DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Overview Vantage Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment 19 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 19.1 Introduction The purpose of this Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) is to identify, analyze and assess potential changes to biophysical and socio-economic environment that may be caused by the Vantage Pipeline Project (Project), in combination with the effects of other past, present and/or applied for future regulated projects and activities within a defined study area. This CEA is a summary of assessments from ESA discipline sections six to 18 of the ESA. Figures illustrating the location of other projects assessed are within each discipline section of the ESA. 19.2 Methodology Detailed methodology of the cumulative effects assessment can be found in Section 5. The methodology has been developed based on requirements of the National Energy Board Filing Manual (NEB 2009) and suggested methods for conducting cumulative effects assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) outlined in practitioners’ guides (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office 1994a and 1994b; Hegmann et al. 1999). Professional practice also plays a role in CEAA methodology as situations may require adaptive approaches to specific aspects of a project. The cumulative effects assessment process contains the following steps: identification of potential residual effects; determination of spatial and temporal boundaries; identification of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities (collectively referred to as “actions”); identification of potential cumulative effects; development of mitigation measures and strategies; analysis of the significance of the residual cumulative effects. Refer to Section 5.4 for additional information on the cumulative effects assessment methodology. 19.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Spatial Boundaries Although most Project-related effects on the biophysical environment are expected to be limited to the Project Study Area (PSA) or Local Study Area (LSA), an expanded Regional Study Area (RSA) of 15 km on both sides of the right-of-way (ROW) was used for the CEA. This distance was chosen to place the Project within ecological context, to encompass any future related infrastructure associated with the pipeline (such as utility lines or access roads for valve sites or compressor stations), to include the local areas of influence of other actions that may interact with the Project, and to stay consistent with other cumulative effects studies recently conducted on other developments within the LSA. Temporal Boundaries The CEA took into consideration: past events contributing to existing conditions (post-settlement to current), current or present-day conditions, and reasonably foreseeable future events that may occur over the expected life span of the development (30+ years). 433 Vantage Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment 19.3 Other Projects and Activities Actions included in this section are those that: occur within the RSA, and are either currently causing effects within the RSA or may cause effects within the RSA. The information provided in this section was obtained primarily from the Atlas of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan 2000), the National Topographic System map layers, and Midwest Surveys Ltd. Projects from the inclusion list (Table 19-1).were selected for CEA for each discipline, if their effects could potentially overlap with Project residual effects for that discipline. 19.3.1 Past Actions Agriculture Once covering an extensive portion of southern Saskatchewan, the cattle industry experienced a severe decline during the winter of 1906 and 1907, and never regained its former prominence. Gradually, much of the native prairie was converted over to cropland. Between the period of 1971 and 1996, an estimated 1.4 million hectares were converted to agricultural purposes. Parks and Protected Areas Saskatchewan experienced a surge in the conservation movement between the period of 1931 and 1968, resulting in the creation in numerous park and protected areas throughout the RSA. Resource Extraction Oil and gas extraction began in Saskatchewan in the 1930s. By 1985, there was already almost 30,000 km of pipelines in place in the province, and this number has been increasing steadily since. Coal mining began in southern Saskatchewan in the 1870s, peaking at approximately 400 active mines. Potash mining began in 1958. Transportation By 1930, Saskatchewan had an estimated 14,560 km of rail line. This amount gradually declined as the road and highway network expanded. By the late 1940’s, Saskatchewan maintained 185,000 km of roads. There are approximately 1,139 km of paved roads within the RSA, and an estimated 10,953 km of unpaved roads 19.3.2 Current Conditions Agriculture A major industry within the RSA, agriculture continues to be a major contributor to Saskatchewan’s economy. Cereal crops, canola and hay are the primary crops grown in the RSA. Areas of native prairie grassland are managed for grazing by either the federal or provincial government community pastures. Oil and Gas There are currently approximately 13,513 wellsites of all types, 753 facilities and 9,634 km of pipelines within the project RSA. Major pipelines currently operating within the RSA include: Foothills (oil), Keystone (oil), Many Islands (natural gas), SaskEnergy TransGas (natural gas), Wascana (oil) and South Saskatchewan (oil). Although coal and potash mines exist in southern Saskatchewan, none are located within the RSA. 434 Vantage Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment Parks and Protected Areas Representative Areas Network conservation