(TransCanada’s Patrick Lacroix and Steve Morck take questions from Sackville Town Council, February 6, 2017)
The setting is dramatic. Sackville and the surrounding Tantramar Marshes area are among the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change in New Brunswick, merging towards the Bay of Fundy to form one of the largest tidal salt marshes on the Atlantic coast of North America.
And the stakes are high. The Town Council of Sackville is only a week away (Tuesday, Feb. 14th @ 7:00pm) from voting on an important resolution based on climate change to officially oppose the proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline. And TransCanada is ready to take the podium and present their side of the Energy East project.
TransCanada has flown in 3 people (from Montreal, Toronto and Calgary) to join their lead person for community relations in New Brunswick. With 340 municipalities, the l’Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) of 41,000 farmers, and the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake that officially oppose Energy East in neighbouring Quebec, it seems as if TransCanada fears that New Brunswick’s public opposition to the tar sands pipeline is poised to become widespread.
Sackville Councillors, residents and Mount Allison University students were about to hear first-hand the reason why TransCanada aggressively avoids public meetings. Fortunately I was allowed to videotape the entire exchange between TransCanada’s Patrick Lacroix, TransCanada’s Steve Morck, and the Sackville Town Council. I anticipate that the Sackville Councillors & Mayor, the general public, as well as the Mayor of Edmundston, Mr. Cyrille Simard, and their Councillors, will feel very deceived and upset when they read through the following long list of alternative facts (in RED) delivered by TransCanada:
FACT #1 – THE CITY OF EDMUNDSTON, N.B. HAS NOT TAKEN A YES OR NO POSITION ON ENERGY EAST, AND IS ACTIVELY GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PROCESS WITH THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD AS AN INTERVENOR
ALTERNATIVE FACT (repeated twice): The City of Edmundston supports Energy East.
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “The Town of Edmundston supports Energy East. They continue to have concern with the route. We are committed to continuing to work with them on that. But they are supportive of the project.”
(NOTE: This is a very misleading statement by Patrick Lacroix since he was present for the Feb. 11, 2016 public information meeting on Energy East held by the City of Edmundston. Mayor Cyrille Simard made it clear that they were not taking a position on the pipeline but rather sharing their concerns with the public about how the current pipeline route proposed by TransCanada could impact their sole drinking water supply as well as that of Madawaska First Nation.
On April 26, 2016, the City of Edmundston adopted Resolution 2016-026 against any and all pipeline routes that go through the Iroquois watershed in its entirety. On August 15, 2016, Mayor Simard repeated these concerns in his presentation to the National Energy Board’s Panel Session in Fredericton, even releasing their presentation in a Press Release and on their municipal website. As the New Brunswick Manager of Stakeholder Relations for Energy East, Patrick Lacroix would be well aware of all of these developments, and that, to date, the City had not made any change to their position on Energy East.)
FACT #2: TAR SANDS BITUMEN SINKS IN WATER & AGGRESSIVELY STICKS TO THE BOTTOM SURFACE MAKING CLEANUP DIFFICULT, EXPENSIVE, & IMPOSSIBLE TO FULLY RESTORE THE ECOSYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE FACT: Bitumen does not sink in water.
(Steve Morck) “There’s a little bit of myth that goes on about dilbit and what’s it like in the pipeline and the suggestion that it sinks.” “This is a bottle with dilbit in it. I will explain this in a minute or so. You can see how it floats so you can pass it around and look at it .” “It’s a light end oil so when we blend it with the bitumen we actually get a very flowable, lighter-than-water oil, which is similar to some of the oils that are already imported into Canada. So you can turn over the bottle itself. You can turn it over and it floats back up.”
(Councillor Bruce Phinney examines glass bottle containing water and diluted bitumen, Sackville Town Council, Feb. 6, 2017)
FACT #3: TRANSCANADA HAS THE WORST PIPELINE SAFETY RECORD IN CANADA, WITH 17 FULL-BORE RUPTURES SINCE 1992.
