Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

Energy East pipeline would be for export, not local refining

March 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Energy East pipeline would be for export, not local refining — Most of the oil from the proposed Energy East pipeline would be destined for export, says a new report

by Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press

CALGARY – The proposed Energy East pipeline won’t be the boon to Eastern Canadian refineries that supporters claim because the vast majority of the oil in it would be bound for export markets, environmental groups argued in a report released Tuesday.

Alberta bitumen bound for India Europe

The $12-billion project would likely use the lion’s share of its 1.1 million barrel per day capacity to send unrefined oilsands crude to markets like India, Europe and possibly the United States, says the report, penned by The Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence and Equiterre.

The pipeline would run 4,600 kilometres from Alberta to Saint John, N.B., using repurposed pipe already in the ground for roughly two thirds of the way.

The company planning to build it, TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP), aims to file a formal regulatory application this summer and has been engaging with communities along the route in an effort to build support.

Backers in industry and government have said Energy East will help ailing refineries in the East — reliant on high-cost crude from abroad — by connecting them with a stable, low-cost supply from Western Canada. The proposal also includes export terminals in Quebec and Saint John, N.B., from which some of oil can be sent overseas by tanker, getting producers a better price.

Only 122,000 barrels a day to local refineries

The report Tuesday said the three refineries along the Energy East route — Suncor Energy’s (TSX:SU) in Montreal, Valero’s near Quebec City and Irving’s in Saint John, N.B., — have a combined capacity of 672,000 barrels per day.

Of that, the groups figure 550,000 barrels per day can come from elsewhere — offshore crude in Atlantic Canada, booming U.S. shale resources and, eventually, via Enbridge Inc.’s (TSX:ENB) recently approved reversed Line 9 pipeline between southwestern Ontario and Montreal. That leaves just 122,000 barrels per day of refining capacity that can be served by Energy East, the report said.

“It’s very frustrating to watch a company trying to convince Canadians that they should accept these massive risks based on some perceived benefit that they may receive. When you dig into it, you find that it’s an empty promise,” said Adam Scott, with Environmental Defence.

[quote]It’s just not true that Eastern Canada’s going to benefit in the way that TransCanada’s saying they are. And when you look and see that this is a project about putting vast quantities of oil onto tankers and shipping them out of the country, people who are convinced that ‘this is going to mean more local jobs for me’ are going to be very disappointed.[/quote]

TransCanada makes big economic promises

TransCanada has said the project’s economic benefits would be massive and has described it as a nation builder on par with the Canadian Pacific Railway.

A study TransCanada commissioned last September, conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, noted Quebec and New Brunswick refiners would see big cost savings if connected with lower-cost western crude.

On a 100,000 barrel per day basis, Quebec refineries would save between $92 million and $336 million per year, while in New Brunswick the annual savings would be between $51 million and $377 million, the Deloitte report said. That’s assuming those refineries continue to use mostly light oil.

Suncor has been considering adding equipment to its Montreal refinery that would enable it to process heavier crudes, while the Irving refinery in Saint John, N.B., has the ability to process some heavy crude.

Deloitte report predicts 1,000 direct long-term jobs

The Deloitte report predicted the equivalent of 10,071 direct full-time equivalent jobs across the country will be needed to develop and build Energy East until 2018. Once the pipeline is up and running, Deloitte sees the creation of 1,081 direct jobs.

The study also found the project would add about $35.3 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product in the development and construction phase and over the 40-year life of the project. As well, it’s expected to add $10.2 billion in tax revenues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels the over that time.

Those economic figures don’t include the impact of higher Canadian crude prices that would result from being able to sell the product in lucrative overseas markets. Nor does it incorporate the lower crude costs eastern refineries may enjoy.

Follow @LaurenKrugel on Twitter

Democrats’ election-year debate over Keystone XL pipeline

March 15, 2014Canadian Press, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

U.S. Senators from the Senate Climate Action Task Force urge action on climate change in Washington (Photo: Yuri Gripas, Reuters).

by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Democrats are grappling with an election-year dilemma posed by the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Wealthy party donors are funding candidates who oppose the project — a high-profile symbol of the political debate over climate change. But some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents are pipeline boosters, and whether Democrats retain control of the Senate after the 2014 midterm elections may hinge on them.

The dilemma was highlighted Thursday as President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser — and now a consultant to the oil industry — said Obama should approve the pipeline to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a message that “international bullies” can’t use energy security as a weapon.

