanche.com reports (in French), "Despite opposition from many scientists, marine mammal experts and citizens from all over Quebec, the Conservatives and Liberals agreed to support the proposed oil terminal at Gros Cacouna [on the St. Lawrence River]. In a vote in the House of Commons that took place [Monday] night, they rejected the NDP motion to oppose it."

Calgary-based TransCanada wants to construct a marine terminal on the eastern shore of the St. Lawrence River to load supertankers with 700,000 to 1.1 million barrels of tar sands bitumen for export. The terminal would be located in a habitat critical for the endangered beluga whale.

The NDP put forward a motion in the House of Commons that states, "the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected."

At 6:55 pm on Monday, the House voted 94 in favour, 175 opposed to this motion.

After the vote, François Lapointe, the MP for Montmagny-Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, commented, "We knew that the Conservatives would be deaf to any criticism an oil, now we know that it's the same with the Liberals. This project of oil port, should it be built, would have major implications on the survival of the beluga population..."

This past August, the Chronicle-Herald reported, "A group of environmentalists worried about climate change delivered their message to federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau during a Chester fundraising stop. ...They waved signs and called on the Liberal leader, riding high in the polls 14 months before an expected election, to take a strong stand against TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Energy East pipeline. ...Robin Tress, a community organizer with the group Stop Energy East Halifax, said the Liberal leader has never asked for a climate review of the Energy East project..."

The following month, 350.org and Climate Action Now challenged Trudeau at a fundraiser that took place north of Barrie. They note, "Trudeau affirmed his support of Energy East, and his concern that Canadian resources reach the market in a responsible, sustainable way. He also pointed to a consensus among the top three political party leaders, 'Every political leader who’s gonna have the chance of being Prime Minister - that’s Mr. Mulcair, myself, and Mr. Harper - have all said that Energy East is something that we need to build.'"

But the Canadian Press has also reported, "The notion of a west-east pipeline is the cornerstone of the NDP leader’s energy policy. While he maintains Keystone is environmentally unsustainable and should never have gotten off the drawing board, Mulcair contends a cross-Canada pipeline would keep construction and refining jobs in Canada rather than exporting them to the United States. ...Mulcair said the cross-Canada pipeline should still be subject to a 'complete, thorough, credible' environmental assessment."

From October 26 to November 6, Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow and local allies will visit communities in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to talk about why TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline is all risk and little reward for Atlantic Canada. Our tour will include public forums in Halifax (October 26), Cornwallis (October 27), Saint John (October 29), Fredericton (November 4), and Edmundston (November 6).

For more about this tour, please click here:
[ http://www.canadians.org/energyeast-atl-tour ] .



Brent Patterson
[ http://canadians.org/blog/liberals-and- ... ence-river ]
Political Director of the Council of Canadians

[Oscar]

Council of Canadians vows to defeat TransCanada’s Energy East application to the NEB

[ http://canadians.org/media/council-cana ... cation-neb ]

October 29th, 2014

Ottawa – As TransCanada filed its application today to the National Energy Board (NEB) for its Energy East pipeline, the Council of Canadians vowed to continue building momentum against the project that is all risk and little reward for Canadian communities.

“We will fight Energy East every step of the way, and we are far from alone,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, the Council of Canadians’ energy and climate justice campaigner. “Right now we are in Atlantic Canada, where momentum is building against Energy East. Fishers, landowners, Indigenous people and local communities are becoming aware that Energy East will cause unsustainable expansion of the tar sands and a significant increase in pollution, yet there is no mention of these impacts in TransCanada’s filing. [ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ] The NEB refuses to recognize climate pollution impacts in its assessment of the project.

Meanwhile evidence shows the vast majority of crude transported is expected to be exported unrefined from ports in Cacouna, Quebec and Saint John, New Brunswick. [ http://www.canadians.org/publications/transcanada’s-energy-east-export-pipeline-not-domestic-gain ] [ LINK NOT WORKING ] The controversial Cacouna port would disturb a critical beluga whale habitat. Over a thousand people showed up last weekend to protest test drilling by TransCanada, there.

Pipeline spills along the route and tanker spills in the St. Lawrence or Bay of Fundy would jeopardize farmland, drinking water, fisheries and tourism, all important to local economies.

“Energy East is an accident waiting to happen,” says Mark Calzavara, Ontario-Quebec regional organizer with the Council of Canadians. “To save money, TransCanada wants to convert 3000 kms of its natural gas Mainline instead of building a new oil pipeline. Much of the Mainline system is over 40 years old and it has had 9 catastrophic failures since 1991. In the past year alone, TransCanada has had five pipelines blow up. Its safety record is bad and getting worse.” [ http://canadians.org/blog/transcanada%E ... osive-year ]

“This is worse than regular oil,” says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “This massive export pipeline will pump diluted bitumen across thousands of our precious waterways, [ LINK NOT WORKING? ] threatening them at a time when we desperately need to address a growing fresh water crisis.”

An Enbridge pipeline spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 2010 saw diluted bitumen sink in the Kalamazoo River, making full cleanup impossible. Over four years later and after $1 billion spent on cleanup, submerged oil still remains in the river.

