Canada PoliticsEnvironmental groups vow to fight west to east oil pipeline
There's no surprise here: the announcement of a new oil pipeline was invariably going to raise the ire of environmental groups across the country.
On Thursday morning, TransCanada Corporation announced that they are moving forward on a 4,400-kilometre pipeline that could carry over 1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta to refineries in Eastern Canada.
"The Energy East Pipeline project involves converting a portion of natural gas pipeline capacity in approximately 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada’s existing Canadian Mainline to crude oil service and constructing approximately 1,400 kilometres of new pipeline," notes the company's press release.
"The pipeline will transport crude oil from receipt points in Alberta and Saskatchewan to delivery points in Montréal, the Québec City region and Saint John, New Brunswick, greatly enhancing producer access to Eastern Canadian and international markets. The pipeline will terminate at Canaport in Saint John, New Brunswick where TransCanada and Irving Oil have formed a joint venture to build, own and operate a new deep water marine terminal."
Federal natural resources minister Joe Oliver has expressed support for the idea, but noted that the government "will only allow energy projects to proceed if they are proven safe for Canadians after an independent, science-based environmental and regulatory review."
Alberta Premier Alison Redford called it a "nation building project."
"My government made a commitment to the project as part of our efforts to build new markets and get a fairer price for the oil resources Albertans own," Redford said, according to the Canadian Press.
"This is truly a nation-building project that will diversify our economy and create new jobs here in Alberta and across the country."
[ Related: TransCanada going ahead with Energy East line between Alberta and New Brunswick ]
Environmental groups, however, are dismissing the claims of rosy economic benefits and warned of negative impacts.
"While using an existing pipeline may reduce TransCanada’s costs, it increases spill risks for the many rivers, lakes and communities along the route," Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said in a statement.
"The disastrous pipeline spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas highlight the dangers of shipping tar sands crude and using an older pipeline not originally built for carrying oil."
The Council of Canadians say that they "intend to build awareness and bolster opposition efforts amongst those who would be directly impacted by the project."
Greenpeace was also quick to react.
"Nations shouldn’t be built around a project that destroys the environment, poisons water, violates Treaty rights and further accelerates a global climate crisis that is already resulting in weather disasters around the world," Mike Hudema said, according to Beacon News.
"Hopefully the same people-based movements that have stalled other ill conceived tar sands pipeline projects will also rise up and give our governments the wake-up call it needs."
[ Related: Ottawa quick to respond to Obama’s skepticism over Keystone pipeline ]
Despite the inherent risks, recent survey results suggest that Canadians actually support a trans-Canada pipeline.
An Abacus Data poll, released earlier this year, suggested that 78 per cent of those surveyed, and who had an opinion about the pipeline, either strongly or somewhat support the idea.
By comparison to previous Abacus surveys, 53 per cent support the Keystone XL pipeline which would transport Alberta oil to the Gulf of Mexico, while 49 per cent support the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline through British Columbia.
(Photo courtesy of TransCanada Corp.)
Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!