$100 million towards making climate change an election issue

The comments by retired Gen. James Jones came as a top Democratic donor again urged that the pipeline be rejected.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist, has vowed to spend $100 million —$50 million of his own money and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the 2014 elections.

Steyer, who opposes Keystone, declined to say whether he would contribute to Democrats who support the pipeline, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana. All face strong challenges from Republicans in energy-producing states where Obama lost to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Still, a spokesman said Steyer believes Democratic control of the Senate is important from a climate perspective.

Approving pipeline would send message to Putin

Jones told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Canada-to-Texas pipeline is a litmus test of whether the U.S. is serious about national and global energy security. Approval of the pipeline would help ensure that North America becomes a global energy hub and a reliable energy source to the U.S and its allies, Jones said. Rejecting the pipeline would “make Mr. Putin’s day and strengthen his hand,” he said.

Jones, who left the Obama administration in 2010, now heads a consulting firm that has done work for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s chief trade group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups support the pipeline.

Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the pipeline issue Thursday at an appropriations hearing. Landrieu called approval of the pipeline “critical” to the national interest and said that in Louisiana, “it’s hard for us to even understand why there is a question” whether it should be approved. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.

Kerry told Landrieu he was “not at liberty to go into my thinking at this point,” but added: “I am approaching this, you know, tabula rasa. I’m going to look at all the arguments, both sides, all sides, whatever, evaluate them and make the best judgment I can about what is in the national interest.”

Steyer battles public opinion on pipeline

Polls show Americans support the pipeline, with 65 per cent saying they approved of it in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Twenty-two per cent of those polled opposed the pipeline.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, spent more than $10 million to help elect Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., last year. In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Steyer declined to comment on where his advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, would spend money this fall. But he noted the views of Landrieu and other endangered Democratic incumbents were well known.

“I think those senators voted on this long before 2014,” he said, “so I don’t think there’s any real change here.”

Steyer hosted a fundraiser last month at his San Francisco home attended by at least six Democratic senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The event, which raised $400,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also was attended by former Vice-President Al Gore, who said the party needs to make global warming a central issue in the midterm elections.

Democrats’ control of the Senate

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who advises Steyer, has said the group would not go after Democrats, even those who support the pipeline.

“We’re certainly not subscribing to what I would call the tea party theory of politics,” Lehane said. “We do think it’s really, really important from a climate perspective that we maintain control of the Senate for Democrats.”

Steyer said Thursday he has not decided whether to spend money in Colorado, where Democratic Sen. Mark Udall is likely to be challenged by GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. Udall was among more than 30 Democratic senators who engaged in a talkathon urging action on climate change this week, but he has largely stayed out of the Keystone fight. Udall voted against budget amendments urging both support and rejection of the pipeline, arguing that they injected politics into a process that should remain at the State Department.

Udall wants to evaluate the project “on the merits and using objective, scientific analysis,” said spokesman Mike Saccone.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said he hoped Thursday’s hearing would offer “a balanced, thoughtful” approach that “puts aside some of the politics that have surrounded this debate” over the pipeline.

“We are here to find answers and shed more light than heat on the issue,” Menendez said, although the hearing soon devolved into a series of claims and counterclaims.

The $5.3 billion pipeline would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada through the U.S. heartland to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

EPA report helps pipeline

Pipeline supporters, including lawmakers from both parties and many business and labour groups, say the project would create thousands of jobs and reduce the need for oil imports from Venezuela and other politically turbulent countries.

Opponents say the pipeline would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about possible spills.

The State Department said in a Jan. 31 report that building the pipeline would not significantly boost carbon emissions because the oil was likely to find its way to market no matter what. Transporting the oil by rail or truck would cause greater environmental problems than the pipeline, the report said.

Energy Board approves Enbridge Line 9 reversal

March 6, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

The National Energy Board has approved energy giant Enbridge’s plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of a pipeline that has been running between southern Ontario and Montreal for years.

The green light for the Calgary-based company is subject to certain conditions and requirements.

A statement from the National Energy Board says “the board’s conditions require Enbridge to undertake activities regarding pipeline integrity, emergency response, and continued consultation.”

Enbridge will also have to submit a plan to manage cracking features in the pipeline, and manage water crossings.

The board says that with these conditions in place, the project will be “safe and environmentally sensitive.”

