Editor’s note: Typo in headline fixed.
Dear EarthTalk: The proposed KeystoneXL oil pipeline from Canada into the U.S. seems to get all the headlines, but shouldn’t we also be worried about the Energy East pipeline? – Art Shea, Troy, NY
The Energy East Pipeline is a $12 billion project proposed by TransCanada Corp. that will combine existing, converted natural gas pipelines with new pipeline construction to carry oil some 2,800 miles across Canada from Alberta’s tar sands fields to export terminals in Quebec and New Brunswick. Unlike TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline proposal, which aims to transport oil from Alberta to Nebraska, Energy East would not directly cross into the U.S. But environmentalists on both sides of the border are concerned since Energy East would transport 1.1 million barrels of tar sands oil a day—25 percent more than Keystone XL—and will be the longest oil pipeline on the continent.
Just as Keystone XL has been shrouded in controversy and debate in the U.S., Energy East faces fierce opposition in Canada, where groups like Environmental Defence and the Council of Canadians believe the pipeline threatens both sensitive ecosystems and populated areas with the risk of a spill. According to the report Liquid Pipeline: Extreme Energy’s Threat to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, by Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians, Energy East would cross the northern end of the Great Lakes, including the St. Lawrence River Basin watershed, threatening many water systems along the way.
“In its preliminary project description filed with the National Energy Board in March 2014, TransCanada outlined details about its plans to build a port in Cacouna, Quebec, just north of Rivière-de-Loup on the St. Lawrence River,” the report states. “Local residents are very concerned that any accidents involving either the pipeline or marine shipments along this route would put the already endangered beluga whale population at greater risk.”
For its part, TransCanada says that it “understands the important role all aquifers, rivers and lakes play in maintaining sensitive and vital ecosystems across Canada,” but asserts that “pipelines remain the safest, most efficient and most environmentally friendly mode of transporting energy across the continent.” Before the Energy East pipeline goes into service, TransCanada plans to clean and thoroughly inspect the converted section of the pipeline. The company has also promised to avoid crossings of important water bodies to minimize disturbances of sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Highly-trained technical staff in TransCanada’s control center would monitor the pipeline 24/7.
While construction and maintenance of the Energy East pipeline would create some 14,000 jobs during its first seven years while providing upwards of $7.6 billion in tax revenue to pay for schools, roads and other public services across Canada, many Canadians remain concerned that a spill could threaten or destroy their livelihoods.
Regardless of these concerns, TransCanada is currently working to get final regulatory approval from Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) to start work on Energy East and hopes to have construction completed by the end of 2018. Environmentalists are still holding out hope that NEB will reject Energy East on environmental and/or socio-economic grounds, and continues to drum up support across Canada and beyond for shelving the beleaguered pipeline.
CONTACTS: Energy East Pipeline, www.energyeastpipeline.com; Environmental Defence, www.environmentaldefence.ca; Council of Canadians, www.canadians.org.
EarthTalk® is produced by Doug Moss & Roddy Scheer and is a registered trademark of Earth Action Network Inc. View past columns at: www.earthtalk.org. Or e-mail us your question: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Trans Canada East is a pipeline makes huge sense for Canada. We would be using Canadian oil instead of importing more expensive foreign oil for the eastern part of Canada . We can eliminate the shipping by rail.Look there are millions of miles of oil and natural gas pipelines throughout North America. What makes you think Canadian engineers can’t build a safe modern pipeline . There have been huge advancements in pipeline technology that would be Incorporated into this pipeline.Plus this gives Canada export possibilities off the east coast. Why should Canada import oil when we already have it ? It would mean cheaper gas for consumers in Quebec and Maritimes. Plus jobs to build it for Canadians. The world runs on fossil fuels all that solar and windpower is minor compared to fossil fuel power generation .Plus those green energy solar and wind projects need on demand power backup from guess what fossil fuels . We are fortunate we have hydro power in Canada and would like to see more but don’t think solar or wind power will replace fossil fuels . We would be nuts not to build Energy East pipeline.
Why are you folks so hell bent on not letting Canada develop it resources ?? Why don’t you go after California’s oil which is more dirty than the tar sands, how about trying to stop oil from the middle east. Canada is your friendly neighbor’s to the north. or would you rather continue to support bloody oil from the middle east. take this propaganda and shove it.
It’s funny to read articles referring to the oil sands as “tar sands”. A slander created by those opposed to the oil extracted from the region. Likewise, the article fails to cite the added refinery and production benefits of the project on the East coast. Finally, it would be great to reference Canada’s goal of curtailing oil imports in Eastern Canada , this being due to having no direct link to the abundant supply of oil available in the West of the country. Somewhat more of a national energy independence issue than simply an environmental concern.
“Energy East Pipeline is worst than Keystone pipeline”
Go back to school, you idiot.
Well maybe you prefer shipping oil by rail, that has proved to be very safe ,uhhuh, uhhuh !
“Is worst”?
Is this accepted internet English like “it suck”?
You wankers can’t even spell!
Your headline should read “worse” instead of “worst”. C’mon people !!
I have to agree with many of these posters in the comment section. California has dirtier oil. Period.
The Athabasca Oil Sands is negatively labelled Tar. Once someone says Tar Sands, I immediatley stop listening and recognize you as an extremist.
I suggest the author research the discount the Americans get Canadian oil, vs the Brent crude price eastern Canada is levied with.
Also I ask what is worse, steaming the resivior to get the bitumen up the well, or Fracking the ground with toxic chemicals.
But I assume this author thinks the majority of Canada’s Oil is open pit mining.
Good point!