ENERGY EAST & Drinking Water for 5 Million Canadians . . .

[Oscar]

Drinking water of over 5 million Canadians within Energy East pipeline spill reach

[ http://canadians.org/blog/drinking-wate ... pill-reach ]

April 6, 2016 - 11:16 am

The Council of Canadians joined with Environmental Defence, Transition Initiative Kenora and regional partners in the release of a new report on the serious risks TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline presents to drinking water sources from along its 4,400 km path from Alberta to New Brunswick.

Over 5 million people rely on drinking water sources within spill reach of the Energy East pipeline.

By province, the 1.1 million barrel per day pipeline risks the drinking water of:

• 676,613 residents in Manitoba

• 1,040,788 residents in Ontario

• 3,213,353 residents in Québec

• 130,679 residents in New Brunswick

The report looks at a number of key case studies including:

Winnipeg: The pipeline runs alongside, and even crosses below the 100 year old concrete aqueduct that supplies of of Winnipeg's drinking water.

North Bay: The pipeline crosses a number of tributaries close to Trout Lake, the sole drinking water source for North Bay.

Oxford Aquifer: Classified as a highly vulnerable aquifer by the Ontario government because it is so porous, the pipeline runs overtop the aquifer which North Grenville residents rely on for drinking water.

Montreal area: The pipeline crosses Rivière des Mille-Îles and Rivière des Prairies which serve Laval and other North Shore communities in the Montreal CMA. Energy East would also cross Rivière L'Assomption upstream of the water intake for Repentigny and L'Assomption.

Saint John: The pipeline would cross the Mispec River about 3 kilometres from Latimore Lake, a drinking water source for Saint John. In another location, the pipeline is on a hill just 3 kilometres outside the outer edge of the protected Loch Lomond watershed. A spill here could flow downhill towards the protected area, home to three Saint John drinking water lakes

What are the chances of a major pipeline spill?

The risk is considerable. We estimate, based on TransCanada’s Canadian pipeline safety track record, Energy East has a 15% likelihood of a full bore rupture somewhere along the pipeline path. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast-15percent ]

In investigating TransCanada’s track record [ http://canadians.org/too-risky ], we’ve also concluded there is a significant gap between what the company promises on pipeline safety, and their actual practices. For example, at open houses for Energy East hosted by TransCanada, their electronic spill detection system is typically promoting as a key first line of defence (the quicker a spill is found, the better). Looking at the leaks they’ve had on the mainline system of pipelines (one of which is slated for conversion from natural gas to oil for Energy East) only one, arguably two of the nine ruptures since 1992 were discovered by their leak detection system. The others were found by TransCanada staff, passersby and even an OPP officer driving by witnessing a fireball in the sky.

TransCanada’s most recent leak on the Keystone pipeline in South Dakota reported this week was again, discovered by a landowner. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e29510004/ ]

While TransCanada has suggested they could respond to a leak within 22 minutes, their response times for the mainline pipeline leaks vary greatly, some in minutes (typically near pump stations), one was around 3 hours, another took 7 hours before the natural gas was isolated to the damaged section of pipe. A 7-hour spill of the Energy East pipeline would be devastating.

Even if Energy East’s leak detection system works reliably, there is still a massive problem. A large-scale spill would still be possible as the proposed leak detection system can only detect leaks greater than 1.5 per cent of the pipeline’s capacity.101 Based on a total capacity of 1.1 million barrels per day, an undetected leak of 1.5 per cent could release up to 16,500 barrels or 2.6 million litres of oil in a single day

In other words, Energy East is a recipe for disaster. The question is not when it would leak, but where and for how long.

Not my drinking water – not, anyone’s drinking water

We don’t think this is an acceptable risk for anyone’s drinking water source. Particularly because this pipeline will ship large quantities of diluted bitumen which presents heightened risks when spilled.

As outlined in the report, a recent report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found diluted bitumen can create even greater environmental risks when spilled. In 2010, an Enbridge pipeline spilled 3.8 million litres of diluted bitumen in the Kalamazoo River, which spread nearly 60 kilometres downstream. Cleanup efforts were complicated by submerged bitumen, requiring extensive dredging – a process that took years and cost more than $1 billion. Six years later, the river is still degraded as some submerged oil contamination remains.