lands located within the RSA, include Wildlife Habitat Protection Lands, private conservation lands, game preserves, Important Bird Areas, Ducks Unlimited (DU) wetlands, community pastures and Representative Areas ecological reserve. Transportation Saskatchewan has more roads per capita than any other jurisdiction in the world. The road network within the RSA includes paved highways, gravel roads and dirt trails. There are approximately 1,139 km of paved roads and approximately 10,953 km of unpaved roads within the RSA. Traffic volume on major highways is 160 to 4,520 vehicles per day. There are five rail lines within the RSA: Canadian Pacific Maple Creek main line, Great Western Railway Ltd. (GWR) Shaunavon line, GWR Fife Lake Railway, and GWR Red Coat Road and Rail Railway, and the Great Sandhills Railway (GSR) Burstall Rail Line. Utilities Approximately 2,560 km of transmission lines and 512 km of telephone lines are within the RSA. 19.3.3 Future Projects and Activities Agriculture Farming and ranching are certain to continue to be major industries within the RSA for the foreseeable future. Mineral Extraction clay, sodium sulphate, potassium sulphate, and potash resource fields have been identified within the RSA. Development of any or all of these resources within the RSA is hypothetical, and so are not further assessed. Oil and Gas Expansion and development within the oil and gas field is certain to continue. One project approved for development within the RSA is the Keystone XL Pipeline (Table 19-1). Transportation Upgrades, improvements, maintenance and expansion to the existing road network is certain to occur. The abandonment of one railway crossing is tentatively planned. Urban Growth Development and expansion of communities within the RSA is reasonably foreseeable, although likely on a localized scale. Utilities Repair and replacement of existing infrastructure is certain to occur; expansion and/or upgrade of the existing infrastructure are reasonably foreseeable. Potential also exists for the expansion of wind power facilities. 435 Vantage Pipeline Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Section 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment Table 19-1 Project Inclusion List PR0JECT STATUS DESCRIPTION RATIONALE Oil and Gas Facilities Empress facility at Operational Gas plants, straddle plants and pump stations, Adjacent to the Project terminus at McNeil, Alberta operated by Encana Corp., the Empress facility at McNeil, AB BP Canada Energy Company, ConocoPhillips Canada Ltd., and ATCO Midstream. Facility 1 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Within the Project LSA near Burstall, SK Facility 2 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near Richmound, SK Facility 3 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Within the Project LSA near Richmound, SK Facility 4 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near Richmound, SK Facility 5 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near Big Stick Lake Plain Facility 6 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near Big Stick Lake Plain Facility 7 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project northwest of Piapot Creek, SK Facility 8 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near Piapot Creek, SK Facility 9 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project southeast of Piapot, SK Facility 10 Operational Oil or Gas Facility Adjacent to the Project near the Saskatchewan-Montana border Hess Corp. Tioga Operational Gas Plant at Tioga, ND Source of ethane for the Project Gas Plant Nova Chemical Operational Chemical Plant at Joffre, Alberta, at the Destination of ethane for the Plant terminus of the AEGS pipeline Project 12” or Larger Outside Diameter Oil and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 1 of 4 Transcanada
    Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 1 of 4 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. (“Keystone”) Keystone XL Pipeline Application OH-1-2009 Responses to The Alberta Department of Energy Information Request No. 1 to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) 1.1 Reference: Written Evidence of Enbridge Pipelines Inc., dated July 30, 2009 including the attached Muse Stancil Report and CAPP June 2009 report Preamble: We understand Enbridge’s evidence indicates that generally: (1) an additional one million b/d of take-away capacity from Western Canada on the Keystone Pipeline and the Enbridge system will be built by 2010; (2) while a certain level of excess pipeline capacity is advantageous, the advantage reverses when the cost of capacity outweighs the netback benefits; (3) the Keystone XL Pipeline project would create an unnecessary and unprecedented level of excess pipeline capacity between Western Canada and U.S. markets; (4) if Keystone XL is placed into service in late 2012, it will offload volumes from the Enbridge system; (5) this off loading will increase Enbridge system shippers’ costs, shipping between Edmonton and Chicago, by Cdn$315 million (Cdn$0.75 per barrel); (6) impact could be greater if volume shipped on either base Keystone or Keystone XL were more than contracted volumes; (7) Enbridge asked Muse Stancil to estimate aggregate net benefit to Canada of the Keystone XL Pipeline and Muse Stancil estimates it would only be US$102 million in 2013, as compared to Purvin & Gertz Inc. estimate of $3.4 billion benefit to Canadian heavy crude producers alone; (8) Enbridge is advancing the “Gretna Option” as a modification the Keystone XL Pipeline; (9) the Gretna Option would reduce the capital cost of the Keystone XL Pipeline by approximately US$2 billion and would reduce tolls on Enbridge system by about Cdn$0.35 per barrel; Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No.
