Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eastward No! Enviros Warn of Tar Sands Heading to Maine Coast
With the Keystone XL pipeline on hold (for now) and the fight for the 'Northern Gateway' tar sands pipeline in full swing in western Canada, producers of tar sands oil and pipeline operators continue to look for ways to get Alberta's oil resources. Environmentalists and clean water advocates in Maine are now worried that an existing pipeline in their state, famed for its picturesque rocky coast and pristine drinking water, could now be under consideration to carry tar sands oil from Ontario to Portland harbor.
WCSH, the NBC affiliate in Maine, reports:
Environmental groups in Maine are keeping a close eye on any potential plans to transport tar sands oil via a pipeline that runs from South Portland to Canada.
Since 1941, Portland Pipeline has transported billions of barrels of crude oil from it's tank farms in South Portland to Montreal. At a news conference Thursday, members of the Natural Resources Council of Maine said with President Obama rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline, canadian oil companies are looking for other ways to export tar sands oil. They say Canadian oil company Enbridge is exploring ways to reverse the flow of oil from Ontario through Montreal to South Portland. They say tar sands oil can't be transported safely.
And the Portland Press Herald reports today:
... Groups such as the Natural Resources Council of Maine have grown increasingly concerned because they believe that Portland Pipe Line Corp. wants to partner with a Canadian firm to bring tar sands oil to Portland Harbor.
Portland Pipe Line now unloads oil from ships at its terminal in South Portland and pumps the oil north to Montreal through one of two pipelines it owns.
[Dylan Voorhees, clean energy director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine] claims Portland Pipe Line wants to use its unused pipeline to import tar sands oil from Canada to Portland, where ships would load it and carry it to refineries along the East Coast. A southbound pipeline would pass next to Sebago Lake, the source of drinking water for thousands of people in southern Maine.
"We're talking about the world's dirtiest source of oil," Glen Brand, director of Sierra Club Maine, told The Portland Daily Sun.
Tar sands crude is thicker, more corrosive and abrasive on pipes and requires higher pressure for transporting through pipelines, Brand said. For those reasons, environmentalists are worried about leaks along the pipeline route.
"That could pose a threat to Sebago Lake because the pipeline goes right along it," said Brand, adding that the lake supplies drinking water more than 15 percent of Mainers.
"That's why we want to start bringing public attention to it," he said.
###

23 Comments so far
Show AllAnd there's quite a few refineries in New Jersey for example.
Read the article much? :)
From
Canada imports oil while battling over pipeline exports:
>>Canada exports about two-thirds of its oil to the United States— while half of the oil used in Canada is imported from other countries.
Western Canada is self-sufficient, supplying its own oil before exporting the rest. But Eastern Canada relies on imported oil — despite the fact that some provinces are oil producers.
There are several offshore drilling operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, but none of the oil is actually used in Canada. The eastern provinces rely on an oil supply that's imported from Saudi Arabia, Africa and Venezuela.<<
And then there is NAFTA that actually prohibits Canada from decreasing the percentage of oil and gas produced that is exported to the US unless a proportional decrease is also done in consumption within the country!
From
If our NAFTA Partners Can Have National Energy Programs, Why Can't We?:
>>When NAFTA was being negotiated in 1993, oil and gas corporations based in Canada, many of them foreign-owned, lobbied for a proportionality clause to be included in the agreement. Under proportionality, Canada can cut exports to the U.S. to deal with shortages only if it cuts the same proportion of supplies to Canadians.
Canada currently produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes and so should not have to worry about shortages. Yet, because of NAFTA, Canada has put itself in a position that is as precarious as that of the United States, relying on imports of oil from offshore. Canada now exports 70 per cent of its supply to the U.S., and imports almost 60 per cent of the oil it consumes.
The Mexicans were smart and got an exemption from energy sharing in times of shortage. Consider the respect that the exemption got Mexico in the U.S. national energy task force report: "Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace, and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity and oil and gas capacities."
Contrast this with the U.S. NEP report's assessment of Canada: "Canada's deregulated energy sector has become America's largest overall energy trading partner, and our leading foreign supplier of natural gas, oil and electricity." A national energy policy for the U.S. and a continental energy market for Canada is a raw deal for Canada. Instead of negotiating further integration with the U.S., why not push for a Mexican-style exemption for Canada?<<
But I agree - certain kinds of production simply need to stop, jobs or no jobs! The question of jobs can be better addressed by focusing on sustainability and equity (which has to be addressed, anyway, while working towards sustainability).
That's what stopping all of these pipelines will do, and all to the good.
Keep the cost up, and provide some business for the railroads.