This new report compliments our earlier report mapping out key waterways crossed by Energy East:
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast-waterways ]

To read, and share the full report - Energy East: A Risk to Our Drinking Water - April 6, 2016 :
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast-drinking-water ]

National press release:
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/articles ... lion-canad ]

New Brunswick press release:
[ http://canadians.org/media/new-report-e ... king-water ]


Andrea Harden-Donahue's blog
Energy & Climate Justice Campaigner
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/andrea-harden-donahue ]

= = = = = =


Energy East pipeline would cross almost 3,000 waterways in Canada

[ http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.c ... 003402336/ ]

Environmentalists say "clean water — must take precedence over exporting dirty oil"

April 12, 2016 by CCE

A report by Environmental Defence is not helping TransCanada’s cause to build the Energy East pipeline. On April 7, the environmentalists group released its study, “Energy East: A Risk to Our Drinking Water,” which it says “shows the magnitude of the threat Energy East poses to Canadians’ drinking water sources.”

According to the report, the pipeline would cross nearly 3,000 water bodies on its 4,600-kilometre journey. “Over five million Canadians across Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick draw their drinking water from sources within spill range and downstream of the pipeline’s proposed route,” Environmental Defence said in a press release.

“Protecting our most valuable resource — clean water — must take precedence over exporting dirty oil,” said Adam Scott of Environmental Defence.

Andrea Harden-Donahue of the Council of Canadians added: “With a pipeline the size of Energy East, a major rupture threatens to be the largest pipeline spill Canada has ever experienced. Energy East is simply not worth the risk.”

The report estimates the numbers of Canadians living in the oil spill zone totals 5,061,433.

The provincial breakdown is as follows:

– Manitoba 676,613
– Ontario 1,040,788
– Quebec 3,213,353
– New Brunswick 130,679

The number of water crossings it encounters is said to be 2,963.

The environmentalists had further ammunition when the Keystone pipeline had a spill in South Dakota at the beginning of April. Trans Canada estimated that around 400 barrels, or just under 17,000 gallons, had leaked from the pipeline, which takes Alberta oil to Illinois and Oklahoma. The spill was discovered on April 2 and shut down the pipeline for a week.

The Energy East pipeline proposal involves converting an existing natural gas pipeline to carry bitumen, as well as constructing new pipeline sections. If it receives environmental approval, the pipe would carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil every day from Alberta and Saskatchewan, starting with a new tank terminal in Hardisty, Alberta. There would be two new terminals, one in Saskatchewan, and another near Saint John, New Brunswick. Saint John would also have a new marine facility.

To see the Environmental Defence news release, and download a copy of the report, click here:
[ http://environmentaldefence.ca/2016/04/ ... in-quebec/ ]

To read about the Keystone pipeline spill in April, click here:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/t ... -1.3529851 ]

To read about the proposed Energy East Pipeline, click here:
[ http://www.transcanada.com/energy-east-pipeline.html ]

= = = =

MORE INFO:

ENERGY EAST - Council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/energyeast ]

[Oscar]

Energy East pipeline review to include 'enhanced' public input, NEB says

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/e ... -1.3638297 ]

Pipeline proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada would carry 1.1M barrels of oil to Eastern Canada

CBC News Posted: Jun 16, 2016 9:28 AM MT Last Updated: Jun 16, 2016 11:29 AM MT

NEB director Jean-Denis Charlebois says the enhanced public input sessions in the Energy East review process will make it unlike any in Canada's history. (CBC)

The National Energy Board's hearings into the proposed Energy East pipeline will be "innovative," including many opportunities for the public to participate, officials said at a news conference in Calgary as they kicked of the formal process Thursday morning.

In addition to the regular hearings conducted by three members of the federal board, the review of TransCanada's proposed 4,500-kilometre pipeline will see other board members visit communities along the route to hear directly from members of the public, the NEB announced. The first public session will be in Saint John on August 8.

