SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Upland Pipeline: New Tar Sands Menace, or Industry Pipe Dream?
Given existing opposition to proposed pipelines, 'it’s clear that Upland will simply never make it past the concept phase,' declares environmentalist
Feb 18, 2015
Apparently undeterred by recent political hurdles and public opposition, the corporation behind the Keystone XL pipeline plans to ask the U.S. government to permit a new and different pipeline project, one that would bring North Dakotan Bakken crude oil across the border into Canada, where it would connect with the controversial Energy East line.
TransCanada executives confirmed last week that they have signed contracts with shippers for enough capacity on the proposed 285-mile, $600-million Upland Pipeline Project to go forward with the endeavor. The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a person briefed on the plan, the Upland pipeline "aims to transport up to 300,000 barrels a day" and could be operational by 2018.
While it is not clear exactly where Upland would cross the U.S.-Canada border, reports indicate it could be north of Minot, N.D. The pipeline is expected to connect to the proposed 1.1-million-barrel-per-day Energy East pipeline in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, and would be subject to regulatory reviews in Canada and the United States, including a national interest analysis similar to the one the U.S. State Department is now conducting on Keystone XL.
But while TransCanada's spirits seem to be buoyed by better-than-expected 2014 profits, environmentalists said the corporation shouldn't get too comfortable.
"TransCanada would be foolish to think Americans and Canadians will let up the fight after Keystone XL," David Turnbull, campaigns director for Oil Change International, told Common Dreams. "The proposed Energy East pipeline in Canada, which the Upland pipeline would link to, is facing massive public opposition and is by no means a sure thing despite Prime Minister Harper's doggedness. Canadians all along the Energy East route are fighting back, saying no to tar sands flowing through their backyards."
Among the concerns about Energy East are that the proposed 2,858-mile pipeline would traverse at least 90 watersheds and 961 waterways between Alberta and New Brunswick--raising the prospect of a devastating spill--and would have the same climate impact of seven million cars on the road. Similar worries have galvanized the climate movement against Keystone XL.
Cam Fenton, Canadian tar sands organizer with 350.org, told Common Dreams: "Upland Pipeline is just another pipe dream from TransCanada. For this project to ever carry real oil, it needs the Energy East proposal built--which just isn't going to happen, given the unprecedented opposition we've seen from people across Canada. Earlier this month, we teamed up with other organizations and climate activists to deliver the largest petition Canada's pipeline regulator had ever received, from people opposed to Energy East's toxic impact on our planet. Throw on the fact that Upland needs a permit from the U.S. State Department, which has held up Keystone XL for years on end, and it's clear that Upland will simply never make it past the concept phase."
The Council of Canadians has raised specific concerns about the receipt and delivery terminal TransCanada intends to build in Moosomin.
"This tank farm would pose a spill risk to the community and emit volatile organic compounds posing a further threat to their air quality," Council of Canadians political director Brent Patterson wrote recently.
Which is why, activists say, TransCanada can expect a grassroots fight wherever it attempts to expand its tar sands empire.
"We're going to show up wherever they're doing these projects," Scott Parkin, an organizer with Rising Tide North America, vowed in an interview with Common Dreams. "We're going to stand with these communities."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Apparently undeterred by recent political hurdles and public opposition, the corporation behind the Keystone XL pipeline plans to ask the U.S. government to permit a new and different pipeline project, one that would bring North Dakotan Bakken crude oil across the border into Canada, where it would connect with the controversial Energy East line.
TransCanada executives confirmed last week that they have signed contracts with shippers for enough capacity on the proposed 285-mile, $600-million Upland Pipeline Project to go forward with the endeavor. The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a person briefed on the plan, the Upland pipeline "aims to transport up to 300,000 barrels a day" and could be operational by 2018.
While it is not clear exactly where Upland would cross the U.S.-Canada border, reports indicate it could be north of Minot, N.D. The pipeline is expected to connect to the proposed 1.1-million-barrel-per-day Energy East pipeline in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, and would be subject to regulatory reviews in Canada and the United States, including a national interest analysis similar to the one the U.S. State Department is now conducting on Keystone XL.
But while TransCanada's spirits seem to be buoyed by better-than-expected 2014 profits, environmentalists said the corporation shouldn't get too comfortable.
"TransCanada would be foolish to think Americans and Canadians will let up the fight after Keystone XL," David Turnbull, campaigns director for Oil Change International, told Common Dreams. "The proposed Energy East pipeline in Canada, which the Upland pipeline would link to, is facing massive public opposition and is by no means a sure thing despite Prime Minister Harper's doggedness. Canadians all along the Energy East route are fighting back, saying no to tar sands flowing through their backyards."
