ENERGY EAST DEBATE A SIGN OF THE TIMES
Environmental groups and Indigenous peoples across the country, along with most of Quebec’s municipal leaders are celebrating news that TransCanada Corp. has cancelled its Energy East pipeline project. But what was this project all about, and why was it s
Q What was the Energy East project?
A The $15.7-billion Energy East project, first announced in 2013, would have involved converting about 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada Corp.’s underused natural gas pipeline network in the Prairies and Ontario into crude oil pipelines, and adding 1,500 kilometres of new pipeline to that network. The goal was to transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta’s oilsands through Ontario to refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick. In Quebec, the pipeline would have crossed the territory of 69 municipalities — including Montreal and Laval, to bring the oil to refineries in Lévis, Quebec and Montreal’s east end.
Q Was this the project that threatened the belugas?
A Originally, the project envisioned the construction of two marine terminals, one in Cacouna, near Tadoussac, and one in Saint John, N.B., from which oil tankers would move oil not needed in Canada to foreign buyers. The terminal planned for Cacouna was nixed in late 2015, after environmentalists raised concerns over impacts on beluga whale habitat there. (In October of 2014, nearly 2,000 people from across Quebec gathered in Cacouna, a village near Rivièredu-Loup, to march against the plan). The company then cancelled the Cacouna terminal and announced plans to expand the terminal at Saint John.
Q Who was for and who was against this project?
A While politicians in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick were all for the project, the response in Quebec was overwhelmingly negative from the beginning. Some Quebec business and labour groups supported the project because it promised jobs and economic spinoffs, but a public opinion poll in 2014 showed only about onethird of Quebecers favoured the project. Quebec’s energy board warned in 2015 that the project seemed designed to serve oil shippers primarily, and recommended those companies should assume all the costs and risks associated with oil transportation. The Liberal government of Philippe Couillard had ongoing concerns about the project, while the Parti Québécois was firmly against. In the summer of 2015, Kanesetake Grand Chief Serge Simon helped found the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion, an anti-pipeline group that includes chiefs from First Nations across Canada and the U.S. in part because of Mohawk opposition to the Energy East project. Early last year, the mayors of the Montreal Metropolitan Community announced their official opposition. And last month, the Federation of Quebec Municipalities adopted a resolution unconditionally rejecting the project.
Q What were the main objections in Quebec?
A Concerns about contamination of drinking water and destruction of the environment in the event of a spill were the main concerns expressed by Indigenous leaders, environmental groups and Quebec politicians. Incumbent Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre said that even though the pipeline might bring $2 million in economic spinoffs per year, clean-up costs in the event of a spill could range from $1 billion to $10 billion. Many doubted Quebec would need more oil than what the Enbridge 9B pipeline, which can bring 300,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil a day to the two refineries in Quebec, can already provide. In fact, with global oil prices declining precipitously since 2014, and Quebec moving definitively toward electric vehicles and renewable energy generally, the need to move more oil east is doubtful.
Q How did concerns about climate change affect the project?
A The Pembina Institute, a Calgary-based, clean-energy think-tank, estimated the crude oil production needed to fill the pipeline would increase Canada’s carbon emissions by an additional 30 million to 32 million tonnes each year, “the equivalent of adding more than 7 million cars to Canada’s roads.” In August of this year, the National Energy Board announced a revamped review process for the project, which would now consider “downstream and upstream” greenhouse-gas emissions, i.e. emissions produced throughout the industrial process, including extraction, processing and handling of resources. In September, TransCanada announced it was suspending its application to build the project, hinting it might cancel the project. On Thursday, it did just that.