[Image-1]
The tar sands may be 4,600 kilometres away, but they’ll feel a lot closer should the proposed Energy East pipeline finally get built. The proposed TransCanada artery can carry over a million barrels of crude oil a day from the prairies to eastern Canada. But the cost may be too high.
TransCanada formally applied for federal approval of their $12-billion project earlier this fall. Unlike Keystone XL, which keeps getting rejected south of the border, all three federal parties in Canada (even the NDP) are behind Energy East. Opposition to the grand idea comes from smaller parties—the easily-ignored voices of farmers, First Nations communities and environmentalists who don’t have millions to spend on public relations.
A few of those voices are Stop Energy East Halifax. The grassroots organization is leveraging local voices to try and stop a far-off project. Though it begins in Alberta, Energy East will end in Saint John. In other words, it’s going to be our headache too. In New Brunswick alone, the pipeline will cross 900 waterways and watersheds, says SEEH’s Kiki Wood.
“The spill zone is huge,” she says. “It’s massive. The size of this pipeline—not only the length, but the size—puts the potential spill amount at nothing we’ve ever seen before.”
Safety records for TransCanada’s pipelines leave much to be desired. Its first Keystone line had 14 leaks in its first year of operation. The company has had three “catastrophic failures” this year alone. One of those occurred in a Manitoba line which will be used for Energy East. A million litres of crude oil could spill from Energy East in 10 minutes, Wood says.
Meanwhile, resistance groups against the project have sprung up across the country. That’s useful, considering provincial governments have buckled. Ontario and Quebec initially proposed tight constrictions to limit greenhouse gas emissions from Energy East (which one think tank projects will spew
32 million extra tonnes into Canada’s air).
But the two provinces have since lost their nerve, and claimed those restrictions are only for work in building the pipeline itself, not the “upstream emissions” that will come from the sands. New Brunswick, owned and operated by the Irvings, has obviously been even quieter.
[Image-2]
It should be noted, the oil companies are reeling right now as prices hit a five-year low. Aside from throwing the general Canadian economy into panic, that also impacts the tar sands. Bitumen is not easy or cheap to extract. Energy East will be a big investment in the tar sands’ future, but it’s unlikely much of the oil will stay in Canada. The Alberta Federation of Labour estimates one million of the pipeline’s 1.1 million daily barrels of crude are likely for export. TransCanada is planning two tanker terminals, one in Saint John, which will ship all that black gold out of the country for
refinement.
Ecologically, maybe even economically, the Energy East pipeline will likely be disastrous. Critical voices like Kiki Wood haven’t given up hope, though, that the pipeline idea will remain buried. Whether it’s built or not, debate like this around energy is exactly what Canada needs as the nation sinks further down into the oil sands.
Related Stories
Love the way we bitumen
The side of town you don’t hear about
This article appears in Dec 11-17, 2014.
Yes, maritimers should keep getting the oil they need via rail cars, or better yet, instead of paying the wages of fellow Canadians, they should send their dollars offshore and import the oil from paragons of human rights like the theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia.
$12 billion being put into the Canadian economy to build the pipelines. This doesn’t sound like an economic disaster for the Canadian workers that will build the pipeline.
Bitumen is not oil. All pipelines leak (more so 40 year old ones). Our water WILL be contaminated if this pipeline is allowed, bitumen is highly corrosive and very toxic. It will allow for further expansion of the tar sands which is Ecocide. There is no climate debate the world’s scientists all agree we must curtail the use of fossil fuels. 70% plus Canadians don’t want another pipeline!
Bitumen is not corrosive or toxic. It’s actually quite the opposite and it isn’t even flammable. It uses a diluent “like nail polish” to thin it out, so it can be transported at lower temperatures. Pipelines are the safest, most economical way of moving large volumes of liquid product.
Alright more oil to burn! Yeah bring it baby! Make it dirty! Make it cheap! Serve it to me in a caribou! one of them endangered ones! Who! This land is my land…This land is my land…
Darren, regardless of the actual toxicity of thinned-out bitumen (and come on, the stuff *is* pretty toxic, albeit just not the nerve-gas that some people make it out to be), what makes you think that pipelines are the “safest” way to transport liquid product? A lot of oil and NG pipelines I’ve seen…”access” roads or paths notwithstanding…traverse remote areas that make ready access by emergency crews and heavy equipment quite a challenge. Granted, so do many railways and side roads…but at least you’ve got the railroad or side road from either direction as an option to approach the spill scene close up. Not to mention, if you transport by railcar or truck, the amount that spills cannot exceed the volume carried by the number of tanker cars or trucks involved…typically one to several. Whereas, with a pipeline, over what intervals do you think they have shutoff valves? There is this (http://blog.transcanada.com/ten-safety-fea…), and in fact there’s no reason to believe that companies don’t do this stuff: after all, they are no more desirous of a spill than anyone else. But if you’re crossing terrain where you have wetlands and streams all over the place – think Eastern Canada – how many valves do you think they are really going to put in? So the amount of potential spill is in fact greater.