A recent Canadian federal report found that in cold salt water a spill of diluted bitumen would be particularly devastating, as it has been shown to form tar balls and sink in marine conditions like the Bay of Fundy.

Responding to these unacceptable risks, the Council of Canadians is currently hosting a five-community awareness-raising tour in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast-atl-tour ] It previously held a six-community speaking tour in Ontario along the pipeline path, participated in TransCanada open houses, and engaged in the Ontario Energy Board Energy East consultations.

The Council of Canadians is one of Canada’s leading progressive advocacy organizations with more than 100,000 grassroots supporters and local chapters across the country.

Find out more about Energy East.
[ http://canadians.org/energy ]

Our handimation on Energy East:
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfCWlTBLDJE ]

Media contact

Sujata Dey, Media Officer
Cell: (613) 796-7724
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 226
E-mail: sdey@canadians.org

National Office
Reception: (613) 233-2773
Toll-free: 1-800-387-7177
TTY line 613-233-3744
9:00 to 17:00 hours Eastern Time, Monday to Friday.

[Oscar]

NDP supports the Energy East pipeline

[ http://www.canadians.org/blog/ndp-suppo ... t-pipeline ]

November 14, 2014 - 9:30am

The federal New Democratic Party (NDP) is backing the controversial 1.1 million barrels per day Energy East tar sands pipeline.

The Canadian Press reports, "Despite growing concern in Quebec, [NDP leader Thomas] Mulcair said he still believes the proposed Energy East pipeline is preferable to three other proposals for getting Alberta's landlocked unrefined oil sands crude to tidewater: the Keystone XL pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines to British Columbia's coast." [ http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair- ... -1.2101397 ]

Mulcair says, "As a basic proposition, of course, it makes sense, much more sense, for Canada to be taking that product from the west, moving it within our own country, refining it here because by refining, upgrading and adding value here, you're creating jobs in Canada. It's a win-win to bring it from west to east. It's better prices for the producers and therefore more royalties for the producing provinces. It's better energy security for Canada and it's more jobs here." [ http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair- ... -1.2101397 ]

The news article adds, "But it has to be done right, Mulcair warns -- with a rigorous, transparent environmental review process and legislation to force oil companies to pay for the pollution they create, including any increase in greenhouse gas emissions. He says opposition to Energy East has grown precisely because the Harper government has failed to do either." [ http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair- ... -1.2101397

This is not the first time Mulcair has expressed support for a west-to-east pipeline. In September 2012, the Globe and Mail reported, "The federal NDP – which strongly opposes plans for a Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific coast – is now pledging its full support for a pipeline that would see Alberta oil pumped to Eastern Canada. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4574676/ ] In a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto at the Royal York Hotel, Mulcair gave his clearest sign of support yet for the notion of a west-to-east pipeline." And this past February, he told the Canadian Press, “As a matter of principle between something like Keystone XL, which as far as we’re concerned is a big mistake, and west-east, west-east is a better alternative." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e16736888/ ]

The Council of Canadians
We unequivocally oppose the Energy East pipeline.

We reject Mulcair's assertion that it makes more sense to move bitumen in Canada east rather than west. In terms of sheer distance of the pipelines, it doesn't stand to reason that the 4,600 kilometre Energy East pipeline would be safer than the 1,177 kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline. Our report Energy East: Where Oil Meets Water estimates that Energy East could spill more than one million litres of crude oil in just 10 minutes. [ http://canadians.org/publications/energ ... eets-water ] Furthermore, the pipeline would cross the source of drinking water for millions of people. A spill would have devastating effects on waterways flowing through cities such as Winnipeg, Ottawa and Quebec City.

We reject Mulcair's presumption that Energy East would mean refining, upgrading and adding value to bitumen in Canada. The report TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline: For Export, Not Domestic Gain shows that refineries located along the Energy East pipeline route can process up to 672,000 barrels of crude a day (combined). [ http://canadians.org/media/transcanada% ... -canadians ] Much of that capacity is already being filled by Atlantic crude and U.S. crude, with Line 9 soon to become a third major supply source. The report estimates that 978,000 barrels a day from the Energy East pipeline would be available for export. The Alberta Federation of Labour has commented, "Energy East will only solidify our role as 'hewers of wood, drawers of water…and diggers of bitumen." [ http://www.afl.org/index.php?option=com ... 7&task=tag ]

We reject Mulcair's belief that it will create jobs in Canada. The majority of the jobs promised would be short-term, not permanent, and in construction and secondary industries. The Cornell Labour Institute found not only would TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. create fewer jobs than promised, but could actually kill more jobs than it creates. [ http://canadians.org/blog/three-myths-a ... t-pipeline ] A spill from Energy East could also be a job killer for numerous industries. For example, a tanker spill in the Bay of Fundy, which sustains 2,500 direct jobs in fishing on the New Brunswick side alone, would be devastating to that sector, not to mention its impact on tourism jobs.