ALTERNATIVE FACT: TransCanada has a very safe pipeline record.
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “The safety record of the pipeline industry is very strong.”
(TC’s Steve Morck) “Typically, pipeline-related leaks and spills are quite small….. “
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “We are also in the liquid pipeline business and a lot of people hear about Keystone XL but there’s the original Keystone that links Alberta’s Hardisty to the U.S. And that pipeline has been in business for over 5 years now and has safely delivered over 1.4 billion barrels of Canadian crude to the U.S. market.”
(TransCanada’s Presentation Slide) The “Control Centre Operations” located in Calgary, Alberta “Detects small leaks and shuts down pipeline within minutes”
FACT #4: TRANSCANADA HAS A HISTORY OF UNDER-REPORTING AND HIDING LARGE PIPELINE SPILLS
ALTERNATIVE FACT: TransCanada’s leaks and spills are quite small when they occur. All leaks and spills are reported.
(TC’s Steve Morck) “Typically, pipeline-related leaks and spills are quite small when they have occurred. If we look at, for example, at our Keystone [1] pipeline, we had a number of them in the first operating phase. And they were largely confined to the existing pump stations which are all designed to be captured. And so because there were some fittings and valves and assemblies in those pump stations, there was one area that had an issue and it was resolved in those leaks. The leaks were actually quite small. I don’t have the exact numbers but I think they were a 100 litres or less, typically. And some were even smaller than that; they were small leaks. In our reporting process, we report them all, so that’s why you can see them all when you search for those.”
FACT #5 – TRANSCANADA HAS A $1 BILLION CAP ON LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR SPILL IN A WATERWAY OR THE BAY OF FUNDY
ALTERNATIVE FACT: TransCanada is liable for the full cost of any cleanup and compensation.
(TC’s Steve Morck) “TransCanada is fully accountable, and they’re also on the hook to pay for all the costs if there is an incident.”
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “Steve mentioned that we are 100% responsible for any incident.”
FACT #6 – ENERGY EAST WOULD BE AN EXPORT TAR SANDS PIPELINE, NECESSARY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE TAR SANDS.
ALTERNATIVE FACT: The pipeline will not lead to the expansion of the Tar Sands.
(TC’s Steve Morck) “Typically pipelines come after.” “A pipeline itself doesn’t actually directly cause expansion of oil sands. So it’s actually the other way around. So what happens, it is the consumers that create the demand and then the producers respond to that demand. And then once they are certain of their investment they are comfortable in investing in that pipeline. So we are really after-that decision effect.”
(Expected Energy East tanker traffic to U.S. ports in New Jersey, Louisiana, and Texas, in TAR SANDS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN: TRANSCANADA’S PROPOSED ENERGY EAST PIPELINE, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), July 2016)
FACT #7 – AT LEAST 80% OF THE 1.1 MILLION BARRELS/DAY COMING TO SAINT JOHN IS ALREADY UNDER COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT FOR EXPORT
ALTERNATIVE FACT: TransCanada doesn’t know how much is destined for export.
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “It really is up to world markets.” “So some is definitely destined for exportation and in markets that want more oil, so we need Canadian oil as opposed to oil from other countries but I can’t give you. Refineries would want to keep certain flexibility.”
FACT #8: IRVING WILL CONTINUE TO IMPORT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. IRVING HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT IT WILL NOT REDUCE THEIR CRUDE OIL IMPORTS IF ENERGY EAST IS BUILT.
ALTERNATIVE FACT: Energy East will reduce the imports of crude oil from foreign countries.
(TransCanada’s Presentation Slide) “We’re Not Using Our Own OIl” showing barrels of oil from Angola, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, U.S.A. and Venezuela.
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “The issue, especially in Atlantic Canada is that we are not using our own oil.” “By purchasing this oil internationally, Canadian money goes outside the country.”
(Patrick Lacroix) “Energy East is the equivalent of 1500 rail cars. And it provides Eastern refineries with an alternative to the foreign source of crude that we talked about earlier.”