Pipeline hearings saw heated protest

The decision on the controversial Line 9 comes some four months after the federal regulator held public hearings on Enbridge’s proposal.

During those sessions, a three-member panel heard from a wide range of parties including First Nations, environmental groups, private citizens and representatives from municipal and provincial governments.

Enbridge’s own final submissions were delivered in writing after the board cancelled its final day of Toronto hearings over security concerns stemming from a planned protest.

300,000 barrels flowing East

Line 9 originally shuttled oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal, but was reversed in the late 1990s in response to market conditions to pump imported crude westward. Enbridge now wants to flow oil back eastwards to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

It plans to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day through the line, up from the current 240,000 barrels, with no increase in pressure.

Opponents — some of whom have staged protests and held sit-ins at pumping stations — argue the Line 9 plan puts communities at risk, threatens water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.

Critics disappointed, not surprised

Officials at Greenpeace Canada said they were disappointed, but not surprised, by today’s decision. Said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s energy campaign co-ordinator:

[quote]This decision is no surprise, given how the federal government and the oil industry have rewritten our environmental laws to fast track the approvals of tarsands pipelines. These drastic changes barred thousands of Canadians from participating in decisions that will affect their air, water and health for decades to come and banned any consideration of the climate change impacts of this project.[/quote]

Critics also worry that Enbridge will run what they claim is a more corrosive product through the 831-kilometre-long line — a move which they claim will stress the aging infrastructure and increase the chance of a leak.

Enbridge has insisted that safety is its top priority and has characterized the scope of the reversal as “actually very, very small.”

Previous bitumen spills erode confidence in Enbridge

It has said a reversed Line 9 will not be transporting a raw oilsands product, although there will be a mix of light crude and processed bitumen.

It has stressed, though, that the products that will flow through the line will not erode it.

The company has also said the refineries it supplies can currently only take a small portion of heavy crude and would have to invest significantly in infrastructure to take more.

Despite the company’s assurances, Line 9’s opponents have often pointed to an Enbridge spill in Michigan, which leaked 20,000 barrels of crude into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. There are concerns the same thing could happen in Ontario or Quebec in the future.

Some opponents have also suggested the Line 9 reversal is ultimately so Enbridge can transport oil to the Atlantic coast for export — something the company denies.

A portion of the line has already received approval for reversal and has been sending oil from Sarnia to North Westover, Ont. — about 30 kilometres northwest of Hamilton — since August.

Northern Gateway: The unlikely pipeline

March 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRay Grigg

Northern Gateway-The unlikely pipeline — The 3-member panel for the Northern Gateway pipeline overruled 98% opposition to the proposal

The approval of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline by the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) landed with a dismal and predictable thud. It is a view that needs to be reviewed, an assessment that needs to be reassessed, a decision that still needs multiple other decisions. “After weighing the evidence,” the JRP announced with an unconvincing finality, “we concluded that Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Northern Gateway Project than without it.”

[quote]Of 1,179 oral submissions, 1,159 were opposed to the pipeline and the resulting supertankers.[/quote]

98% opposition ignored

The pronouncement is filled with ambiguities, uncertainties and deficiencies. What evidence was weighed that supported the JRP’s conclusion? Of 1,179 oral submissions, 1,159 were opposed to the pipeline and the resulting supertankers. As noted by Stephen Hume in The Vancouver Sun, “Scientists and environmentalists who wanted to address the hearings were excluded from the process by NEB fiat.” The hearings did not consider “upstream” or “downstream” effects, except as economic factors — but even these were only conjectural or “likely”.

As for being beneficial to “Canada”, it is a land mass, a geographical territory endowed with natural features that don’t need scarring by pipelines, inevitable oil spills, threats to species and ecologies, wholesale removal of a non-renewable resource, massive environmental trauma from the tar sands development, not to mention additional greenhouse gases that are exacerbating climate change.

“National Interest”

As for the benefit of the Northern Gateway pipeline to “Canadians”, this is both conjectural and questionable. The evolution of Canadians toward oil as their single, dominant, economic driver moves us toward the status of a petro-state with all the accompanying financial instabilities, budgetary uncertainties and democratic corrosion.

