Representatives from Canada’s New England consulate in Boston have been making the rounds at town hall meetings and state legislature hearings in Vermont and Maine in recent months to counter various initiatives aimed at blocking Western Canadian oil sands crude from being transported through a 380 km pipeline that runs through the two states and northern New Hampshire.
Patrick Binns, Canada’s consul general to New England and a former Progressive Conservative premier of Prince Edward Island, has appeared at a number of events around the area in recent months in an effort to dispel concerns about oilsands crude.
Groups are concerned that the Portland-Montreal pipeline, which currently transports oil imports from Portland, Maine to Montreal, could be reversed to transport oil sands crude without an environmental assessment by the U.S. federal government.
Some municipalities in the area are also debating a purchasing policy that would ban the use of oilsands products by their local government, and state legislatures are considering requesting that the U.S. federal government clarify whether or not a presidential permit would be required to reverse the flow of the pipeline.
On March 11, Mr. Binns appeared at a South Portland City Council meeting in Maine to defend the transportation of oilsands crude through Portland, Maine, along with Larry Wilson, president and CEO of the Portland Pipe Line Corporation.
“A reality for all of us is that Canada’s oilsands are part of our energy future. Not just mine, but yours as well,” Mr. Binns told attendees in a speech highlighting the progress being made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands. The town hall event was recorded and posted online by South Portland Community Television.
Mr. Binns also denied claims that diluted bitumen—the mixture of oilsands crude and diluting agents—was corrosive to pipelines.
“Allegations that diluted bitumen are more corrosive than conventional oil have been proven false,” Mr. Binns told the audience, citing a recent independent report produced by British consulting firm Penspen and commissioned by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
“I want to assure you that Canada and Alberta are committed to being environmentally responsible. We will continue to implement new and better technologies. Much of the technology in fact is developed right here in the United States. About 70 per cent of the outside investment in the oil sands actually comes from the United States,” Mr. Binns said.
Mr. Binns did not respond to an interview request from The Hill Times, and the New England Consulate directed interview requests to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa.
Environmentalists in the region have noted that Canadian officials started to become much more active in their efforts to dispel concerns about oilsands crude late last year.
“They’re pretty aggressively campaigning about the benefits of tar sands in a context of the conversation here about sending tar sands through the state of Maine,” said Dylan Voorhees, clean energy director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Mr. Voorhees said that the message from Mr. Binns and other Canadian representatives is that oilsands crude can help the U.S. achieve energy independence, and that the industry and Alberta government are making progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reclaiming land used in oilsands excavation.
“It’s a bit of what I would call green-washing of the environmental laws and track record in Canada,” Mr. Voorhees told The Hill Times. “That being said, I don’t know that Maine audiences really care that much for better or for worse about how much tar sands [reclamation] has happened.”
Mr. Voorhees said that people in Maine are more concerned about a repeat of the 2010 oil spill in Michigan, where a rupture in Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline released 20,000 barrels of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River.
Environmental groups in the U.S. are now blaming oil sands crude for the 19,000 barrel spill from Exxon Mobile’s Pegasus pipeline on March 29 in Arkansas. The spill polluted wetlands in the area and the ongoing cleanup required the evacuation of a suburb in Mayflower, Ark.
The Portland-Montreal pipeline currently transports light crude imported from regions including the Middle East and Africa. Canada’s oil industry has made the case that it’s better for North America to rely on Canadian supply rather than import oil from unfriendly governments abroad.
People in Maine are concerned with the substance more than the origin of the oil, said Mr. Voorhees.
“A lot of other folks are also concerned about the evidence of additional risks of a tar sands spill, and other concerns about what happens if it does spill—benzene in the air, bitumen sinking into water sediment,” he said.
Jim Murphy, a Vermont-based lawyer and senior counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, said that the Portland Pipe Line Corporation and Canadian officials had previously denied that there was any plan to transport oilsands crude through Vermont and Maine, but in the last four months they’ve changed tack.
“They’ve gone from outright denial to now a real aggressive engagement to both getting out there, getting into communities, talking about it, and then really downplaying the tar sands mix,” said Mr. Murphy.
“[T]he switch has been from staying quiet and denying any possible plans to much more a public relations campaign ... to try to combat the concerns that are being raised by citizens and interested landowners and environmental groups.”
Natural Resources briefing notes highlight potential Portland-Montreal reversal
According to briefing notes prepared by Natural Resources Canada’s Petroleum Resources Branch for deputy minister Serge Dupont last March and recently obtained by The Hill Times through the Access to Information Act, the Portland-Montreal pipeline reversal is listed as a potential project in the long term, “post 2016.”
“[I]f capacity can be increased to Montreal, there are options to reverse the flow on the 600,000 b/d Portland to Montreal pipeline. Portland to Montreal pipeline is owned by a small private company, and currently flows imported crude to Montreal. Previously proposed, no public indication that this is being pursued,” the document states.