We have to speak up against these and other alternative facts coming from the oil and gas industry. Indigenous and non-indigenous communities throughout this province and country must demand more from TransCanada and the National Energy Board:
Trust. Evidence. Public safety. Real maps. Community notices along the pipeline route. Public meetings.
Please come out to Sackville Town Council next Tuesday night, February 14th, @ 7:00pm to show your support for the Mount Allison University students who originally brought the Energy East issue to Sackville Town Council. They have a Facebook group Sackville, No Energy East and Event Page for more information. This resolution is important for their climate future and for our own children’s climate future.
(Mount Allison University students Will Balser, Naia Noyes-West, Mara Ostafichuk, and Claire Neufeld from Sackville, No Energy East group, Sackville Town Council, Feb. 6, 2017)
NOTES & REFERENCES:
FACT #1 – THE CITY OF EDMUNDSTON, N.B. HAS NOT TAKEN A YES OR NO POSITION ON ENERGY EAST, AND IS ACTIVELY GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PROCESS WITH THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD AS AN INTERVENOR
“Our approach is to select the most practical construction method using the least adverse effects”, answered a Energy East Pipeline Ltd. representative at the NEB Panel Session in Fredericton on August 15, 2016. The proposed pipeline route crosses 18 km of the Iroquois watershed in Quebec and New Brunswick. The aquifers of the City of Edmundston and Madawaska Maliseet First Nation are supplied by the Iroquois River and Blanchette Stream watersheds,
At the Feb. 11, 2016 public information meeting held by the City of Edmundston, the CIty’s own risk analysis calculated that the window for getting emergency equipment to a spill would be 1 hour and 15 minutes. TransCanada’s risk analysis calculated the same reaction time would be 7 hours.
“We are talking millions, if not billions, of dollars,” explained Sébastien Duguay, Environmental Coordinator for the City of Edmundston, in describing the worse-case scenario for a spill in the watershed
At the August 15, 2016 presentation to the National Energy Board’s Panel Session in Fredericton, Mayor Simard stated that Edmonston’s “unique underground source of supply does not require the presence of a water treatment plant. Should contamination occur, these aquifers would be destroyed and unusable forever after.”
“No other underground water supply sufficient for our needs exists in the municipality and no other source of water of any sort is available in the immediate future without requiring major investments for construction and operations because a water treatment plant would become necessary.”
More information can be found on Edmundston’s Resolution passed unanimously on April 26, 2016 and on Edmundston’s presentation at the August 15, 2016 NEB Panel Session
FACT #2: TAR SANDS BITUMEN SINKS IN WATER & AGGRESSIVELY STICKS TO THE BOTTOM SURFACE MAKING CLEANUP DIFFICULT, EXPENSIVE, & IMPOSSIBLE TO FULLY RESTORE THE ECOSYSTEM
The most comprehensive study of diluted bitumen to date, released in 2016 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), concludes that it substantially differs from other types of oil when spilled near or in water.
(page 90) “Given the known composition of diluted bitumen, a much greater proportion of the material released can be expected to become denser than water and/or adhere to sediments, thereby sinking and entering the bed load and sediments of riverine, wetland, and coastal environments.”
(page 100) “This weathering process begins rapidly following a release and can change the behavior of diluted bitumen in a matter of days. At the same time, the level of concern for responders and public safety associated with toxic and potentially explosive volatiles in the diluent fraction is similar as for commonly transported crude oils as these concerns are associated with properties of the diluents used.”
The hugely expensive cleanup of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan (2010) and the North Saskatchewan River (2016) disasters are clear examples where over 20% of the bitumen still remains stuck to the bottom of these fresh-water bodies. Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre stressed that the cost of a major spill in the Metropolitan Montreal region could reach $10 billion. And a 2013 consultant’s report for the BC Ministry of Environment estimated that a bitumen spill on the salt-water ocean would leave more than 50% of the volume of oil in the water, due to viscosity, sinking and submergence of the tar.
