DOCSLIB.ORG

Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada National Energy Board Panel Session – Tuesday, August 9th, 2016, 1:00 – 4:30 p.m. Location: Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada Energy East Pipeline Ltd. & TransCanada PipeLines Limited Energy East Project and Asset Transfer, and Eastern Mainline Project File OF-Fac-Oil-E266-2014-01 02 Hearing Order OH-002-2016 Mr. A. David Seely Mr. Michael D. Blackier Legal/Control & Resources Manager Legal Counsel Canaport LNG Limited Partnership Canaport LNG Limited Partnership 2530 Red Head Road, 2530 Red Head Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2L 3T5 Canada, E2L 3T5 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: +1-506-638-1309 Telephone: +1-506-638-1303 Fax: +1-506-638-1335 Fax: +1-506-638-1335 Mr. Fraser Forsythe Mr. Alan L. Ross Security & Environment Manager Regional Managing Partner Canaport LNG Limited Partnership Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 2530 Red Head Road, Centennial Place, East Tower, Saint John, New Brunswick, 1900, 520 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Canada, E2L 3T5 Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 0R3 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: +1-506-638-1305 Telephone: +1-403-232-9656 Fax: +1-506-638-1335 Fax: +403-266-1395 Introduction Good afternoon members of the Board, my name is Fraser Forsythe, Security and Environment Manager at Canaport LNG Limited Partnership (“CLNG”) and I appear before you today to present CLNG’s statement and questions regarding the Energy East Project and Asset Transfer, and Eastern Mainline Project (the “Project”) to Energy East Pipeline Ltd. and TransCanada PipeLines Limited (the “Proponents”). CLNG supports the National Energy Board’s (“NEB”) hearing process and reserves its right to make further submissions on any potential NEB recommendations, decisions or conditions respecting the Project. CLNG is a state-of-the-art liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) receiving and regasification terminal — the first and only in Canada. CLNG is located within the existing industrial area on the southeastern limits of the City of Saint John, and Province of New Brunswick, adjacent to the existing Irving Oil Canaport Oil Terminal and is approximately one kilometer from the proposed site for the Canaport Energy East marine terminal as referenced in Appendix 1, attached hereto, labeled “Proposed Jetty Location and LNG Ship Maneuver Channel”. CLNG consists of an approximately 350 meter berthing pier designed to unload LNG vessels with a capacity of up to 266,000 m3 of LNG and to load LNG on to ships with approximately 150,000 m3 capacity. CLNG has three LNG storage tanks of 160,000 m3 capacity each, regasification facilities and associated infrastructure. CLNG has a single customer (Repsol Energy Canada Ltd.) that has contracted for the full amount of off take from the terminal. In 2014 Irving Oil Limited installed a crude oil unloading arm on CLNG’s existing LNG jetty for the loading/unloading of crude oil. CLNG is a partnership between affiliates of Repsol, S.A. of Spain (75%) and Irving Oil (25%) of Canada and has been fully operational since 2009. CLNG currently employs approximately 90 people, including contractors, on a permanent full time basis and continues to Page | 2 draw on the professional services of many companies in the city to support the implementation of operational, environmental and safety programs. CLNG also engages in upgrade projects from time to time such as the recently completed $45 million (USD) Boil-off-Gas Compressor Upgrade Project which included investments of $4.8 million to the benefit of local Saint John businesses and approximately $12 million in direct expenditure on labour and materials from businesses in New Brunswick. CLNG has also invested over $1.5 million into community programs, events and organizations in Saint John and the surrounding areas, over the last five years. CLNG is recognized as critical infrastructure by the Department of Public Safety for the Province of New Brunswick and by Public Safety Canada due to the importance of the security of supply of natural gas for power generation and heating needs in the Canadian Maritime Provinces and the Northeastern United States. CLNG currently operates as an important peak shaving facility that gives its customer the opportunity to sell natural gas during critical peak demand times (primarily in winter months). CLNG serves as a strategic energy asset for the Maritime energy supply chain and is one of the largest LNG storage facilities in the region (with 10 Bcf of natural gas storage capacity). Thus, characterizing CLNG as a “minor importer” underestimates the importance of CLNG to the Province and to the northeastern United States supply chain. While CLNG is generally supportive of the Project it has three areas of concern regarding the construction and operation of the Canaport Energy East marine terminal (“MT”) and the Saint John tank terminal (“TT”) and all related infrastructure. The three areas of concern are: (i) the Proponents’ lack of consultation with CLNG; (ii) marine impacts; and (iii) land impacts. Page | 3 These concerns, along with CLNG’s written submissions, were pre-filed with the NEB, and served on the Proponents, their counsel, and other Intervenors in advance of today’s Panel Session. Canaport LNG Consultation With respect to consultation, we note that the Proponents’ application to the NEB relies heavily on consultation with various stakeholders in communities which are impacted by the Project. However, according to the application, CLNG was not consulted regarding its concerns. It is foreseeable that, being in close proximity with the proposed MT and TT, CLNG would have concerns regarding the impact of the Project on CLNG’s onshore/offshore operations. Either the Proponents could have established a standing committee comprised of key stakeholders in the region, including CLNG, in order to address these concerns, or such committee was established and CLNG was not involved. Accordingly, CLNG is participating in the Project’s NEB hearing. Canaport LNG Marine Impact Concerns With respect to marine impact, CLNG is concerned with potential constraints on the berthing of LNG vessels imposed by the Project. The physical characteristics of LNG and the complexity of the technical requirements for berthing and unloading LNG vessels when compared to crude oil vessels must be considered when evaluating berthing priorities. LNG is a cryogenic liquid stored, handled and transported at minus 162°C that produces “boil-off gas” - the vapours created due to ambient heat input (while maintaining constant pressure in the storage vessel). Further, crude oil vessels calling at the MT will be without cargo as they approach the berth of the MT while LNG vessels will have LNG stored in their tanks (which will be “boiling off”, as noted above). Page | 4 Under its Approval to Operate (“ATO”), issued on September 12, 2014, by the Minister of Environment and Local Government for the Province of New Brunswick, pursuant to paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Air Quality Regulation – Clean Air Act, and paragraph 8(1) of the Water Quality Regulation – Clean Environment Act, CLNG has been permitted to berth a maximum of 120 vessels per year at its terminal. An uninterrupted unloading window (the “Uninterrupted Window”) is necessary to safely commence and complete the LNG vessel berthing, discharge and departure processes. The reason LNG vessels require an Uninterrupted Window is that such vessels are unable to perform a partial unloading due to the risk of “sloshing” (i.e. motion of the LNG inside a partially full tank as a consequence of a vessel’s rolling and pitching in a seaway), which could result in damage to the vessel’s tanks and loss of containment of LNG. Such sloshing could result from an LNG vessel being forced to leave the berth before the planned cargo unloading has been completed. The uninterruptible nature of the unloading window is unique to LNG vessels whereas crude oil vessels have the ability to partially load/unload oil and leave for anchorage virtually at any time. In light of the unique physical characteristics of LNG, the complex procedures to safely unload LNG and the uninterruptible nature of the LNG unloading window compared to the interruptible window for crude oil vessels, LNG vessels calling at CLNG should receive priority of berthing over crude oil vessels calling at the MT. Canaport LNG Land Impact Concerns With respect to land impact, one concern is the uninterrupted vehicular access to and from CLNG’s site and the impacts of increased traffic levels on CLNG’s access roads. It is intended that the TT and MT will be constructed on land which is in close proximity to CLNG. A better Page | 5 understanding of the Proponents’ plan for road usage and laydown areas will assist in determining the level of impact on CLNG’s existing operations as referenced in Appendix 2, attached hereto, labeled “Main Transportation Routes to Proposed Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal”. CLNG assumes the following questions will be answered at the August 9, 2016 Panel Session. In the event such questions cannot be answered at that time, CLNG requests that the Proponents respond to its questions by way of undertaking in accordance with correspondence from Proponents’ counsel dated July 12, 2016 (Hearing Document A78521). Questions for the Proponents: 1) Canaport LNG Consideration Questions Proponents Application 1. i. What steps have the Proponents taken to consult CLNG in order to Vol 1, properly understand the impact that the construction and operation s. 2.13 of the MT and TT may have on CLNG’s pre-existing operations? Vol 6, ii. How and to what extent are third party vessels included in the MT s. 6 Qualitative Risk Assessment? Vol 7, iii. Do the Proponents intend to create a “Standing Committee” for the s. 2, 3.5, 3.6, design, construction, and operation of the MT and TT to ensure 5, 6 affected parties, such as CLNG, are involved and their interests are taken into account (e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulation of Access to Oil Pipelines 777
    REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES 777 THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD: REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES JENNIFER HOCKING* In the past few years, a number of long-distance oil pipelines have been proposed in Canada — Northern Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion, Keystone, and the Energy East Project. This article describes the criteria used by the National Energy Board in approving the allocation of capacity in oil pipelines to firm service contracts while requiring that a reasonable percentage of capacity is allocated for uncommitted volumes (common carriage). It explains the economic theory related to regulation of access to major oil pipelines. It reviews and analyzes relevant NEB decisions, which show that the NEB supports well- functioning competitive markets, but will exercise its discretion to resolve complaints where markets are not functioning properly. The article also explains the economic significance of the proposed long-distance oil pipelines to Canada and Alberta despite the current low price of crude oil. The article concludes with recommendations for a written NEB policy regarding access to capacity in oil pipelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPOSED OIL PIPELINES TO THE CANADIAN ECONOMY ................................. 778 A. PIPELINES NEEDED DESPITE LOW PRICE OF OIL ............... 780 B. SHIPPING OF OIL BY RAIL ................................ 781 II. OIL PIPELINES AS COMMON CARRIERS ........................... 781 A. THE NATURE OF COMMON CARRIERS ....................... 781 B. COMMON CARRIAGE OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO REASONABLENESS TEST ............................... 783 C. WHY WERE OIL PIPELINES ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS COMMON CARRIERS? ................................. 784 III. MAJOR LONG-DISTANCE OIL PIPELINES TODAY ................... 785 A. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES .................................... 786 B. TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE .............................. 787 C. SPECTRA ENERGY EXPRESS-PLATTE .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada's Energy Transmission
    Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines A Special Report Prepared for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association By Angevine Economic Consulting Ltd. April 2016 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Results of I-O Model Simulations A. Impacts from operation of crude oil, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products transmission pipelines ................................................................................. 1 B. Impacts from operation of natural gas transmission pipelines ................................... 4 C. Impacts from operation of all transmission pipelines………………………………….. 6 D. Impacts of two proposed pipelines ……………………………………………...............7 E. Impact summary……………………………………………………………………….….10 Detailed Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…11 Energy Pipelines Included in the Analysis……………………………………………...12 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Introduction This report summarizes key findings obtained from using the current (2010) version of the Statistics Canada Interregional Input/Output (I-O) Model to estimate the economic impacts from operation of the energy transmission pipelines currently operating in Canada as well as from two proposed but not yet approved
    [Show full text]
  • Energy East Pipeline Project
    WhenEnergy the pipeline East: spills... Previous ruptures along TransCanada’s Mainline – part of the planned Energy East pipeline project. Photos by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Cover photos Pipeline Investigation Report P09H0074 Top left: Aerial Photo of the Englehart Occurrence Site, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2009/p09h0074/p09h0074.aspPipeline Investigation Report P11H0011 Top right: Downstream line-break section of Line 100-2, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2011/p11h0011/p11h0011.aspPipeline Investigation Report P09H0083 Bottom: Aerial photo of the Marten River occurrence site, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2009/p09h0083/p09h0083.aspEnergy East: When the pipeline spills... is published under the Creative Commons licence Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0. Images used within this document remain copyrighted by their respective owners except where specifically indicated. Energy East: When the pipeline spills... TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project would convertIt would an up be to the40-year-old largest oil natural pipeline gas inpipeline North to America, carry crude oil from Saskatchewan to Ontario, connecting it with new pipeline through Quebec and on to Saint John, New Brunswick. transporting 1.1 million barrelsif of oil every day. when where how much When it comes to pipelines, it is not a matter of a pipeline spills, it is a matter of , and it spills. NL AB SK MB Edmonton Hardisty Regina ON QC PE Winnipeg Thunder Bay Quebec City NB Montreal NS North Bay Saint John Ottawa Selective memory: TransCanada’s safety record.