Enbridge initially attempted to reverse their Line 9 pipeline in 2009 as part of the company’s abandoned Trailerbreaker project, which included reversing the Portland-Montreal pipeline so that oil sands crude could be exported by tanker from Portland, Maine.
The 830-km Line 9 pipeline previously delivered imported oil from Montreal to refineries in southern Ontario. In August 2011, Enbridge applied to the National Energy Board to reverse the 194-km stretch of the line from Sarnia, Ont., to Westover, Ont. The NEB approved the proposal on July 29, 2012.
Enbridge applied to the NEB to reverse the remainder of Line 9 on Nov. 29, 2012 and public consultations are set to begin later this year.
However, environmental groups in Southern Ontario have complained that new requirements by the NEB for participation in public consultations are too rigorous.
Some environmental groups have accused Enbridge of trying to complete its abandoned Trailbreaker project by stealth. Enbridge has consistently denied that it has any intention of modifying existing infrastructure or building additional infrastructure beyond the ongoing Line 9 reversal.
Enbridge spokesperson Graham White emphatically denied that the company has any agreement with the Portland Pipe Line Corporation to reverse the line between Montreal and Portland.
“We are no longer pursuing [Trailbreaker] and have been very clear about this publicly and to all parties and regions for the past several years,” Mr. White stated in an email. He added that Enbridge has no plans to transport oil moved east by Line 9 to international markets.
“The two destination clients are the Suncor refinery at Montreal and the Ultramar refinery outside of Quebec City. They will upgrade the crude into the many downstream energy products we all rely on for our daily lives, including retail gasoline and diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, and petrochemicals that are used in the manufacturing process of a vast array of consumer items,” Mr. White stated.
The Portland Pipe Line Corporation has retained National Public Relations to handle media requests. A spokesperson at National’s Montreal office who asked not to be named also denied that there is any agreement to reverse the line.
“At this time there’s no plans to reverse the pipeline, but god knows, in six months, a year, 10 years from now, it may or may not be the case,” the spokesperson said.
Both the federal government and opposition have argued for more infrastructure to deliver oil to eastern Canada. They argue that oil sands crude can create jobs at refineries in Southern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes and be used for domestic consumption.
On April 11, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.) held a press conference at Montreal’s Suncor refinery where he reiterated the federal government’s support for more eastbound pipeline infrastructure.
“Subject to regulatory approval, our Government fully supports energy infrastructure projects that will transport Western Canadian oil to the East,” Minister Oliver said on April 11. “It’s in our national interest to replace higher-cost foreign crude with lower-cost Canadian crude for consumers and refineries in Quebec and the Maritime provinces.”
Presidential permit requirement disputed
Groups like the Natural Resources Council of Maine want the U.S. government to require a presidential permit like the approval needed for the Keystone XL pipeline before the flow of the Portland-Montreal pipeline is reversed.
When Enbridge sought approval for its now defunct Trailbreaker project in 2008, the U.S. State Department under the Bush Administration ruled that a presidential permit would not be required to reverse the flow of the Portland-Montreal pipeline.
In February, a group of three Senators and 15 House representatives from Maine and Vermont wrote to U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that they require a presidential permit and an environmental impact assessment for any future reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline.
“That’s really the opportunity for an environmental impact review. We don’t have the NEB here,” Mr. Voorhees told The Hill Times. “That’s very concerning to a lot of the public ... that there might not be any real environmental review before tar sands are allowed to flow through that pipeline.”
Portland Pipe Line Corporation CEO Wilson, however, has denied that a presidential permit is required, citing the 2008 ruling by the State Department.
“[We] received confirmation in recent years that the US presidential permit is valid for flow in either direction,” the spokesperson for National stated on Mr. Wilson’s behalf.
Lobbying dates back to 2011
Canadian officials have been lobbying New England state governments on behalf of the oil sands industry at least as far back as October 2011.
According to documents obtained by the Natural Resources Council of Maine through U.S. freedom of information laws, Consul General Binns, Portland Pipe Line Corporation CEO Wilson, and members of the American Petroleum Institute met with Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage to give a presentation on the oil sands’ role as a strategic resource. The presentation also included a briefing on the Portland-Montreal pipeline’s importance.
Chris McCluskey, director of communications to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, denied that the federal government was pushing for the pipeline to be reversed.
“Infrastructure decisions are made by private companies, not the government. Any such proposal must be brought forward to the National Energy Board for environmental review. No such plans exist,” Mr. McCluskey stated in an email.
Rick Roth, director of communications to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.), said that one of the duties of Canadian diplomats in the U.S. was to raise awareness of “state level trade” with Canada.
“An important part of the role of the Consul General is to promote and defend the interests of Canada abroad,” Mr. Roth stated in an e-mail. “The Consul General’s participation in these events are part of his and our network of missions’ wider mandate to promote Canada as a secure energy supplier to the U.S. and clear up any misconceptions related to Canada’s oil sands.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment