Following a successful townhall in Winnipeg last night attended by over 200 res
idents, Maude Barlow, Brigette DePape and I traveled to Falcon beach today. Falcon beach is a very small community at the southern part of Whiteshell provincial park, around 1.5hrs from Winnipeg towards Kenora. It is a beautiful area, trees heavy with last night’s snow. It is known for its tourism with Falcon Lake and the provincial park a go to destination for people enjoying hiking, kayaking, fishing and more.
In addition to running within spill reach, and crossing 2 metres below the sole aqueduct supplying Winnipeg’s drinking water from Shoal Lake (see map featured here), the old natural gas pipeline set for conversion to carry oil for Energy East also travels alongside the edge of Falcon Lake, which drains through Falcon river to Shoal Lake. The pipeline also crosses Faloma and Hamilton creek in this area which flow into Falcon Lake.
We met with local residents here in Falcon Beach as well as the consultation officers of both Iskatewizaagegan (Shoal Lake 39) and Shoal Lake 40. They share common concerns with local residents, the pipeline also runs through the traditional territories of these First Nation communities and a spill entering Falcon Lake would raise concerns for the potential flow towards Shoal Lake which their communities are on. Alex Paterson of Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and Clayton Thomas-Muller, Indigenous tar sands campaigner with 350.org based in Winnipeg were also in attendance.
Our conversation was rich. We presented what we see as the key risks involved with this project, speaking to, and delivering copies of reports focused on the threats relevant to Winnipeg as well as Council of Canadians reports exposing TransCanada’s pipeline safety track record, that it has a 15% chance of rupture every year, and the heightened risks of diluted bitumen spills.
At 1.1 million barrels per day, Energy East is the largest tar sands pipeline proposed to date. The sheer capacity of the pipeline means that a large scale spill threatens to one of the largest in Canada’s history. We learned that in this area there are many creeks and a lot of bog which can be very wet in summer months. A large spill of heavy, sticky diluted bitumen in boggy areas would present serious challenges for cleaning without serious impacts for the local ecology. Where there is water there is also the potential for the spill to travel. Certainly, this area warrants better study and understanding of where oil would flow in the event of a spill, particularly in the creeks flowing into Falcon Lake, and where the pipeline runs near the lake itself.
We learned that TransCanada had an information session in the area, but otherwise had not reached out to residents in attendance, despite the fact that at least two in attendance had homes very close to the pipeline in question, one across the road for example, but technically not on their property.
The persistent myths in support of Energy East came up in our discussion, in particular, that it would displace foreign imports of oil in Eastern Canada, and reduce oil by rail transport. Maude Barlow co-authored an op-ed with Michael Metczuk of MEJC in the Winnipeg Free Press this past Monday that addressed the first myth.
The reality is there are only 3 refineries along the pipeline path which have a total capacity around 600,000 bpd, well shy of the 1.1 million barrel per day total capacity. The refineries don’t have the capacity to refine diluted bitumen from the tar sands, what is going to be a product shipped on the line. They are also increasingly supplied by U.S. crude and Western crude from the reversal of Enbridge Line 9. TransCanada’s own application to the National Energy Board acknowledges that tankers in the Bay of Fundy exporting oil will increase to 281 per year, meaning a minimum of 800,000 bpd is for export. Further, if we really wanted to supply Canadian oil to Canadians, it makes far more sense to talk about using Newfoundland oil, which is far closer and could meeting Atlantic Canadian needs.
On oil by rail, its an easy claim to make but can be challenging to explain why it is a red herring. With dropping oil prices, the reality is that transporting oil from the tar sands to Eastern Canada is increasingly no longer financially viable – as in shippers are now losing money on it. This is different for Bakken fracked crude from the U.S. and Saskatchewan. Shipping oil by pipeline is significantly cheaper which is precisely why industry is so adamant on getting access to a pipeline in order to proceed with expansion plans in the tar sands. In other words, securing a pipeline doesn’t simply equate into a reduction of oil by rail.
When oil prices rebound, the situation will change again and industry will be after whatever capacity they can get to export oil that makes them a profit – pipeline and rail. While industry may be hoping for this, the reality will be far more complicated with increasing push for climate policies that will put the squeeze on heavy climate polluting forms of energy like tar sands.
The answer is to phase out oil by rail and limit the expansion of the tar sands, not enabling it with a massive new pipe allowing new tar sands projects to proceed. The answer is to embrace the moment in which we live, investing in transition strategies for affected workers and communities and prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency measures, renewable energy, public transit and other climate solutions that generate good green jobs.
Working with MEJC, we will remain in touch with these residents, Shoal Lake 39 and 40 sharing new research and plans for opposing this destructive project.