As reported by The Star Phoenix on July 26, 2016, here are some key facts from the Environment departments of Saskatchewan and Canada on how the diluted bitumen behaved in the North Saskatchewan River spill:
“Five sets of river booms are in place downstream from the spill site and are operating with “varied levels of success,” said Wes Kotyk, executive director of the Ministry of Environment’s environmental protection branch.
Environment and Climate Change Canada workers are helping monitor the situation, and have determined that oil has sunk below the water’s surface, according to spokesperson Lo Cheng.“What’s happening is the rest of the oil is mixing with the sediment — this river is fast-flowing, there’s sediment, quite a lot of sediment in this river and it’s mixing — and therefore it’s getting heavier and going towards the bottom,” Cheng told reporters.
As reported by the National Observer on August 2, 2016:
The challenges prompted the province’s Ministry of Environment on Tuesday to announce that it was “unlikely” clean up crews would ever be able to contain all of the oil from the pipeline leak.
“To be very frank, [the odds are] low,” Ash Olesen, the ministry’s manager of potash and central operations, told reporters at a media conference. “It’s unlikely we’ll recover all of it and I can’t provide an estimate as to how much.”
FACT #3: TRANSCANADA HAS THE WORST PIPELINE SAFETY RECORD IN CANADA, WITH 17 FULL-BORE RUPTURES SINCE 1992.
The 2015 analysis by Council of Canadians found that the “Pipeline rupture data produced by the National Energy Board shows that TransCanada has the worst safety record in Canada, with 17 full bore ruptures since 1992. When TransCanada’s actual rupture history in Canada is used to calculate the likelihood of Energy East failing somewhere along the 4600km pipeline route, the result is a 15 per cent chance of rupture per year.” “A catastrophic rupture could produce the largest oil spill in recent Canadian history – up to 30 million litres of diluted bitumen – in a worst case scenario.”
But it is the smaller slow leaks under the ground that also worry many landowners and communities. Current leak-detection technology allows large spills to go undetected. Pipeline spills that cause a pressure drop of less than 1.5% of daily volume cannot be detected. This is a huge amount of volume for the proposed 42-inch diameter Energy East pipeline that would carry 1.1 million barrels every day. A 2015 independent study commissioned by the MRC d’Autray, a municipal region in Quebec, found that Energy East leaks as large as 2.6 million litres per day, for a period of up to two weeks, could go undetected.
FACT #4: TRANSCANADA HAS A HISTORY OF UNDER-REPORTING AND HIDING LARGE PIPELINE SPILLS
In their presentation and answers to Sackville Town Council, TransCanada officials downplayed the spills and leaks which the company experienced with their new tar sands bitumen pipeline in the United States, Keystone 1. In the investigative reporting by DeSmogBlog published April 30, 2015, “TransCanada Keystone 1 Pipeline Suffered Major Corrosion Only Two Years In Operation, 95% Worn In One Spot”:
Only after DeSmogBlog made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to PHMSA in August 2013 — which the agency partially responded to this April — was the information revealing the pipeline had deeply corroded in multiple spots exposed. The documents also disclosed a plan to check for a possible spill where the corrosion was detected.
However, documents explaining what caused the corrosion and findings concerning a possible spill were not included in response to DeSmogBlog’s request. According to PHMSA spokesman Damon Hill, documents that might impact an ongoing compliance review the agency is conducting of TransCanada were withheld.
In their presentation and answers to Sackville Town Council, TransCanada officials failed to mention that the Keystone 1 pipeline had a spill of 25, 740 litres (162 barrels), instead stressing other spills that “were a 100 litres of less, typically”.
A 2011 draft report by the NEB on the incident criticized TransCanada-owned subsidiary NOVA Gas Transmission for “inadequate” field inspections and “ineffective” management. The report further revealed that “the section of the pipeline that burst in 2009 was 95 per cent corroded.