And we reject Mulcair's view that the greenhouse gases produced by the Energy East pipeline could be offset by companies paying for the pollution they create. In fact, the pipeline would produce 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year from the crude oil production required to fill it. [ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ] That's greater than the 22 million tonnes that would be produced by the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would also spur 650,000 to 750,000 barrels per day of additional production from the tar sands. [ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ] That would mean a 39 per cent increase in tar sands production from 2012 levels. As such, this pipeline represents a dangerous expansion of the tar sands and GHG emissions that cannot be "attenuated" as Mulcair claims.

The next federal election is scheduled for October 19, 2015. The NDP will face resistance across the country to its position on the Energy East pipeline, particularly in Quebec where the party holds 54 of its 96 seats. We call on the federal NDP to reconsider its position on the Energy East pipeline.

For more on our campaign against the Energy East pipeline, please click here: [ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]

Further reading

Three myths about the Energy East pipeline (op-ed by Maude Barlow and Matt Abbott)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/three-myths-a ... t-pipeline ]

Brent Patterson
Political Director of the
Council of Canadians
[ http://www.canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]

[Oscar]

(Saskatchewan) Government Motion Supports Pipeline, says Ontario and Quebec should not be Creating Barriers

[ http://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/n ... ine-motion ]

Released on November 26, 2014

Pipelines Safer Than Rail Cars for Oil

Today in the Legislative Assembly, Premier Brad Wall introduced a motion supporting construction of the Energy East Pipeline and calling on Ontario and Quebec not to add unnecessary regulatory barriers to the approval process.

“The Energy East Pipeline will be good for the economy in all parts of Canada, including Ontario and Quebec,” Wall said. “It means billions of dollars of new economic activity, new jobs and new tax revenue, with the majority of that new revenue and activity going to Ontario and Quebec.

“And yet those two provinces are creating new barriers, which will harm their own economies and the economies of western provinces who are net contributors to the billions of dollars of equalization payments Ontario and Quebec receive each year. It doesn’t make any sense.

“In addition, moving oil by pipeline is far safer and far more environmentally-friendly than moving it by rail car, which is what we are doing now. Why would they oppose that?“

Wall said there is already a stringent approval process for new pipeline projects through the National Energy Board, yet Quebec and Ontario are now talking about inventing their own approval processes.

“This is not how Canada should work,” Wall said. “We should be removing barriers to economic growth, not inventing new ones.” -30-

For more information, contact:

Kathy Young
Executive Council, Regina
Phone: 306-787-0425
Email: kathy.young@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-526-8927

[Oscar]

Brad Wall: Ontario, Quebec should embrace Energy East pipeline

[ http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta ... eline.html ]

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says the Energy East pipeline will be an economic boon to Canada, and to Ontario and Quebec in particular.

By: Brad Wall Published on Tue Nov 25 2014 (Brad Wall is the Premier of Saskatchewan)

Plans for TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline that will move Alberta and Saskatchewan conventional oil to Atlantic Canada for refining while replacing the need for eastern Canada to import foreign oil are prompting considerable national debate. The National Energy Board is conducting a full review of the proposal as they are mandated to do.

We in Saskatchewan support the Energy East proposal. The project will generate significant economic activity, create jobs and increase tax revenue — particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

- - - -SNIP - - - -

Energy East is in the very initial stages of its National Energy Board review. During that review, these estimates will be subjected to scrutiny and interested parties from across the country will be invited to contribute. A $2.5-million fund has also been set up to assist those who wish to appear but do not have the means to do so.

Public hearings have already taken place here in Saskatchewan and across the country. Energy East has already talked to 5,500 landowners. Consultations have been held with 155 First Nations and Métis communities and agreements already been signed with 56 of those communities.

However, despite the obvious benefits and the NEB process, Ontario and Quebec have announced a joint position that at best moves the goalposts for approval and at worst lays out new barriers. A motion from the Quebec National Assembly asks for the assessment of “upstream” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be considered during the review of the project.

This request is unprecedented. In its most recent ruling on the Northern Gateway proposal, the National Energy Board ruled — correctly from Saskatchewan’s point of view — that environmental impacts should focus on the pipeline infrastructure itself.

To me, this is only common sense. Western Canadian oil arriving via the new Energy East pipeline would be replacing offshore oil from places like Algeria, Iraq and the United States. Whatever GHG’s might have been attendant to the consumption of foreign oil to eastern Canada will be notionally the same. Why then have we never heard Ontario or Quebec sounding concerns about the upstream GHG emissions from the former oil currently being imported, refined and consumed in eastern Canada? It could even be argued that there may be a net benefit, given that light, sweet crude from the Bakken Formation would be replacing heavier, more carbon-intensive grades from places like Venezuela.

Energy East is a $12-billion boost to the Canadian economy, providing jobs, economic growth and increased tax revenue for government. It would save millions of dollars now spent on foreign oil, reducing the costs to refineries and, inevitably, their customers. Those jurisdictions placing obstacles in its path are the very ones who would benefit the most.

Here in Saskatchewan, in addition to the jobs and economic activity, Energy East would provide the on-ramp for Bakken oil into the TransCanada system — something that is sorely needed. It would allow Saskatchewan people to get the best possible price for our resources. It would help us to continue to create opportunity and jobs and to contribute to the federal tax base that supports Ontario and Quebec through equalization to the tune of $11 billion combined.

Canada should be an aspirant to being the most responsible energy superpower in the world. We first need to ensure that proposals to move oil across the country to maximize the value of resources for Canadians and facilitate value added right here at home are not subject to politically motivated, unwarranted barriers.

Brad Wall is the premier of Saskatchewan.


= = = = = =


Ontario, Quebec sign deals on electricity, climate change

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ontario ... -1.2844837 ]

Premiers want to review Energy East for climate change impact and benefits to their provinces

CBC News Posted: Nov 21, 2014 12:59 PM ET| Last Updated: Nov 21, 2014 10:22 PM ET

The premiers of Ontario and Quebec signed a joint agreement to work together to share electricity and to advance their climate change agendas after a combined meeting of their cabinets today.

The statement makes a direct reference to the pipeline projects planned to carry Alberta oil through Ontario and Quebec.

Climate change must be addressed in any plan to carry energy across the country, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said at a news conference in Toronto after meeting with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard.

“We believe that from the centre of the country we are giving Canadians the leadership that is much needed,” she said.

Quebec issued seven conditions for TransCanada Corp.'s $12-billion Energy East pipeline on Thursday, including a demand for a provincial environmental review.

The project would convert a natural gas pipeline to carry bitumen from Alberta east to ports in Quebec.

“I talked about our understanding that Alberta needs to move its resources across the country. We want to work with Alberta. We know that there are companies that are dependent in Ontario on Alberta industry,” Wynne said.

But the provinces that have to bear the brunt of environmental damage from pipeline spills or conflict over the project have to benefit in some way, she said.

“We have to safeguard the interests of the people in Ontario,” Wynne said.

“As we talk about a Canadian energy strategy, as we talk about pipelines or other energy initiatives, we need to put in place protections and principles that we can all agree on. That is the work that we have been doing,“ she added.

MORE:

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ontario ... -1.2844837 ]


RELATED ARTICLES:

■Minister sets conditions for TransCanada in Quebec
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2841677 ]

■Energy East pipeline 'advocates' targeted
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy- ... -1.2838383 ]

[Oscar]

Available for comment: Prentice's Energy East lobby trip to Ontario and Quebec, Council of Canadians urges Wynne and Couillard not to bend

[ http://canadians.org/media/available-co ... ians-urges ]

Media Availability December 3, 2014

Toronto – Today Alberta Premier Jim Prentice met with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to lobby for the Energy East pipeline, after the Ontario and Quebec premiers announced seven conditions the pipeline must meet. Wynne announced that in analyzing greenhouse emissions, Ontario would only consider the emissions from the pipeline itself and not from the tar sands.

In response, the Council of Canadians urged Ontario to stay steadfast in imposing conditions on Energy East. The Council denounced the decision to not consider the full impacts of the tar sands on the environment.

“Wynne’s refusal to consider how the pipeline will spur more climate pollution in the tar sands is more than disappointing, it is wrong. The tar sands are reaching the limits of pipeline capacity. At 1.1 million barrels per day, the pipeline will absolutely unlock increased production in Canada’s fastest growing source of climate pollution,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “The real question now is whether the Ontario and Quebec premiers will rigorously apply the conditions. Also, the Energy East pipeline could rupture, causing a serious oil spill that would threaten drinking water sources.” [ http://www.canadians.org/publications/e ... eets-water ]

Filling the Energy East pipeline would spur an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon pollution every year. [ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ] This would undo the progress made in Ontario’s phase-out of coal. It would cross critical waterways in Ontario and Quebec, including drinking water sources such as the Nipigon River that flows quickly into Lake Superior, North Bay’s Trout Lake, the Ottawa River, and the St. Lawrence.

TransCanada has had five pipeline ruptures in the last 14 months. TransCanada wants to convert a forty-year-old gas pipeline to carry oil, something U.S. regulators recently warned could have a significant impact on the pipeline’s safety and integrity. [ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141 ... t-its-kind ]

Mark Calzavara, Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut Organizer with the Council of Canadians concludes, “This is a risky plan that will only benefit Big Oil. A few short-term jobs are not worth putting the long-term safety of our communities, waterways and climate on the line. Ontario and Quebec are right to protect their residents’ interests.”

Media contact

Sujata Dey, Media Officer
Cell: (613) 796-7724
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 226
E-mail: sdey@canadians.org

National Office
Reception: (613) 233-2773
Toll-free: 1-800-387-7177
TTY line 613-233-3744
9:00 to 17:00 hours Eastern Time, Monday to Friday.

Send a letter to the editor
[ http://canadians.org/action/letter-editor ]


- - - - - -


Wynne and Couillard backtracking on the climate test for the Energy East pipeline

[ http://canadians.org/blog/wynne-and-cou ... t-pipeline ]

December 3, 2014 - 1:11 pm

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard are both signalling that their climate test for the proposed Energy East pipeline could be very weak. On November 24, they stated that when evaluating the 1.1 million barrels per day pipeline they would, "Take into account the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e21714915/ ]

But just a few days later, Wynne is now saying, "No, we’re not talking about upstream emissions" [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e21907743/ ] and Couillard has commented, "Whatever the future of the TransCanada project, the extraction will take place. So it doesn’t add anything to the debate to look at [upstream emissions]. What we really want to see is the sum of greenhouse gases over the Quebec section of the project." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e21907743/ ]

"Upstream emissions" refers to the greenhouse gas emissions created by the increased tar sands production fuelled, in this instance, by the 1.1 million barrels per day Energy East pipeline. It has been estimated that the export pipeline would allow for a 40 per cent expansion of the tar sands that would produce at least 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, the equivalent to 7 million new cars on the road.

