

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In what environmentalists are calling a major victory for pipeline opponents and the planet, TransCanada announced Thursday that it is abandoning its Energy East pipeline project, which would have carried over a million barrels of crude oil across Canada per day.
"Energy East was a disaster waiting to happen."
--Adam Scott, Oil Change International
Oil Change International (OCI) estimated in an analysis earlier this year that Energy East would produce an additional 236 million tons of carbon pollution each year. For this reason and many others, OCI applauded TransCanada's decision to nix the project, which was first proposed in 2013.
"This is an important day in the fight against climate change in Canada," Adam Scott, senior advisor at OCI, said in a statement on Thursday. "Energy East was a disaster waiting to happen. The pipeline and tanker proposal scheme was utterly incompatible with a world where we avoid the worst impacts of climate change."
Aurore Fauret, Tar Sands Campaign coordinator at 350.org, echoed Scott's celebration and highlighted the grassroots mobilization that brought the pipeline into public view and ultimately helped ensure its defeat.
"We witnessed a People's Intervention that forced the climate costs of Energy East to the forefront of the pipeline review," Fauret said. "Over 100,000 messages were sent to the National Energy Board (NEB) demanding it consider all the emissions the project would generate. Close to 2,000 people applied as intervenors, citing climate change as one of their reasons. Two years later, after the NEB accepted to review the climate costs of the pipeline, TransCanada is calling it quits."
A huge victory for everyone who stood up! Time for Libs to stop spending political capital on pipelines that don't even make economic sense. https://t.co/JHPuQTmmmC
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) October 5, 2017
TransCanada also announced Thursday that it is ditching the Eastern Mainline pipeline project in the face of critical scrutiny from Canadian energy regulators.
Both projects from their inception faced fierce opposition from Indigenous groups and climate activists, who often referred to Energy East as a "ticking time bomb" that posed a tremendous threat to sacred lands and the water supply.
"The end of Energy East shows that extreme energy projects are part of our past not our future."
--Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians"It simply is not worth the risk," Maude Barlow, honorary chairperson with the Council of Canadians, concluded in 2014.
But while the downfall of both Energy East and Eastern Mainline was welcomed by those who worked tirelessly for years to guarantee their defeat, activists issued an urgent reminder that the fight against pipelines in both Canada and the United States has only just begun.
"The end of Energy East shows that extreme energy projects are part of our past not our future," Barlow said in a statement on Thursday. "For all of our sakes, Kinder Morgan, Line 3, Line 10, and Keystone XL must face the same fate."
Grand Chief Serge Simon of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake agreed, arguing Thursday that "it will be a hollow victory" if any of the many other pipelines under consideration "are allowed to steamroll over Indigenous opposition and serve as an outlet for even more climate-killing tar sands production."
The pipeline giant TransCanada, stymied in its attempt to drive Keystone XL through America's heartland, is facing renewed opposition to its "new and equally misguided proposal" to build the Energy East pipeline across Canada and ship tar sands oil via tankers along the U.S. East Coast to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
In partnership with a number of Canadian and U.S. environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)--a major player in the fight to defeat Keystone XL--on Tuesday released a new report outlining how Energy East would "effectively create a waterborne tar sands pipeline with hundreds of new oil tankers traversing the Atlantic coastline, making vast areas of the Eastern Seaboard vulnerable to a dangerous tar sands spill."

Indeed, the group notes that the Gulf of Maine, Acadia National Park, and the Florida Keys are all in the pipeline's "crosshairs," as well as iconic marine species and billion dollar commercial fisheries on the East Coast, including New England and Atlantic Canada's lobster and sea scallops fisheries.
And that's on top of the pipeline's climate impacts; according to the NRDC analysis, Energy East would bring a significant increase in carbon pollution--equivalent to the annual emissions of as many as 54 million passenger vehicles--and lock in high-carbon infrastructure expected to operate for at least 50 years.
"TransCanada's Energy East proposal is truly Keystone XL on steroids," said Joshua Axelrod, a co-author of the report and NRDC policy analyst. "It's all risk and no reward for millions of Canadians and Americans, iconic landscapes, valuable fisheries and our climate."
With the report, entitled Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean: TransCanada's Proposed Energy East Pipeline (pdf), the NRDC joins a chorus of existing Energy East opponents.
The project is currently under consideration by the National Energy Board (NEB), with hearings expected to begin in Saint John, New Brunswick, on August 8.
In making its argument, the NRDC leans on a 2016 study by Canada's National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which found that large portions of diluted bitumen--which Energy East would transport--can be expected to sink if spilled in water. The same report found that current regulations and spill response techniques are incapable of managing the unique behavior and higher risks of tar sands diluted bitumen spill in water.