A massive explosion in 2009 of a TransCanada natural gas pipeline in Northern Alberta, and incident report that found it was caused by 75% pipeline corrosion, only came to light several years later after an Access to Information request was filed by the CBC. This failure to report is summarized in Countering Energy East Pipeline Spin: Talking points (Council of Canadians, 2014):
The National Energy Board failed to report a massive explosion in a natural gas pipeline owned by TransCanada in 2009. The explosion sent 50-metre-tall flames in the air and destroyed a two-hectare site in Northern Alberta on Dene Tha’ First Nation land. A 2011 draft report by the NEB on the incident criticized TransCanada-owned subsidiary NOVA Gas Transmission for “inadequate” field inspections and “ineffective” management. The report further revealed that “the section of the pipeline that burst in 2009 was 95 per cent corroded. TransCanada’s own rules required that it physically inspect a pipeline when it reached 75 per cent corrosion.” Conveniently for TransCanada, the failure to post this report – which the NEB deemed to be an “administrative error” – coincided with the environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S that included TransCanada’s negotiation of U.S. safety requests on pipeline construction, operation and design. The report only came to the public’s attention thanks to a CBC Access to Information request and report.
And two reports from the Transportation Safety Board highlight serious accidents involving TransCanada pipelines in Canada:
The October 17, 2013 rupture of the Buffalo Creek West Section near Fort McMurray in Northern Alberta. An estimated 16.5 million cubic metres of natural gas was released (equivalent to 10.4 million barrels). The 36 inch diameter pipeline was less than five years old. The rupture was the result of critical mistakes made by TransCanada and its contractor.
The January 25, 2014 rupture and explosion of the Emerson lateral line (from TransCanada’s Mainline natural gas pipeline) in Otterburne, Manitoba. The 30-inch pipeline was 54 years old. The explosion sent flames hundreds of metre into the air and created an intense fireball that could be felt a kilometre away. The natural gas burned for approximately 12 hours. See also the CBC report on this accident, entitled ‘Manitoba pipeline explosion raises pipeline safety questions’.
FACT #5 – TRANSCANADA HAS A $1 BILLION CAP ON LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR SPILL IN A WATERWAY OR THE BAY OF FUNDY
The big concern about who will pay for cleanup and compensation is justified. Under the amended Pipeline Safety Act, which came into force on June 19, 2016, the pipeline company is only liable for costs and damages of a spill up to $1 billion. This leaves a big question mark about who will pay cleanup costs for municipalities and compensation for lost fishery and tourism jobs in water bodies such as the Bay of Fundy. A tar sands bitumen spill is very difficult and expensive to clean up. The Mayor of Edmundston, Cyrille Simard, and the Mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, have publicly stated that the cost of a major spill in their watersheds could reach several billion and ten billion, respectively.
And the complex structure of shell companies for this project should also raise a big red flag for municipalities, homeowners, and workers in the fishery and tourism industry. TransCanada PipeLines Limited and Irving Oil Company Limited will built the pipeline, tank farm, and marine terminal, but this infrastructure will be owned by different companies, both of which are limited partnership companies. It was this same type of limited liability structure that companies attempted to use to shield them from damages and lawsuits with the Lac Megantic oil train disaster.
(Flowchart is included in the 8-page document entitled ‘Consolidated Application.Volume 3: Commercial. 4.0 FINANCING’ from Energy East Pipeline Ltd.’ that was submitted in May 2016 to the National Energy Board.)
FACT #6 – ENERGY EAST WOULD BE AN EXPORT TAR SANDS PIPELINE, NECESSARY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE TAR SANDS.
The math is simple. When you add up the total volume of proposed tanker traffic from the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick, it is over 80% of the proposed volume coming from the Energy East pipeline. Here are the numbers from TransCanada’s application to the National Energy Board:
TransCanada has proposed using 70 Aframax, 175 Suezmax, and 36 Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) per year. The total capacity of this many oil tankers carrying tar sands bitumen and crude oil is 328 million barrels per year, which is over 81% of the total volume of the pipeline.