The Globe and Mail reports, "Ms. Wynne said Wednesday what she will only consider are the relatively small emissions from any work that has to be done on the line in Ontario – such as exhaust fumes from construction vehicles." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e21907743/ ]

Council of Canadians energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue has responded by saying, "Wynne’s refusal to consider how the pipeline will spur more climate pollution in the tar sands is more than disappointing, it is wrong. The tar sands are reaching the limits of pipeline capacity. At 1.1 million barrels per day, the pipeline will absolutely unlock increased production in Canada’s fastest growing source of climate pollution." [ http://canadians.org/media/available-co ... ians-urges ]

This is particularly disappointing as the United Nations climate talks are now underway in Lima, Peru. Last December, the Harper government submitted its climate report to the UN that admitted that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise sharply. Without climate action, the federal government estimates that emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector will increase by 48 per cent between 2005 and 2030. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... d/follows/ ]

We are asking our supporters in Ontario to tell the premier that approving Energy East would "wipe out all the good work we have done in Ontario to lower greenhouse gas emissions and threaten our most important drinking water sources."

To sign that action alert - No Energy East pipeline through Ontario - please click here:
[ http://www.canadians.org/no-energyeast-ontario ] .

For more on our campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline, please click here:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]

Brent Patterson's blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
Political Director of the Council of Canadians

- - - - -

WIN! Ontario government strengthens position on Energy East pipeline

[ http://canadians.org/blog/win-ontario-g ... t-pipeline ]

November 24, 2014 - 8:12 am

The Council of Canadians is pleased that Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne has agreed with the Quebec government on stringent conditions for the proposed 1.1 million barrels per day Energy East pipeline project. We see this as a sign that popular opposition to the pipeline is growing in both provinces and pushing governments to take action.

The conditions the two governments have adopted to evaluate the pipeline are:

1. Compliance with the highest available technical standards for public safety and environmental protection;

2. Have world-leading contingency planning an emergency response programs;

3. Proponents and governments consult local communities and fulfill their duty to consult with Aboriginal communities;

4. Take into account the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions;

5. Provide demonstrable economic benefits and opportunities to the people of Ontario and Quebec, in particular in the areas of job creation over both short and long term;

6. Ensure that economic and environmental risks and responsibilities, including remediation, should be borne exclusively by the pipeline companies in the event of a leak or spill on ground or water, and provide financial assurance demonstrating their capability to respond to leaks and spills;

7. Interests of natural gas consumers must be taken into account.

Hopefully too this represents a significant shift from the position Wynne initially took on the Energy East pipeline.

In August 2013, sounding more supportive of the project, she stated, "I'm very open to solutions that are going to work for the people of the country. We need to find ways to work with the other provinces and make sure that we have rational energy planning across the country." [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pr ... -1.1337328 ]

And in October 2013, she told a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Calgary that she considered moving crude eastward "a national project". [ http://www.elanpro.ca/2013/10/29/ontari ... -interest/ ]

She also noted that Ontario has to work with other provinces with the understanding that they all share energy needs. [ http://www.therecord.com/news-story/403 ... -pipeline/ ]

And while she said she would put environmental, First Nations and community concerns "at the forefront", she emphasized "rational discussions" about energy policy are needed. [ http://www.therecord.com/news-story/403 ... -pipeline/ ]

That wasn't a satisfactory position to us, so we took action.

– In March 2014, the Toronto Star reported, "Mark Calzavara of the Ontario Council of Canadians said it’s up to the provincial government to step into the pipeline fray to ensure Energy East is safe, if it goes ahead at all. 'We just don’t believe that TransCanada is up to the task and can do it safely and we’re really not very confident that the National Energy Board is up to the task of regulating them', said Calzavara. 'We have to look to the provincial government to say no.'" [ http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03 ... afety.html ]

– We launched an action alert encouraging our supporters to send a message to Premier Wynne. [ http://www.canadians.org/action/no-energyeast ] In that alert, we highlighted the threat the pipeline posed to Ontario waterways, the safety concerns related to converting a natural gas pipeline to moving diluted bitumen, that Energy East is primarily an export pipeline, that the pipeline would mean a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and that the conversion of the Mainline natural gas pipeline into the Energy East tar sands pipeline would mean a shortage of natural gas for consumers in Ontario.