Although the JRP finds that “the project, if constructed, would likely deliver economic benefits by expanding and diversifying the markets available for western Canadian crude oil exports”, it also acknowledges that it is “difficult to determine, with certainty, the effect the Northern Gateway Project may have on broader market prices once it is placed in service…”. In other words, the addition of Alberta dilbit to the international market may lower the price of oil, reduce Canadian royalties, and challenge the viability of the pipeline itself.

Enbridge could leave Canadians paying more for their own oil

Alternately, “new pipelines connecting producing regions with consuming regions change market dynamics in ways that cannot easily be predicted”, so “if constructed, the project would significantly expand and diversify the market options for western Canadian crude oil supply which would contribute to the realization of full market value pricing over the long term.” This translates to mean that Canadians could pay more for their own oil.

Canada alienating itself from global community

All these uncertainties are compounded in a country that has no coherent energy policy, is producing dilbit by furiously burning limited supplies of natural gas, is still importing “unethical” oil for its eastern needs, and is alienating itself from a global community becoming increasingly desperate to wrestle down carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, as the world’s climate situation continues to worsens during the next decades, the pressure to reduce oil production and consumption will only intensify.

A global tax on carbon is almost inevitable, “dirty” oil from the tar sands will almost certainly be subject to increasing censure, and Canada could even be confronted with trade sanctions as it promotes a product that is deemed unacceptable by international judgment.

The dilbit wildcard

And this doesn’t even address another profoundly important environmental issue. The JRP acknowledges that no studies have been done to assess the impact of dilbit on river or marine ecologies. Nonetheless, in a leap of blind faith and an expression of amazing understatement — despite finding “there is some uncertainty regarding the behaviour of dilbit spilled in water — the Panel finds that the weight of evidence indicates that dilbit is no more likely to sink to the bottom than other heavier oils with similar physical and chemical properties.” So, uncertainty about the impact of dilbit on marine ecologies is dismissed by the Panel as inconsequential because it may not be worse than any other spill of “similar” crude.

To reassure everyone that all will be well if the Northern Gateway is built, the Panel recommends “a scientific advisory committee to study what happens to diluted bitumen when released into the environment.” Good idea. But this is essential information, required before the pipeline is approved, not after.

Besides, the Panel’s adroit use of words focuses attention on the bitumen and not the environment — surely the issue is not “what happens to the diluted bitumen” but its impact on ecologies into which it is spilled.

The JRP’s Orwellian language

But this evasive language is common in the JRP’s Report. Uncertain environmental impacts are disguised in verbal obscurity. Consider the following sentence:

[quote]The type and duration of effects would be highly variable and would depend on the type and volume of product spilled, location of the spill, exposure of living and non-living ecosystem components to the product spilled, and environmental conditions.[/quote]

This is a wonderful example of linguistic nonsense. It simply admits, that given a spill of “product” — a much more benign term than diluted bitumen — neither the Panel nor anyone else knows what will happen. Nonetheless, despite the long-term damage to Prince William Sound from the Exxon Valdez disaster more than 20 years ago, the Panel is able to conclude from no substantial information or studies “that the adverse [environmental] effects would not be permanent and widespread.”

Environmental reviews become a mere formality

Approval of the Northern Gateway by the JRP is little more than a routine formality wrapped in a symbolic gesture. Recent legislation passed by the federal government has radically altered the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act, transferring decision-making power to the federal cabinet.

Given its political, economic and environmental ideology, final approval of the Northern Gateway is inevitable. But a host of other obstructions lie between approval and completion. Building the actual pipeline is more unlikely than it seems.

Joe Clark blasts PM Harper for attacks on environmentalists

February 27, 2014Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCanadian Press

Joe Clark blasts PM Harper for attacks on environmentalists — On a US book tour, Joe Clark had some strong words from one Conservative PM to another

by Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON – Former prime minister Joe Clark says he can’t understand why the Harper government would bar the opposition from a delegation to Ukraine and suggests its combative approach to international issues sometimes hurts the country.

Speaking to a U.S. audience, Clark, who also served as foreign affairs minister, said he regularly involved opposition parties on foreign missions — and Canada benefited as a result.

He cited one example in particular: his co-operation with former NDP MP Dan Heap. Clark said the Mulroney government was on the outs with some key left-wing actors in Central America, and the Toronto New Democrat helped establish valuable connections through his NGO contacts.

“Let me tell you what we did: we involved opposition parties regularly in activities overseas. We relied on them, heavily,” Clark said.

“I do not understand why there is this exclusion of parliamentarians (in Ukraine) — if it happened.”