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone Pipeline System Keystone Pipeline System
    Keystone Pipeline System Keystone Pipeline System Keystone Pipeline System An innovative and cost-competitive solution to a growing North American demand for energy, the Keystone Pipeline System will link a reliable and stable source of Canadian crude oil with U.S. demand. Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System will be comprised of the 2,151- mile (3,461-kilometre) Keystone Pipeline and the proposed 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometre) Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Keystone XL). TransCanada affiliates will build and operate the Keystone Pipeline System in four phases. Keystone Pipeline (Phase I) Originating at Hardisty, Alta., Keystone Phase I transports crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets at Wood River and Patoka, Ill. Keystone Phase I began commercial operation in June 2010. The Canadian portion of Keystone Phase I involved the conversion of approximately 537 miles (864 kilometres) of existing TransCanada pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba from natural gas to crude oil transmission service. Along with the construction of 16 pump stations Edmonton and approximately 232 miles (373 kilometres) of new pipeline in Canada, new facilities were also required Hardisty Alberta at the Keystone Hardisty Terminal, including: three Saskatchewan operational storage tanks, an initiating pump station, Calgary Regina Manitoba and interconnections with existing pipeline systems in the Winnipeg Ontario Hardisty area. The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included the North Dakota Helena construction of 1,084 miles (1,744 kilometres) of new, 30- Bismarck Minnesota inch diameter pipeline and 23 pump stations throughout Montana North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois. Pierre Wisconsin Michigan South Dakota Wyoming Keystone Cushing Extension (Phase II) Iowa Chicago Measuring approximately 298 miles (480 kilometres) in Nebraska length,Ohio Keystone Phase II is an extension of Keystone Phase Lincoln Illinois Indiana I from Steele City, Neb., to Cushing, Okla.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Pipeline Constraints in Canada by Elmira Aliakbari and Ashley Stedman
    FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN FROM THE CENTRE FOR NATURAL RESOURCE STUDIES May 2018 The Cost of Pipeline Constraints in Canada by Elmira Aliakbari and Ashley Stedman MAIN CONCLUSIONS Despite the steady growth in crude oil From 2013 to 2017, after accounting for available for export, new pipeline proj- quality differences and transportation ects in Canada continue to face delays costs, the depressed price for Canadian related to environmental and regula- heavy crude oil has resulted in CA$20.7 tory impediments as well as political billion in foregone revenues for the Ca- opposition. nadian energy industry. This significant loss is equivalent to almost 1 percent of Canada’s lack of adequate pipeline ca- Canada’s national GDP. pacity has imposed a number of costly constraints on the nation’s energy sec- In 2018, the average price differen- tor including an overdependence on tial (based on the first quarter) was the US market and reliance on more US$26.30 per barrel. If the price differ- costly modes of energy transportation. ential remains at the current level, we These and other factors have resulted estimate that Canada’s pipeline con- in depressed prices for Canadian heavy straints will reduce revenues for Cana- crude (Western Canada Select) relative dian energy firms by roughly CA$15.8 to US crude (West Texas Intermediate) billion in 2018, which is approximately and other international benchmarks. 0.7 percent of Canada’s national GDP. Between 2009 and 2012, the average Insufficient pipeline capacity has re- price differential between Western sulted in substantial lost revenue for Canada Select (WCS) and West Texas the energy industry and thus imposed Intermediate (WTI) was about 13 per- significant costs on the economy as a cent of the WTI price.