– Council of Canadians energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue also participated in a stakeholders group related to Ontario Energy Board consultations and highlighted that Indigenous rights need to be central in this process, that the pipeline's impacts on provincial waterways and natural gas supplies must be considered, and that the provincial consultations must be meaningful, not like the "the highly staged, one-on-one, trade-show-style open houses TransCanada has held". [ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/council ... -energy-bo ]

– In April 2014, we organized a speaking tour in the Ontario communities of Kenora, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Ottawa, Kemptville and Cornwall to build public awareness in the province that the pipeline posed all risk and no reward. Our key messages on that tour were that the Energy East pipeline posed a threat to Ontario's waterways and that it would spur a 40 per cent increase in tar sands production producing climate pollution equivalent to that of all the cars in Ontario every year. [ http://canadians.org/media/speaking-tou ... -ontarians ]

– And our May 2014 submission to the Ontario Energy Board echoed the concerns raised in our action alert and highlighted that provincial leadership was required. We stated, "Ultimately, we feel the scale of imminent threat presented by the Energy East pipeline, and the abdication of the Harper government of its duties, justifies Ontario’s intervention based on these unacceptable risks. In order to represent Ontarians’ interests, the Premier should speak publicly against the Energy East pipeline." [ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/council ... nergy-east ]

Many of the concerns we raised are now reflected in the seven conditions Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard agreed to in Toronto on Friday.

While we still have a long way to go in this campaign, their endorsement of the seven conditions and the tone that sets is an important step forward in the eventual rejection of the Energy East pipeline. Furthermore, we believe that if the conditions were seriously applied the pipeline cannot be approved. For instance, given the pipeline would produce at least 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, how could Wynne and Couillard endorse the pipeline when they have just promised to take its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions into account?

For more on our campaign in opposition to the Energy East pipeline, please click here:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]

Brent Patterson's blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
Political Director of the Council of Canadians


- - - - -


Energy East: new report assesses pipeline’s climate impact

[ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ]

Proposed west-to-east pipeline would have major environmental ramifications

Published Feb. 6, 2014.

OTTAWA — The proposed Energy East pipeline would enable a significant increase in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, says a new report from the Pembina Institute.

Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline is the first public estimate of the west-to-east pipeline’s upstream climate impact. It shows that producing the crude needed to fill Energy East could generate up to 32 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gas emissions each year — an even greater impact than the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

TransCanada is expected to file its regulatory application for Energy East with the National Energy Board in the first half of this year. In anticipation of that application, the report provides two recommendations: that the NEB should include the pipeline’s full upstream impacts in the scope of its review, and that the federal government should end its delays and adopt strong emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector.

Quick facts

•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.
•By comparison, filling the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would increase emissions by 22 million tonnes, according to a previous analysis from the Pembina Institute. [ http://www.pembina.org/pub/2407 ]
•Filling the Energy East pipeline would help spur 650,000 to 750,000 barrels per day of additional production from the oilsands.
•Despite numerous requests from interveners and members of the public, the NEB’s last major pipeline review did not consider the environmental impacts of producing the crude that would flow in the pipeline.

Quotes

“The oilsands are already Canada’s fastest-growing source of carbon pollution and the Energy East pipeline would help to accelerate production. Any regulatory review should include not only the impact of the pipeline itself, but also the impact of producing the crude that would flow through it.” — Clare Demerse, Federal Policy Director, Pembina Institute

“The oilsands industry plans to triple production by 2030 and building new pipelines is necessary to realize those ambitions. We need to look at the full scope of impacts when evaluating pipelines.” — Erin Flanagan, Analyst, Pembina Institute

-30-

Download a copy of Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline:
[ http://www.pembina.org/pub/2519 ]

Contact

Clare Demerse (English / français)
Federal Policy Director
613-562-3447 x222
613-762-7449

Erin Flanagan (English / français)
Analyst
587-581-1701

Bernard Rudny (English / français)
Communications Lead
416-993-2455

[Oscar]

Is TransCanada really "standing down" on its proposed Energy East oil terminal on the St. Lawrence River?

[ http://canadians.org/blog/transcanada-r ... ence-river ]

December 2, 2014 - 9:33 am

QUOTE: "Note, however, that this decision coincides with the expiration Sunday of his certificate of authorization from the Ministry of Environment."

- - - -

The Canadian Press reports, "TransCanada Corp. will halt all work on an oil terminal in eastern Quebec in response to concerns the project could hurt a beluga habitat. The company said Monday it is 'standing down' on all work in Cacouna after a report by a federal government wildlife committee concluded that the whale is endangered." [ http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/transcanada- ... -1.2127678 ]

The Sun News Network goes as far as to say, "Hours after a federal agency declared the beluga whales of the St. Lawrence River an endangered species, TransCanada Pipelines iced its plans to build a marine terminal on the river's shores." [ http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 61917.html ]

But two other reports suggest it's more of a pause. Bloomberg quotes TransCanada spokesperson Tim Duboyce saying, “We are standing down on any further work at Cacouna, in order to analyze the recommendation, assess any impacts from Energy East, and review all viable options." [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-0 ... gered.html ]

And the Globe and Mail reports, "The Calgary-based pipeline company said Monday that it is suspending operations at the Cacouna, Que., site while it assesses a scientific report that recommends the belugas be declared an endangered species with full protection of its habitat." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e21857017/ ]

So what is really going on here?