TOTAL # BARRELS DELIVERED EACH YEAR TO SAINT JOHN
= 1.1 million barrels of bitumen & crude oil/day X 365 days
= 401.5 million barrels of bitumen & crude/year
TOTAL # BARRELS EXPORTED IN TANKERS FROM SAINT JOHN
= 70 Aframax + 175 Suezmax + 36 Very Large Crude Carrier = 281 tankers/year
– 70 Aframax Tankers (carry 700,000 barrels) = 49,000,000 barrels/year
– 175 Suezmax Tankers (carry 1.2 million barrels) = 210,000,000 barrels/year
– 36 Very Large Crude Carrier (carry 1.92 million barrels) = 69,120,000 barrels/year
= 328,120,000 barrels of bitumen & crude exported/year
TOTAL % OF BARRELS EXPORTED
= 328,120,000 barrels of bitumen & crude exported/year DIVIDED BY 401.5 million barrels of bitumen & crude/year
= 81.7% of barrels exported
In their July 2016 tanker traffic analysis of the proposed Energy East, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reported that the tanker traffic would go to U.S. ports in New Jersey, Louisiana, and Texas.
The proposed Energy East pipeline will carry some conventional oil, but it is primarily an export tar sands pipeline. The Pembina Institute report, Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline, concluded Energy East would help spur 650,000 to 750,000 barrels per day of new tar sands production. Energy East is proposed to be in operation for at least 40 years so that would put more pressure against scaling back the Alberta Tar Sands in order to meet Canada’s climate change emissions targets under the Paris Agreement.
The Alberta Government has been very consistent that it requires pipelines such as Keystone XL, Energy East, and TransMountain to get their tar sands and oil resources to “tidewater”. According to Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert in the Financial Times on September 13, 2011, “Alberta could be producing 4m to 5m barrels a day (b/d) from the oil sands and other fields (…) but it needs more pipeline capacity to export to the US and world markets”. And as reported about Alberta Premier Rachel Notley in the Calgary Herald on November 6, 2015, ‘She said building pipelines to enable the export of Alberta oil should be a national priority. “We’re not just talking about Alberta’s economic future here,” Notley said. “We’re talking very much about the future opportunities for growth for the whole country.”
FACT #7 – AT LEAST 80% OF THE 1.1 MILLION BARRELS/DAY COMING TO SAINT JOHN IS ALREADY UNDER COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT FOR EXPORT
TransCanada has already entered into commercial agreements for the majority of pipeline shipments in the proposed Energy East. As documented above in their application to the National Energy Board, at least 80% of the 1.1 million barrels/day is destined for export via tankers. According to TransCanada at the Sackville Town Council meeting, Irving Oil has agreed to pay for 4.5 % of the 1.1 million barrels/day:
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “They subscribe a minimum of 50,000 barrels per day on the project.” “The way the pipeline works is that it needs to be commercially backed by shippers and it is a “take-or-pay” systems in order for us to build the project and get the financing to do it we need these commercial guarantees. So they have committed 50,000 barrels a day.
(TC’s Patrick Lacroix) “I mentioned it is commercially backed by shippers that have signed contracts with the company.”
FACT #8: IRVING WILL CONTINUE TO IMPORT FROM SAUDI ARABIA. IRVING HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT IT WILL NOT REDUCE THEIR CRUDE OIL IMPORTS IF ENERGY EAST IS BUILT.
As reported by the Financial Post on April 12, 2016, the President of Irving OIl confirms that their refinery in Saint John will probably keep importing Saudi crude oil even if Energy East is built:
Irving Oil, based in Saint John, N.B., runs Canada’s largest oil refinery. It processes about 320,000 barrels a day, including a third imported from Saudi Arabia, a third imported from the U.S., and the rest shipped by rail from Western Canada or elsewhere.
But Whitcomb said his refinery would continue to purchase foreign oil even if Energy East goes ahead because it wants access to diverse suppliers.
Imports from Saudi Arabia, which started when the refinery opened in 1960, are compelling because of the low cost of transportation on large tankers, he said.“We will add Western Canadian crude to our portfolio as the economics dictate, but probably not at the expense of our Saudi barrels,” he said.