"This review will not be like any other in Canadian history," said NEB director Jean-Denis Charlebois.

The public comments and input gathered in the public sessions will be included in a report to be submitted as evidence in the formal hearing.

"The NEB is deeply committed to engaging with Canadians," Charlebois said.

The beginning of the review process represents an important milestone after three years of scientific analysis and engagement with thousands of Canadians along the route, said TransCanada's Energy East president John Soini in a release.

"We look forward to participating this fall in the panel sessions to be held by the NEB along the proposed pipeline route, while continuing to actively listen and respond to input," he said.

The Energy East review will also include a separate assessment of its possible upstream greenhouse gas emissions in addition to the direct environmental impact of the pipeline, Charlebois said.

21-month review

MORE:

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/e ... -1.3638297 ]

- - -

Related Stories

What you need to know about the Energy East pipeline - January 26, 2016
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-ea ... -1.3420595 ]

Energy East would fuel 'fuel catastrophic climate change,' says Assembly of First Nations in Quebec - June 16, 2016
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3638173 ]

NEB lacks public trust, poll suggests - May 17, 2016
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/neb-eko ... -1.3493834 ]

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

National Energy Board hearings into Energy East pipeline suspended

[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-p ... -suspended ]

By Brent Patterson | August 31, 2016

The National Energy Board has halted hearings into the controversial Energy East pipeline. The hearings were suspended while the NEB considers what to do about the scandal of its two review panel commissioners who privately met with former Quebec premier Jean Charest, a paid consultant with TransCanada, the company behind the Energy East pipeline proposal.

The Globe and Mail explains:

"Last year, the NEB decided to embark on a strategy of 'engagement,' notably in Quebec. ...The NEB, for unfathomable reasons, didn't just send out the board's chair, Peter Watson, or ordinary NEB staff. They sent out two of the three board members lined up to sit on the panel reviewing Energy East, Jacques Gauthier and Lyne Mercier. They contacted notables including Mr. Charest. ...And it was Mr. Gauthier who e-mailed, asking to come by Mr. Charest's office for a cup of coffee and a chat. ...When the National Observer website initially reported on the meeting, the NEB told its reporter that Energy East was not discussed. But it was. The NEB later apologized and admitted Energy East was part of the discussion."

- - - - SNIP - - -

There is no word when the NEB hearings will resume, though they were scheduled to be in Quebec City next (from October 3-7) and then eventually to conclude in Kingston (on December 12-16). It is believed that the hearings could resume at some point after the September 7 deadline set by the NEB to receive public comments on the issue of the recusal of the commissioners. The NEB's August 23 statement on this, in which they had indicated the Montreal hearings would proceed despite concerns, noted, "The Board will consider those submissions and establish any further steps after that date."

Beyond the demand for the commissioners to step down, we are calling on the federal government to halt the Energy East hearings until processes are developed to respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent, and a credible climate test is implemented that takes into account Canada's carbon budget as well as upstream and downstream climate emissions.

To read Council of Canadians commentary on the hearings to date, please see:

Montreal Chapter joins Energy East protest, succeeds in cancelling day's hearings (August 29, 2016 blog by Rachel Small)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/montreal-chap ... s-hearings ]

5 things I learned at the NEB hearings in New Brunswick (August 26, 2016 blog by Robin Tress)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/5-things-i-le ... -brunswick ]

1000 fishermen are thrown overboard by the NEB on Day #1 Energy East hearing (August 12, 2016 blog by Mark D'Arcy)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/1000-fisherme ... st-hearing ]

NEB Energy East hearings start in Saint John (August 8, 2016 blog by Angela Giles)
[ http://canadians.org/blog/neb-energy-ea ... saint-john ]

- - - - -

Brent Patterson is the Political Director at the Council of Canadians. He works with the Council's chairperson Maude Barlow, its campaigners, organizers and chapters across the country on trade, energy, water, and health care issues. The Council has political staff in Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Halifax, Delhi, Cape Town and Mexico City. You can follow Brent on Twitter @CBrentPatterson.