La Presse canadienne reports, "TransCanada decided on Monday to temporarily stop work on its controversial oil terminal in Cacouna, carried out as part of the Energy East pipeline project. The Alberta company claims to have made this decision in order to allow time to analyze the recommendation of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which requires that belugas in the St. Lawrence are recognized as a species disappearing. It is likely that the work will not resume until spring. The authorization drilling certificate issued by Quebec, came to an end on Sunday due. And winter is fast approaching, which would have forced discontinuation of work anyway. A spokesman for TransCanada Tim Duboyce, declined to speculate on a possible date of resumption." [ http://www.ledevoir.com/environnement/a ... -a-cacouna ]

The Radio Canada article carries a similar caution. It reports, "The company announced the suspension of its work for its Cacouna Energy East pipeline project in the wake of the COSEWIC report. Note, however, that this decision coincides with the expiration Sunday of his certificate of authorization from the Ministry of Environment. TransCanada was therefore not allowed to continue its work immediately. ...TransCanada reviewing its options." [ http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/est- ... tion.shtml ]

And it quotes Duboyce saying, "We decided to stop our work in Cacouna to take the time to analyze the recommendation of COSEWIC to assess its potential impact on the Eastern Energy project and to review all viable options for the future. ...We will take the time to discuss with our partners, elected representatives in Cacouna sector and business people to see what is the right way to proceed from this point." [ http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/est- ... tion.shtml ]

And so it would appear that TransCanada is not really 'standing down' or putting on ice their plans for their oil loading terminal on the St. Lawrence River, but rather that their work permit expired forcing them to stop their survey work for the port until the spring.

The Council of Canadians has expressed its opposition to the TransCanada terminal in the St. Lawrence River in numerous campaign blogs [ http://canadians.org/search/node/cacouna ], encouraged people to sign a petition calling on the Quebec government to stop TransCanada's work on the terminal [ http://www.saveourbelugas.com/ ], encouraged its supporters to call their MP to back a House of Commons motion against the supertanker loading platform [ http://canadians.org/blog/liberals-and- ... ence-river ], produced a report that points to the threat posed to the St. Lawrence River and other waterways by the Energy East pipeline [ http://canadians.org/sites/default/file ... %20web.pdf ], has called for a ban on the transport of bitumen on the St. Lawrence River [ http://www.canadians.org/sites/default/ ... al-web.pdf ], and has stated that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tar sands export agenda threatens whales in Quebec, the Bay of Fundy and on the West Coast. [ http://canadians.org/blog/mr-harpers-ta ... -vs-whales ]

Brent Patterson's Blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
Political Director of the Council of Canadians

[Oscar]

Available for comment: Prentice's Energy East lobby trip to Ontario and Quebec, Council of Canadians urges Wynne and Couillard not to bend
[ http://canadians.org/media/available-co ... ians-urges ]
December 3, 2014
Toronto – Today Alberta Premier Jim Prentice met with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to lobby for the Energy East pipeline, after the Ontario and Quebec premiers announced seven conditions the pipeline must meet. Wynne announced that in analyzing greenhouse emissions, Ontario would only consider the emissions from the pipeline itself and not from the tar sands.

- - - - -

Wynne and Couillard backtracking on the climate test for the Energy East pipeline
[ http://canadians.org/blog/wynne-and-cou ... t-pipeline ]
December 3, 2014
Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard are both signalling that their climate test for the proposed Energy East pipeline could be very weak.


- - - - -


Montreal chapter writes Quebec premier about Energy East pipeline
[ http://canadians.org/blog/montreal-chap ... t-pipeline ]
December 5, 2014
The Montreal chapter of the Council of Canadians has written Quebec premier Philippe Couillard. The letter dated December 2nd follows the Quebec National Assembly unanimously calling on the Quebec government to conduct an environmental assessment on the Energy East pipeline, including its "global contribution to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions" (on November 6), the Quebec premier...

- - - - -


Winnipeg chapter and Indigenous activists to raise climate impacts of Energy East pipeline
[ http://canadians.org/blog/winnipeg-chap ... t-pipeline ]
December 8, 2014
The Council of Canadians Winnipeg chapter will join with Indigenous and community activists to oppose the Energy East pipeline today.

[Oscar]

WATCH: Debate in Saskatchewan Legislature re Energy East – November 26, 2014

[ http://download.isiglobal.ca/saskla/20141126Video.mp4 ]

Premier Wall begins on Energy East about 1:00:10

(Click on blue line on bottom left of the window and drag it to the right until you reach the one-hour spot )

[Oscar]

Ontario Energy Board releases experts' reports confirming Energy East's dangers, say environmental groups

[ http://canadians.org/media/ontario-ener ... angers-say ]

Media Release January 15, 2015

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) released four preliminary assessments from its technical advisors on TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline project yesterday, confirming that the pipeline is all risk and no reward for Ontarians.

Key findings in the reports include:

• TransCanada has overstated the project’s economic benefits.
• A full environmental impact assessment of drinking water and other sensitive areas is not possible because TransCanada’s application is incomplete.
• Up to 100 km of the pipeline in Ontario is especially vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking.
• A 2.6 million litre spill, which would be the largest in Canadian history, is possible – even with a perfect emergency response.