He made the remark when asked about reports that Canada’s main opposition parties had been refused spots in a delegation to Kyiv this week. The Conservatives called it a government trip, and added that the opposition didn’t even deserve to go after Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told a joke about Ukraine.

Clark spent an hour taking questions about his new book on foreign policy, “How We Lead.”

The book is deeply critical of what it describes as the Harper Tories’ “megaphone” approach to international affairs — in other words, plenty of loud grandstanding and not much constructive work on the ground.

Clark questions Harper’s attacks on environmentalists

He was equally critical when asked about the Keystone XL pipeline.

He said the government deserves some of the blame if the project is stalled. If the Harper government hadn’t spent a couple of years shouting at the environmental movement, he said, it might not have attracted such opposition.

Clark told the audience that the belligerence began with verbal attacks by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, and continues to this day with environmental groups having their tax status threatened.

All of that, Clark said, got noticed by U.S. environmentalists who carry some influence in the White House. Clark told the forum at the Wilson Center:

[quote]One of the real problems that I think lingers over that pipeline is, before the pipeline question arose, the Government of Canada deliberately went out of his way to be seen as an adversary of environmentalists.[/quote]

“It just seems to me to have been an unwise way to set the stage for the case that we had to make… The steepness of the hill that Canada has to climb was created, in part, by the attitude of the Government of Canada on environmental questions.”

A little praise mixed in with criticism

Clark was complimentary of the government on some fronts.

He credited Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird for his sustained effort on behalf of homosexuals being persecuted around the world.

He also applauded the prime minister for embracing a free-trade agenda that includes the signing of a potentially historic pact with the European Union, and involvement in talks toward a 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But there was plenty of criticism — just like in the book.

Canada’s ‘adolescent’ tone in foreign affairs

The book calls for a more creative approach to foreign affairs, retooled for a new age, and suggests better outreach with increasingly powerful non-state actors like NGOs.

He laments that the current government, too often, leans toward disengagement.

The book cites as one example Canada closing its Iran embassy. Clark contrasts that with the Mulroney government’s refusal to close its South African embassy in the 1980s, which he says helped it successfully fight apartheid.

“Canada now talks more than we act and our tone is almost adolescent — forceful, certain, enthusiastic, combative, full of sound and fury,” says the book.

[quote]That pattern of emphatic rhetoric at the podium, and steady withdrawal from the field, raises a basic question: What does the Harper government consider the purpose of foreign policy?[/quote]

Time for open debate on big ideas

Clark also bemoans a broader reluctance in Canada to debate big ideas.

He told his audience Thursday that, by the early 1990s, Canadians were tired of activist government following a Mulroney era marked by battles over free trade and the country’s constitutional makeup.

He drew laughs by noting that Jean Chretien promised not to do anything with the constitution — and voters rewarded him with a majority.

“The problem is that, since then, Canada has not talked about much.”

Clark was also asked about a provincial issue — the Parti Quebecois values charter.

He called the plan alarming. He said it’s even more alarming that the PQ might be winning support because of it. A Quebec election is expected this spring, and the PQ has jumped to a strong lead in the latest polls.

NEB audit exposes gaps in TransCanada’s pipeline safety

February 26, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

NEB audit exposes serious safety flaws for TransCanada — TransCanada CEO Russ Girling announces Energy East pipeline on Aug. 1 (photo: (Jeff McIntosh / CP)

CALGARY – Problems flagged in the National Energy Board’s audit of TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline safety practices should have Canadians worried, a group fighting that company’s proposed Energy East pipeline said Tuesday.

The audit report, released Monday, found TransCanada (TSX:TRP) to be non-compliant in four of nine areas it examined: hazard identification, risk assessment and control; operational control in upset or abnormal operating condition; inspection, measurement and monitoring, and management review.

“It’s a real cause for concern considering that they want to build the biggest pipeline in Canada, the Energy East pipeline. People should be very worried about that,” said Mark Calzavara, Ontario regional organizer with the Council of Canadians.

Calzavara said the NEB has tended to be “lenient” when it comes to energy companies.

[quote]When they finally do come out and say ‘hey, you’ve got to get your act together,’ it’s an indication of some very serious, serious problems.[/quote]

Energy East would involve converting a portion of TransCanada’s existing natural gas mainline between Alberta and Quebec to oil service, and then laying down new pipe all the way to Saint John, N.B. TransCanada expects to file a regulatory application for the $12-billion proposal this summer.