    [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]
  • 'Much More Gets Accomplished When Hyper-Partisanship Is Taken out of Politics': Mps, Experts, Politicos Weigh in on Leadersh
    System racism in Canada’s security and intelligence community is a persistent threat, says former CSIS intelligence officer p. 14 Michael Harris p.11 Hill Climbers p.23 THIRTY-SECOND YEAR, NO. 1770 CANADA’S POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2020 $5.00 News New Green Leader Paul says she’s been invited to run in ridings ‘across the country,’ as she sets sights on Toronto Centre byelection BY ABBAS RANA week when she was elected as the sociations across the country to run In an interview with The Hill would run in a different riding if first Black person to lead a major as their candidate if she is unsuc- Times, Ms. Paul said she was opti- she doesn’t win Toronto Centre. ew Green Party Leader Anna- political party, says she has received cessful in her bid to win the Toronto mistic she would win the Toronto Nmie Paul, who made history last invitations from Green riding as- Centre byelection on Oct. 26. Centre riding. She also said she Continued on page 6 News News Conservative Fund says ‘Much more gets accomplished it can’t keep O’Toole’s when hyper-partisanship is taken promise to return election out of politics’: MPs, experts, rebates to riding associations politicos weigh in on leadership because of a possible fall or during global pandemic spring election ‘This is exactly the time that BY ABBAS RANA you need to have confidence onservative Leader Erin that your political leadership CO’Toole won’t be able to keep is going to be making those his leadership campaign prom- ise to return candidates’ election types of decisions with one rebates the party received in 2019 thing in mind, and that is back to the riding associations, Publications Mail Agreement #40068926 the chair of the Conservative what is best needed to save Fund told associations across the country, because of the possibility the lives of people,’ said of a fall or spring election.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Brief 1: Developments in Crude Oil Extraction and Movement
    Issue Brief 1 02/20/2015 Developments in Crude Oil Extraction and Movement Overview This paper examines crude oil extraction in North America and the transportation of extracted products within and through the Great Lakes basin to refineries in the United States, Canada and overseas. In the binational Great Lakes region, states, provinces and tribal governments experience both benefits and risks from crude oil transportation, in particular in light of the recent growth in oil extraction in North America. The benefits and risks vary depending on a variety of factors, such as the type and amount of oil transported, refinery location and the mode of transportation used to get the oil to its destination. Various modes of transportation are used to move crude oil: pipeline, train, barge/tanker vessel and truck. The majority of crude oil transported in the Great Lakes basin travels by pipeline or train. Most of that oil is brought in from other locations, some of it for refining within the region, some of it en route to refineries on the east coast or along the Gulf of Mexico. Crude oil extraction does take place in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region, but the quantities produced and transported are minimal compared to the quantities brought in from the Alberta oil sands and the Bakken shale formation. Vastly increased production from the latter two sources has led to an important increase in oil transportation through the basin. Description of U.S. and Canada Crude Oil Oil Sands Crude Oil Oil sands (also called tar sands) crude oil is considered an unconventional type of hydrocarbon and is found in two main reserves in the world, one in Venezuela and one in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Emergency Response Protocols for Crude Oil Transportation: Pipeline Vs Rail
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Master of Public Policy Capstone Projects 2015-09 Evaluation of Emergency Response Protocols for Crude Oil Transportation: Pipeline vs Rail Bhura, Alisha Bhura, Alisha. (2015). Evaluation of Emergency Response Protocols for Crude Oil Transportation: Pipeline vs Rail ( Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51657 report Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Master of Public Policy Capstone Project Evaluation of Emergency Response Protocols for Crude Oil Transportation: Pipeline vs. Rail Submitted by: Alisha Bhura Approved by Supervisor: Dr. Bev Dahlby, September 15, 2015 Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of PPOL 623 and completion of the requirements for the Master of public Policy degree Acknowledgements Completion of this capstone project would not have been possible without a number of individuals. I would like to thank Dr. Bev Dahlby for his advice and guidance, Laura Fitterer for her constant support and Dan McFayden for his direction and experience. Executive Summary This capstone project reviews and evaluates the emergency response protocols for crude oil transportation via pipeline and rail. The growth of the Canada’s oil sands and the use of hydraulic fracturing are providing access to what were previously thought to be uneconomic oil and gas deposits. This coupled with our growing use of crude oil is changing the energy landscape in North America. To accommodate this changing environment, increased transportation of crude oil is necessary. The increase in energy production and transport has had a parallel increase in public awareness of energy and dangerous goods transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St
    Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region | 1 (page intentionally left blank) Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region | 2 Table of Contents Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………… 4 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………. 5 Summary Report ……….…………………………………………………………………. 9 o Background o Purpose of the Report o Developments and Responses from Regional Partners to Recent Oil Spills o Key Findings and Observations Appendices…………………………………………..………………………………………. 31 o Appendix 1: Summary of Comments Received o Appendix 2: Action Item from September 9, 2013, GLC Annual Meeting o Appendix 3: Summary of Issue Brief 1: Developments in Crude Oil Extraction and Movement o Appendix 4: Summary of Issue Brief 2: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Economic Benefits Associated with Crude Oil Transportation o Appendix 5: Summary of Issue Brief 3: Risks and Impacts Associated with Crude Oil Transportation o Appendix 6: Summary of Issue Brief 4: Policies, Programs and Regulations Governing the Movement of Oil Full report available at www.glc.org/projects/water-quality/oil-transport/ Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region | 3 Acknowledgments Preparation of the Summary of Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region and the four companion issue briefs required the time and effort of numerous individuals who worked together, shared ideas, edited several drafts and provided encouragement and support to each other throughout the process.
    [Show full text]
  • This Section Describes the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal That Will Be Constructed for the Project Near Saint John, New Brunswick
    CA PDF Page 1 of 24 Energy East Pipeline Ltd. Consolidated Application Section 6 Volume 6: Facility Design Marine Terminal Design 6.0 OVERVIEW This section describes the Canaport Energy East marine terminal that will be constructed for the Project near Saint John, New Brunswick. This marine terminal will involve the development of facilities for loading oil from the Saint John tank terminal onto oil tankers. The section outlines the major components and systems, as well as the engineering considerations and philosophies, which are applicable to the design of the marine terminal. The information is based on preliminary design and is supported by initial field investigations. Revisions and refinements are expected as additional data is collected and assessed, and as engineering progresses through detailed design. 6.1 LOCATION The Canaport Energy East marine terminal will be located in an existing industrial area on the western shore of the Bay of Fundy, southeast of the city of Saint John and south of Mispec Point in New Brunswick. The site is adjacent to the existing Irving Oil Canaport facility, which includes a single buoy mooring used in the importation of oil to the Irving Oil refinery and storage facilities and Canaport LNG terminal, which imports liquefied natural gas. Refer to aerial map provided in Appendix 6-94. The available onshore area at the Canaport Energy East marine terminal is limited due to the rocky shoreline and proximity to the existing Irving Oil Canaport facilities. Vehicle access will be along the shared two-lane west perimeter road through the existing Irving Oil Canaport facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcanada Fails to Say How the Energy East Pipeline Would Cross Major Canadian Rivers
    APPLICATION INCOMPLETE TransCanada fails to say how the Energy East pipeline would cross major Canadian rivers JUNE 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPLICATION INCOMPLETE: TransCanada fails to say how the Energy East pipeline would cross major Canadian rivers A REPORT BY: REPORT PARTNERS: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA AND ÉQUITERRE would like to thank the following people, who helped make this report possible: Shelley Kath, Patrick DeRochie, Keith Brooks, Allen Braude, Carole Dupuis, Kate Blystone, Doug Tingey, Dennis LeNeveu, Stephanie Bolt, Martin Gagnon, Steven Guilbeault, Alizée Cauchon, Carmen Marie Fabio, Guylaine Fortin and Simon Richard, Conseiller en communication et Responsable des relations avec le milieu, MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges. © Copyright June 2017 by ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA AND ÉQUITERRE Permission is granted to the public to reproduce or disseminate this report, in part, or in whole, free of charge, in any format or medium without requiring specific permission. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA AND ÉQUITERRE. ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE is Canada’s most effective environmental action organization. We challenge, and inspire change in government, business and people to ensure a greener, healthier and prosperous life for all. ABOUT ÉQUITERRE ÉQUITERRE is Quebec’s largest and most influential environmental organization, with 20,000 members, 200 volunteers, and a staff of 40 people. Équiterre offers concrete solutions to accelerate the transition towards a society
    [Show full text]
  • Energy East Quick Facts 2
    ENERGY EAST: Tar Sands Pipeline Facts tise that could help the hearing panel gain a greater understanding of a given matter under con- sideration.” http://www.neb-one.gc.ca A Pipeline from West to East http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rcmmn/hm-eng.html Called the Energy East Pipeline by TransCanada, the proposed 4,400-kilometre pipeline will Applying to Participate in a Hearing carry between 500,000 and 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatche- wan to refineries in Eastern Canada.This exceeds the capacity of the proposed Keystone XL http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pblcprtcptn/pblchrng/pblchrng-eng.html pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico. NEB Intervenor Status Application Electronic Submission www.neb-one.gc.ca/efile/ElectronicDocumentSubmission.aspx The project has the following expected major components: Application for intervenor status must be within 14 days of the original proposal’s submission to the NEB. •The conversion of an existing 3000km natural gas pipeline to an oil transportation pipeline Matters in Relation to Landowners may be submitted here •The construction of 1,400km of new pipeline in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern On- http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pblcprtcptn/nvlvngthpblc-eng.html tario, Québec and New Brunswick to link up with the converted pipe Landowner Rights and Liability issues are considered here •Constructing the associated facilities, pump stations and tank terminals, required to move crude When the Landsman Comes Calling: Don’t Sign Anything Until you are Absolutely Sure oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Québec and New Brunswick, including marine export fa- cilities that enable access to other markets by ship Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Association http://landownerassociation.ca/rsrcs/WhentheLandsmanComesCalling_DontSignAnything2010.pdf •The exact route is subject to both public and regulatory review.
    [Show full text]
  • TAR SANDS at OUR DOORSTEP: the Threat to the Lake Champlain Region’S Waters, Wildlife and Climate ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    TAR SANDS AT OUR DOORSTEP: The Threat to the Lake Champlain Region’s Waters, Wildlife and Climate ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AUTHORS The National Wildlife Federation wishes to Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation thank the following institutions and donors [email protected] whose generosity supports our efforts to Sheridan Brown, National Wildlife Federation keep tar sands out of the Northeast: REVIEWERS/EDITORS CORPORATE AND FOUNDATION Catherine Bowes, National Wildlife Federation SUPPORTERS Johanna Miller, Vermont Natural Resources Council Canaday Family Charitable Trust Conor Bambrick, Environmental Advocates of New York David Blittersdorf Family Foundation Curtis Fisher, National Wildlife Federation Growald Family Fund Jenny Rowland, National Wildlife Federation Lintilhac Foundation Libby Johnson, National Wildlife Federation New Venture Fund Vermont Community Foundation’s Acorn Fund COVER PHOTOS Vermont Creamery top background: Flickr: found_drama bottom from left: Gary Lackie, Eric Kilby, Matt Jeppson/ INDIVIDUAL DONORS Shutterstock.com, USFWS Northeast Region Marcia Angermann Ingrid Barry This Report is available online at www.nwf.org/atourdoorstep Al Boright and Sandy Shenk Boright Edmund Coffin Ben Cohen Jito Coleman and Bonnie Atwater Mark Curran and Margie Straub Judy DiMario Ann Dion Matthew Dunne and Sarah Taylor Barbarina and Aaron Heyerdahl Curtis and Sue Hooper Jonathan Larsen and Mary Peacock Sally and Robert Linder David and Lucy Marvin Sarah Muyskens and Michael Green Hubert O’Brien Kinny Perot and Richard Czaplinski William and Lynette Raap Lili Ruane and Win Smith Mark and Sukey Schroeder Leigh Seddon and Ann Aspell Elizabeth Skarie and Jerry Greenfield Lisa Steele and Scott Hammond Rep. Kate and Marshall Webb © 2015 National Wildlife Federation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONLAND/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM major battle is unfolding across New England, New York and beyond.
    [Show full text]