A press statement (pdf) from Greenpeace Canada notes that the NEB refused to consider the same NAS study in its Kinder Morgan pipeline analysis.
"To be at all credible, the National Energy Board must give the NAS study a central role in its review of Energy East," said Matt Abbott of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.
Meanwhile, the NRDC is calling for a tar sands oil tanker moratorium in U.S. and Canadian waters until appropriate spill response techniques are developed to address a diluted bitumen spill into water.
But beyond that, many say the pipeline simply should not be built. Pointing to the devastating pipeline leak that flooded the North Saskatchewan River with 200,000 liters of tar sands crude last week, the Council of Canadians on Monday warned that spills are "inevitable and permanent consequences of transporting oil."
"When thinking about the future we want, let us remember that the proposed Energy East pipeline crosses 90 watersheds, nearly 3000 waterways, and puts the drinking water of over 5 million people at risk along its route," wrote energy and climate justice campaigner Daniel Cayley-Daoust.
Since I last visited Canada to share my experiences dealing with TransCanada as a rancher along the proposed Keystone XL path, and as a member of Bold Nebraska, a lot has changed. President Obama has since put the final nail in the coffin of Keystone XL, listening to the voices of ranchers, Indigenous communities and climate activists united in their opposition to the tar sands, or oil sands, pipeline.
I've watched as Energy East has increasingly come under the kind of fire Keystone XL experienced, the most recent example being a Quebec farmers union representing over 41,000 farmers and 28,000 farms which declared their opposition to the project earlier this month.
Many of the same risks we successfully prevented by blocking Keystone XL are inherent to Energy East. And similar to our experience, many of the myths supporting Energy East are beginning to crumble.
When I last visited New Brunswick I saw for myself the beauty of your land, including the many waterways Energy East would cross.
I have since learned the drinking water of over 130,000 New Brunswick residents would be at risk from an Energy East pipeline spill. Energy East would carry 1.1 million barrels per day of tar sands diluted bitumen. The prospect of a spill is daunting.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently released the most comprehensive review of diluted bitumen yet conducted, confirming it sinks quickly and sticks to everything it touches, making cleanup far more expensive and difficult.
Last year a mandatory inspection on TransCanada's Keystone 1 pipeline in the U.S. revealed an area that was 95 per cent corroded, leaving it literally paper thin. The pipeline was not yet two years old! This is consistent with the concerns Evan Vokes, a former TransCanada pipeline engineer come whistleblower, has expressed about TransCanada's sloppy pipeline safety track record.
This is a key reason why I, and many of my neighbours - ranchers, not activists - got involved: to protect our water from a massive tar sands spill. Keystone XL was proposed to pass right through the Nebraska Sandhills, a unique and fragile ecosystem that overlies the Ogallala Aquifer, a critically important water source we all depend on.
We too heard that Keystone XL would reduce dangerous oil-by-rail traffic. However, tar sands crude won't end up on trains because shipping it from Alberta to Saint John by rail is now cost-prohibitive due to dropping oil prices.
This can change, and a rally in the market price for tar sands and U.S. fracked oil would increase pressure for any and all export paths, but ultimately we need to deal with the problem at the source.
That means stopping further expansion and seeing government and industry step up to support just transition programmes for impacted workers to a green economy.
Energy East, like Keystone XL, is about getting tar sands crude to international markets, not serving domestic supply. Irving Oil President Ian Whitcomb recently confirmed in the Financial Post that Energy East would not cause the Saint John refinery to reduce their low-cost imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. An independent report found up to 1 million of the 1.1 million barrels is destined for export.
TransCanada will be quick to talk about all of the jobs it claims its pipeline will create. We discovered pretty quickly that these numbers were inflated and most jobs would be short-term. Recent independent reports commissioned for Ontario and Quebec on Energy East's economic benefits have similarly found TransCanada's promises overblown.
When ranchers started talking to each other we quickly discovered TransCanada representatives were saying one thing to one landowner and something completely different to another. TransCanada threatened some with eminent domain (the U.S. version of land expropriation) to pressure them into signing easement agreements.
Some chose to work towards ensuring easement agreements were as fair and just as possible in protecting landowners' rights. Some refused to sign. Others focused on a legal challenge to the flagrantly unjust so-called right of corporations to take away people's land through eminent domain.
We all stood side by side in our opposition to Keystone XL. We joined forces with Indigenous communities through the Cowboy Indian Alliance and with climate activists to tell Obama Not On Our Land, and Not On Planet Earth - from NIMBY to NOPE. President Obama listened to us. I am heartened to see the same conditions developing in opposition to Energy East.