The NEB audit was also released against the backdrop of a long-running and intense debate over TransCanada’s Keystone XL proposal, which would send 830,000 barrels per day of mostly oilsands crude to Texas refineries.

The energy watchdog said in Monday’s report that it’s looking into whether some steel pipe and fittings need to be improved on the existing Keystone system, which started delivering crude to the U.S. Midwest in 2010. It says that investigation is ongoing.

In an emailed statement Tuesday, TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata said: “Extensive field testing of the strength of the fittings we are discussing with the NEB has confirmed that there are no safety or integrity concerns with these fittings and there is no risk to the environment or the public.”

The NEB gave the company 30 days to file a plan detailing how it will fix the problems. TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said Monday that the company has already taken action to address many of the issues.

“We share the NEB’s focus on protecting public safety and the environment,” he said. “We take our responsibilities to anticipate, prevent, mitigate and manage any and all hazards and risks associated with our operations seriously.”

TransCanada gas pipeline ruptures in Alberta

February 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

TransCanada gas pipeline breaks in Alberta — TransCanada gas pipelines

Updated 2 PM PST

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE, Alta. – The National Energy Board is investigating a natural gas pipeline rupture in west-central Alberta.

The federal regulator said the TransCanada (TSX:TRP) pipe broke Tuesday morning about 10 kilometres north of Rocky Mountain House.

It said the pipe was shut down and there were no immediate public safety concerns.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said the nearest home to the pipeline rupture is more than half a kilometre away. He said the company had been in contact with the landowner and no evacuation was required.

Howard said it was the company’s understanding that Transportation Safety Board and energy board personnel were on their way to the site to monitor TransCanada’s response.

“Before any repair or restoration of service work can occur, the (energy board) must approve the company’s plans,” he said in a release.

There was no disruption of natural gas service to the community of Rocky Mountain House, Howard added, although TransCanada was “working with some of our customers, who provide service to homes in rural areas, to assess their needs.”

Manager of the Rocky Gas Co-op, Vic Kelly, advised customers to use other fuel sources until the gas was turned back on.

There was no word on when that might happen.

A TransCanada pipeline explosion in Manitoba last month left about 3,600 homes and businesses without heat for several days in -20 C temperatures.

(CKGY, The Canadian Press)

Read: Regulator buried report on TransCanada pipeline explosion

Last chance to apply for Kinder Morgan oil pipeline hearings

February 11, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersDamien Gillis

The window for the public to apply to participate in the upcoming National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Vancouver closes Wednesday at 11 AM (PST).

The project would see close to a tripling of Alberta bitumen piped to the company’s Burnaby terminal and a dramatic increase to approximately 400 tankers a year passing through Burrard Inlet and BC’s south coast – up from just a dozen or two prior to Kinder Morgan’s purchase of the old Trans Mountain pipeline in 2005.

The public can register online prior to 11 AM (PST) Wednesday, February 12.

RCMP, CSIS spying on Enbridge opponents prompts civil liberties complaints

February 6, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints today with regards to revelations that the RCMP and CSIS have surveilled citizens, First Nations and environmental groups openly challenging the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

The complaint with respect to CSIS was filed with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) – the public watchdog overseeing CSIS – while the complaint regarding the RCMP was submitted to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Interestingly, SIRC’s own integrity was recently called into question with revelations that its head, Chuck Strahl, and a number of other directors have lobbying ties to Enbridge and the oil and gas industry.

Both complaints stem from a story in the Vancouver Observer in November, 2013, which drew on Access to Information documents detailing the security agencies’ efforts to follow and report on the activities of prominent Enbridge opponents. Some of these reports appear to have been shared with the National Energy Board reviewing the proposed pipeline.

Police, spy agency may have broken laws

One particular incident involved a town hall meeting and series of workshops held at a Kelowna church on the eve of the NEB’s Enbridge hearings in that community in February of last year. The surveillance documents track the involvement of the events’ organizers and guest speakers – including Union of BC Indian Chiefs President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and activist groups LeadNow and Dogwood Initiative (Full disclosure: I was also named in the documents as a guest speaker at the event).

“It’s against the law and the constitution for police and spy agencies to spy on the lawful activities of people who are just speaking out and getting involved in their communities,” says Josh Paterson, Executive Director of the BCCLA.