“The OEB report confirms what many Ontarians fear about Energy East as well as questioning TransCanada’s claimed economic benefits,” said Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

The economic impacts report finds the TransCanada’s estimated benefits are likely inflated while local benefits are expected to be small, particularly along the converted portion of the pipeline in northern Ontario.

“TransCanada has been selling Energy East to Ontarians as a boon for local revenue and jobs, while downplaying the risks,” said Teika Newton of Transition Initiative Kenora. “We knew there was more to the story. Now we have the facts to back this up.”

While the project confirms what many environmentalists have been saying about the risks, the climate change assessment was disappointing.

“Ontarians need to know that Energy East will wipe out all the climate gains made by shutting down coal plants in the province. This pipeline would allow the tar sands to grow by 40 percent, when the world's leading scientists have said we need to leave most of the tar sands in the ground to maintain a liveable climate,” said Ben Powless, Energy East Campaigner with Ecology Ottawa.

“The climate change assessment makes the false assumption that the oil slated for Energy East will be put on trains if the pipeline isn’t built. But we know that this is not economically viable and that there isn’t enough railway capacity to ship an additional 1.1 million barrels per day,” said Ruth Cook of the Thunder Bay chapter of the Council of Canadians.

The reports were produced for presentation at community open houses being hosted by the OEB along the proposed pipeline route.

The second of seven OEB open houses happens tonight in Thunder Bay followed by Kapuskasing, Timmins, North Bay, Ottawa and Cornwall. Participation at the previous round of consultations exceeded expectations and reflected clear concerns about the risk to our shared climate, land and waterways.

The reports can be found at :

• Meeting Documents and Resources
[ http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/o ... LlJjel0xwG ]

• Environmental Impacts
[ http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/o ... onment.pdf ]

• Climate Change
[ http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/o ... Change.pdf ]

• Pipeline Safety
[ http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/o ... Safety.pdf ]

• Economic Impacts
[ http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/o ... mpacts.pdf ]

Media contact

For media calls:
Sujata Dey, Media Officer
Cell: (613) 796-7724
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 226
E-mail: sdey@canadians.org

[Oscar]

Thunder Bay chapter opposes Energy East at OEB hearings

[ http://canadians.org/blog/thunder-bay-c ... b-hearings ]

January 15, 2015 - 9:00pm

About 175 people attended an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) consultation in Thunder Bay last night, including local Council of Canadians chapter activists.

Thunder Bay chapter activist Ruth Cook writes critically about the initial presentations ("weak because so much information was missing from TransCanada") and the answers that were given to them on key issues (on the question of bitumen "we were told that all oil is the same").

She adds, "The tenor of the questions and comments changed and we went on to broader concerns like climate change, benefits from a pipeline, risks from tar sands extraction and shipping of its products, and this is where water issues came in a great deal more. Water seemed to be the major concern for the group last night. ...Water issues were also a target of much discussion because of lack of any information on the subject from TransCanada. There were many comments from the room about this lack of information and the consequent meaninglessness of this consultation."

That view is backed by a CBC Thunder Bay article which reports on comments by an OEB official on this. Their communications consultant John McGrath says, "There wasn't enough information ... to make a determination on about 95 per cent of the sources of drinking water and the sources of water that people use along the pipeline route ...There had not been enough information in the pipeline application to ensure that the highest environmental standards were being met. [The OEB wants TransCanada to] provide a list of significant water crossings so that people can see whether or not their local source of water will be protected with, for instance, valves at either side of the crossing, so that in the event of a spill the oil can be shut off quite quickly to reduce the threat of contamination to their water supply."

Cook highlights, "During the summation, there were several calls from several tables to simply dump the whole project and leave the oil in the ground."

In the chapter's January newsletter they note, "The next step we are taking in our battle against Energy East is taking a deputation to City Council, as part of a coalition of local not-for-profit groups. We have over 1000 signatures on a petition asking Council to take a stand against this pipeline. The date of the deputation is probably Feb. 2nd at City Hall – we will let you know when confirmed."

As for the OEB consultations, the next ones will take place in Kapuskasing (on January 19), Timmins (January 20), North Bay (January 21), Ottawa (January 22) and Cornwall (January 27). If you live in these communities, please be sure to attend the consultations and raise your objections to this pipeline project.

For a Council of Canadians backgrounder with details and arguments for these hearings, please click here. For more about our campaign against the Energy East pipeline, click here.

Further reading

Thunder Bay chapter defends the watersheds of Lake Superior's North Shore (March 2014 blog)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/thunder-bay-c ... orth-shore ]

Thunder Bay chapter tells the OEB to reject the Energy East pipeline (April 2014 blog)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/thunder-bay-c ... t-pipeline ]

Thunder Bay chapter releases election report card on Energy East pipeline (October 2014 blog)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/thunder-bay-c ... t-pipeline ]

Thunder Bay chapter signs joint letter demanding NEB consider climate in its review of Energy East pipeline (December 2014 blog)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/council-signs ... t-pipeline ]


Brent Patterson's blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]
Political Director of the Council of Canadians