Among the concerns about Energy East are that the proposed 2,858-mile pipeline would traverse at least 90 watersheds and 961 waterways between Alberta and New Brunswick--raising the prospect of a devastating spill--and would have the same climate impact of seven million cars on the road. Similar worries have galvanized the climate movement against Keystone XL.
Cam Fenton, Canadian tar sands organizer with 350.org, told Common Dreams: "Upland Pipeline is just another pipe dream from TransCanada. For this project to ever carry real oil, it needs the Energy East proposal built--which just isn't going to happen, given the unprecedented opposition we've seen from people across Canada. Earlier this month, we teamed up with other organizations and climate activists to deliver the largest petition Canada's pipeline regulator had ever received, from people opposed to Energy East's toxic impact on our planet. Throw on the fact that Upland needs a permit from the U.S. State Department, which has held up Keystone XL for years on end, and it's clear that Upland will simply never make it past the concept phase."
The Council of Canadians has raised specific concerns about the receipt and delivery terminal TransCanada intends to build in Moosomin.
"This tank farm would pose a spill risk to the community and emit volatile organic compounds posing a further threat to their air quality," Council of Canadians political director Brent Patterson wrote recently.
Which is why, activists say, TransCanada can expect a grassroots fight wherever it attempts to expand its tar sands empire.
"We're going to show up wherever they're doing these projects," Scott Parkin, an organizer with Rising Tide North America, vowed in an interview with Common Dreams. "We're going to stand with these communities."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Apparently undeterred by recent political hurdles and public opposition, the corporation behind the Keystone XL pipeline plans to ask the U.S. government to permit a new and different pipeline project, one that would bring North Dakotan Bakken crude oil across the border into Canada, where it would connect with the controversial Energy East line.
TransCanada executives confirmed last week that they have signed contracts with shippers for enough capacity on the proposed 285-mile, $600-million Upland Pipeline Project to go forward with the endeavor. The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a person briefed on the plan, the Upland pipeline "aims to transport up to 300,000 barrels a day" and could be operational by 2018.
While it is not clear exactly where Upland would cross the U.S.-Canada border, reports indicate it could be north of Minot, N.D. The pipeline is expected to connect to the proposed 1.1-million-barrel-per-day Energy East pipeline in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, and would be subject to regulatory reviews in Canada and the United States, including a national interest analysis similar to the one the U.S. State Department is now conducting on Keystone XL.
But while TransCanada's spirits seem to be buoyed by better-than-expected 2014 profits, environmentalists said the corporation shouldn't get too comfortable.
"TransCanada would be foolish to think Americans and Canadians will let up the fight after Keystone XL," David Turnbull, campaigns director for Oil Change International, told Common Dreams. "The proposed Energy East pipeline in Canada, which the Upland pipeline would link to, is facing massive public opposition and is by no means a sure thing despite Prime Minister Harper's doggedness. Canadians all along the Energy East route are fighting back, saying no to tar sands flowing through their backyards."
Among the concerns about Energy East are that the proposed 2,858-mile pipeline would traverse at least 90 watersheds and 961 waterways between Alberta and New Brunswick--raising the prospect of a devastating spill--and would have the same climate impact of seven million cars on the road. Similar worries have galvanized the climate movement against Keystone XL.
Cam Fenton, Canadian tar sands organizer with 350.org, told Common Dreams: "Upland Pipeline is just another pipe dream from TransCanada. For this project to ever carry real oil, it needs the Energy East proposal built--which just isn't going to happen, given the unprecedented opposition we've seen from people across Canada. Earlier this month, we teamed up with other organizations and climate activists to deliver the largest petition Canada's pipeline regulator had ever received, from people opposed to Energy East's toxic impact on our planet. Throw on the fact that Upland needs a permit from the U.S. State Department, which has held up Keystone XL for years on end, and it's clear that Upland will simply never make it past the concept phase."
The Council of Canadians has raised specific concerns about the receipt and delivery terminal TransCanada intends to build in Moosomin.
"This tank farm would pose a spill risk to the community and emit volatile organic compounds posing a further threat to their air quality," Council of Canadians political director Brent Patterson wrote recently.
Which is why, activists say, TransCanada can expect a grassroots fight wherever it attempts to expand its tar sands empire.
"We're going to show up wherever they're doing these projects," Scott Parkin, an organizer with Rising Tide North America, vowed in an interview with Common Dreams. "We're going to stand with these communities."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.