[quote]This is bigger than an environmental debate – it’s a question of fundamental human rights. There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people that they don’t agree with. That’s not supposed to happen in Canada, and when it does, it can frighten people away from expressing themselves and participating in democratic debate. [/quote]

“It’s intimidating for people to learn that they’re being spied on by their own government,” adds Ben West, of ForestEthics Advocacy, one of the groups whose activities have been monitored by CSIS and the RCMP.

“Regular people are being made to feel like they are on a list of enemies of the state, just because they are speaking out to protect their community from a threat to their health and safety or trying to do what’s right in the era of climate change.”

The BCCLA’s Patterson expects the process surrounding both complaints will take at least several months. With respect to the SIRC complaint, CSIS has 30 days to respond directly to the complaint, before it is passed on to the watchdog.

State Dept. report rumoured to bode well for Keystone XL pipeline

January 30, 2014Climate Change, Climate Science, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

by Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – Canadian officials say they’re encouraged by what they’re hearing about a long-awaited report on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline that could be released imminently by the U.S. State Department.

Those sources in Washington and Ottawa say they’ve been told the report could be ready for release within a few days — and that it will bolster the case for the controversial energy project.

“What we’re hearing is that it’s going to be positive for the project — and therefore positive for Canada,” said one diplomat in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he hadn’t seen the report himself, although he had discussed its contents with American contacts.

“The rumours certainly are that it’s very thorough and that the analysis will support the project.”

He said there was optimism amongst Canadian officials but no celebration just yet: “You’re not going to be seeing people high-fiving and toasting with champagne,” he said.

“It’s just another step (in the process).”

Canada ramps up pipeline pressure

Earlier this month, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was in Washington pleading for a decision soon. He said enough time had been lost on the project and didn’t want to see another construction season wasted.

His U.S. counterpart, John Kerry, responded that there would be no fast-tracking the process.

The actual writing of the report began in August, according to the Canadian source in D.C. With the threat of almost-certain lawsuits looming, regardless of what the final Keystone decision might be, he said he’d heard from U.S. officials that the report authors were under pressure to be especially rigorous.

“What we need is an (environmental impact statement),” he said, “that is so thoroughly done that it will stand up to litigation.”

The report is the latest environmental impact statement on the $7-billion TransCanada project to come from the State Department, which has jurisdiction because the pipeline crosses an international boundary.

Supporters say pipeline won’t significantly affect climate change

The last report, released a year ago, concluded the project would not significantly impact the rate of oilsands development or crude oil demand, nor would it pose any greater risk to the environment than other modes of transportation. President Barack Obama has since declared that he will only approve the pipeline if it can be shown that it will not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Wednesday that he expected the forthcoming report to draw the same conclusions as the last one. “There are no new facts on the ground,” Oliver said. “So you know, it’s to be expected that they would come out in the same way.”

Once that step is taken, the U.S. administration will conduct a 90-day review to determine if the project is in the national interest.

Not so fast…

Another Canadian diplomat warned against concluding that the report’s release is automatically imminent. Even if it’s slated to come in the next few days, there’s always a chance someone, somewhere, could hold up its release.

For starters, the accepted wisdom in Washington has been that the State Department document would not be released until an inspector general’s review of conflict-of-interest allegations against a consultant working on the report.

That review into the activities of contractor Environmental Resources Managament came after news that several of its consultants working on the project had also worked for TransCanada and its subsidiaries, without that previous work having been disclosed.

Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., refused to speculate on the timing or content.

“We have no certainty on the timing,” Doer said in an interview.

But he expressed faith that the Canadian position would prevail: that the pipeline would be the safest, cleanest way to ship oil that would be transported to the U.S., one way or the other.

Oil-by-rail spills used to promote pipelines

Referring to train accidents, including the tragedy in Lac-Megantic, Que., Doer said events since the last State Department review had only served to reinforce the earlier conclusion.

“We believe that the facts have, regrettably, become only stronger on oil vs. rail,” he said. “We believe that (the earlier conclusion by the State Department) will be maintained: higher cost, higher (greenhouse gases) without a pipeline.”

A State Department spokesperson wouldn’t confirm anything.

“The State Department is working on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS), addressing issues in more than 1.5 million public comments, as appropriate. There is no time line for the release of the Final SEIS,” the spokeswoman said in an email. “The Department continues to review the Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in a rigorous, transparent, and objective manner.”