    [Show full text]
  • Follow-Up Letter
    March 2, 2018 President Margarette May Macaulay Commissioner Antonia Urrejola Commissioner Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli Commissioner Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva Commissioner Joel Hernández García Commissioner Flávia Piovesan Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1889 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Re: Update on Effect of U.S. Executive Order “Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects” Dear Commissioners Eguiguren Praeli, Macaulay, Urrejola, Arosemena de Troitiño, Vargas Silva, and Piovesan, and Executive Secretary Abrão, We, the undersigned Indigenous and civil society organizations, write to update the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on President Trump’s Executive Order “Expediting Environmental Review and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects,” (Infrastructure EO) with a focus on developments since the March 21, 2017 hearing1 on this matter. The actions taken in the last year in direct and indirect furtherance of the Infrastructure EO – including granting permission for construction without conducting appropriate assessments and silencing opposition to that permission – severely impact the rights of Indigenous peoples in the United States to their land and culture, as well as to free, prior, and informed consent. We ask the Commission to maintain its involvement in monitoring and responding to this situation, including by taking the specific actions listed at the conclusion of
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Complaint
    Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; COMMONWEATH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF Civ. Action No. 3:21-cv-00065 MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 59 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; MICHAEL S. REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; SCOTT A. SPELLMON, in his official capacity as Commanding General of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CP's North American Rail
    2020_CP_NetworkMap_Large_Front_1.6_Final_LowRes.pdf 1 6/5/2020 8:24:47 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lake CP Railway Mileage Between Cities Rail Industry Index Legend Athabasca AGR Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway ETR Essex Terminal Railway MNRR Minnesota Commercial Railway TCWR Twin Cities & Western Railroad CP Average scale y y y a AMTK Amtrak EXO EXO MRL Montana Rail Link Inc TPLC Toronto Port Lands Company t t y i i er e C on C r v APD Albany Port Railroad FEC Florida East Coast Railway NBR Northern & Bergen Railroad TPW Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway t oon y o ork éal t y t r 0 100 200 300 km r er Y a n t APM Montreal Port Authority FLR Fife Lake Railway NBSR New Brunswick Southern Railway TRR Torch River Rail CP trackage, haulage and commercial rights oit ago r k tland c ding on xico w r r r uébec innipeg Fort Nelson é APNC Appanoose County Community Railroad FMR Forty Mile Railroad NCR Nipissing Central Railway UP Union Pacic e ansas hi alga ancou egina as o dmon hunder B o o Q Det E F K M Minneapolis Mon Mont N Alba Buffalo C C P R Saint John S T T V W APR Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions GEXR Goderich-Exeter Railway NECR New England Central Railroad VAEX Vale Railway CP principal shortline connections Albany 689 2622 1092 792 2636 2702 1574 3518 1517 2965 234 147 3528 412 2150 691 2272 1373 552 3253 1792 BCR The British Columbia Railway Company GFR Grand Forks Railway NJT New Jersey Transit Rail Operations VIA Via Rail A BCRY Barrie-Collingwood Railway GJR Guelph Junction Railway NLR Northern Light Rail VTR
    [Show full text]
  • Protests Against Trump's Immigration Executive Order May Have Helped
    Protests against Trump’s immigration executive order may have helped shift public opinion against it. blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/02/12/protests-against-trumps-immigration-executive-order-may-have-helped-shift-public-opinion-against-it/ 2/12/2017 Donald Trump’s executive order preventing the entry of refugees and those from seven Muslim- majority countries has sparked protests across the country and the world. But have those protests had an effect on public opinion? Loren Collingwood, Nazita Lajevardi, and Kassra Oskooii present preliminary findings from a survey conducted before and after President Trump’s executive order. They find that after the ban, 25 percent more Democrats and an additional 15 percent of Republicans became opposed to it. In addition, one in five of all respondents stated that the protests had an impact on their views towards immigration policy. On Friday, January 27th, President Donald Trump signed executive order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” The order made changes to immigration policies and procedures and banned for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The ban set off a fury of protests across US cities and airports. Thousands of Americans from coast to coast chanted slogans such as “No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here.” While the ban raises several important Constitutional questions that are making their way through the nation’s courts, two public opinion questions have emerged: 1) Did the ban, and ensuing controversy shift public opinion, and if so amongst whom? 2) Did the demonstrations specifically shift public opinion against the ban? Anticipating the executive order, we fielded a two-wave panel survey of 423 respondents between January 24-27th but before the president announced the executive order.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Billion for Cancellation of Keystone XL Pipeline Project Aviana Cooper University of Baltimore, [email protected]
    University of Baltimore Journal of International Law Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 6 Volume IV, No. 2 2015-2016 2016 Emerging Issues: Transcanada v. Obama Administration – 15 Billion for Cancellation of Keystone XL Pipeline Project Aviana Cooper University of Baltimore, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ubjil Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Cooper, Aviana (2016) "Emerging Issues: Transcanada v. Obama Administration – 15 Billion for Cancellation of Keystone XL Pipeline Project," University of Baltimore Journal of International Law: Vol. 4 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ubjil/vol4/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Transcanada v. Obama Administration – 15 Billion for Cancellation of Keystone XL Pipeline Project By Aviana Cooper* TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP and TC Oil Pipeline Op- erations Inc., subsidiaries of TransCanada Corporation (“TransCana- da”), lost their seven-year bid with the United States (U.S.) Govern- ment for a permit to complete the $5.4 billion oil pipeline connecting Canada and the U.S.1 On November 6, 2015, President Obama
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Rail Cars. Inc. North Central Railcars, Ltd
    GREAT LAKES RAIL CARS. INC. NORTH CENTRAL RAILCARS, LTD. 2016 EXCURSION CATALOGUE Great Lakes Central Railroad (MI) June 2-5, 2016 (Thur-Sun) North Shore Scenic Railroad (MN) & Duluth Harbor Cruise July 5, 2016 (Tues) Northern Plains Railroad (ND) July 7, 2016 (Thur) Keewatin Railway Company (MB) July 10, 2016 (Sun) Torch River Rail (SK) July 12, 2016 (Tues) Northern Lights Railway (SK) July 13, 2016 (Wed) Big Sky Rail, Ltd (SK) July 14 -15, 2016 (Thur/Fri) Great Sandhills Railway, Ltd. (SK) July 18 & 19, 2016 (Mon/Tues) Indiana Northeastern Railroad (IN/MI) August 19-21, 2016 (Fri/Sat/Sun) Huron Central Railway (ON) August 24-25, 2016 (Wed/Thur) Ontario Northland Railway (ON) August 28 - September 2, 2016 (Sun - Fri) GREAT LAKES RAIL CARS, INC. EXCURSION ANNOUNCEMENT (Great Lakes Central Railroad, Inc.) Great Lakes Central Railroad (MI) June 2-5, 2016 (Thurs-Sun) Great Lakes Rail Cars, Inc. is pleased to sponsor a 3-day motor car excursion over a portion of the Great Lakes Central Railroad (ex- Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Railway), beginning with set-on Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2016, followed by the excursion on Friday/Saturday/Sunday, June 3-5, 2016. All NARCOA members are welcome to participate. Participants will travel a total of 238 miles in the beautiful northwestern portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The trip will start in Cadillac, MI. We will run north to Petoskey, Michigan on Friday; Petoskey to Traverse City on Saturday; and Traverse City to Cadillac on Sunday. The excursion fee of $525.00 (USD) includes all railroad fees, very nice overnight hotel accommodations in both Traverse City and Petoskey, Ml; very nice continental break- fast on Saturday & Sunday morning, transportation to/from the hotel in both Traverse City & Petoskey, and other related excursion costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Transportation Act Review
    Canada Transportation Act Review Railway Association of Canada Submission #1 February 26, 2015 February 26, 2015 The Honourable David L. Emerson P.C Canada Transportation Act Review Secretariat 350 Albert Street, Suite 330 Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5 [email protected] RE: Grain Policy in Canada The Railway Association of Canada (RAC) is pleased to provide this submission to the Canada Transportation Act Review Chair, Advisors and supporting Secretariat. This submission is intended to inform the Chair’s position about grain policy in Canada, and to underline that market forces drive the development of Canada’s modern rail system. This submission has been filed on behalf of RAC’s freight railway members (Appendix A). This submission is supported by two documents which are appended for review: Appendix B - “Winter’s Impact on Railroad Operations: Fact and Fantasy” provides an overview of the negative impacts that Canadian winter has on railroad operations in Canada; and Appendix C - “Freedom in Western Grain Movement” presents an assessment of the effect of the Maximum Grain Revenue Entitlement provision on railway efficiency, growth, and productivity in the Grain Handling and Transportation System (GHTS). The RAC will file an additional submission before the consultation period ends this year. About the Railway Association of Canada RAC represents more than 50 freight and passenger railway companies that move 75 million people and $280 billion (B) worth of goods in Canada each year. As the voice of Canada’s railway industry, RAC advocates on behalf of its members and associate members to ensure that the rail sector remains safe, globally competitive and sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Q1 2012-13 Quarterly Report
    First Quarter Report 2012-2013 Crop Year Monitoring the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System ii First Quarter Report of the Monitor – Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System Quorum Corporation Suite 701, 9707–110 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2L9 Telephone: 780 / 447-2111 Fax: 780 / 451-8710 Website: www.quorumcorp.net Email: [email protected] Members of the Quorum Corporation Advisory Board Mark A. Hemmes Chairman of the Advisory Board President, Quorum Corporation Edmonton, Alberta J. Marcel Beaulieu Director – Research and Analysis, Quorum Corporation Sherwood Park, Alberta Richard B. Boyd Senior Vice President, Canadian National Railway Company (retired) Kelowna, British Columbia A. Bruce McFadden Director – Research and Analysis, Quorum Corporation Edmonton, Alberta Shelley J. Thompson President, SJT Solutions Southey, Saskatchewan Members of the Grain Monitoring Team Mark Hemmes President Marcel Beaulieu Director – Research and Analysis Bruce McFadden Director – Research and Analysis Vincent Roy Senior Technical Officer Additional copies of this report may be downloaded from the Quorum Corporation website. 2012-2013 Crop Year iii Foreword The following report details the performance of Canada’s Grain Handling and Transportation System (GHTS) for the three months ended 31 October 2012, and focuses on the various events, issues and trends manifest in the movement of Western Canadian grain during the first quarter of the 2012-13 crop year. As with the Monitor’s previous quarterly and annual reports, the report
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments
    Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments Updated April 1, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43787 Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments Summary TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Because it would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department based on a determination that the pipeline would “serve the national interest.” To make its national interest determination (NID), the department considers potential effects on energy security; environmental and cultural resources; the economy; foreign policy, and other factors. Effects on environmental and cultural resources are determined by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NID process also provides for public comment and requires the State Department to consult with specific federal agencies. TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. Since then various issues have affected the completion of both the NEPA and NID processes for the project. In particular, during the NID process for the 2008 application, concerns over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills of Nebraska led the state to enact new requirements that would change the pipeline route. Facing a 60-day decision deadline imposed by Congress, the State Department denied the 2008 permit application on the grounds that it lacked information about the new Nebraska route.
    [Show full text]