mercredi 27 juin 2012

Pipe-Lines Montreal : plusieurs États américains se réveillent...


Publié le 27 juin 2012 à 05h00 | Mis à jour à 05h00
source web :http://www.lapresse.ca/la-voix-de-lest/actualites/201206/27/01-4538562-vent-dopposition-en-nouvelle-angleterre-pour-pipe-lines-montreal.php?

Vent d'opposition en Nouvelle-Angleterre pour Pipe-Lines Montréal

  •  
Tout comme au Québec, l'oléoduc de 18 pouces... (photo archives La Voix de l'Est)
Tout comme au Québec, l'oléoduc de 18 pouces de diamètre que Pipe-Lines Montréal aimerait utiliser pour transporter du pétrole de Montréal vers les terminaux portuaires de Portland, au Maine, passe sous ou à proximité de plusieurs cours d'eau importants.
PHOTO ARCHIVES LA VOIX DE L'EST
La Voix de l'Est
L'opposition s'organise en Nouvelle-Angleterre pour contrer l'importation de pétrole des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta par l'entremise d'un oléoduc de Pipe-Lines Montréal (PLM).
Des groupes environnementaux du Maine, du New Hampshire et du Vermont joignent leurs forces pour dénoncer le projet. Tous plaident les risques que fait peser l'oléoduc de PLM sur l'environnement. Les arguments sont les mêmes entendus au Québec. «C'est un oléoduc qui a été construit il y a cinquante ans, fait remarquer Glen Brand, directeur du Sierra Club au Maine. Et il n'a pas été conçu pour transporter du pétrole aussi corrosif que celui des sables bitumineux.»
Tout comme au Québec, l'oléoduc de 18 pouces de diamètre que PLM aimerait utiliser pour transporter du pétrole de Montréal vers les terminaux portuaires de Portland au Maine passe sous ou à proximité de plusieurs cours d'eau importants, note M. Brand. Un déversement serait catastrophique, selon lui. Il cite la rivière Androscoggin, près de la Ville de Bethel au Maine, un cours d'eau très populaire pour les activités récréatives. Le lac Sebago, source d'eau potable de la Ville de Portland où habite 15 % des résidants de l'État, serait également menacé par un déversement. Tout comme la baie Casco où les installations portuaires de PLM se trouvent. Elle est fréquentée par des pêcheurs commerciaux et les touristes, dit l'environnementaliste.
«Ça nous inquiète beaucoup parce que c'est le pétrole brut le plus sale qui existe. Il y a de vrais risques pour des plans d'eau qui sont cruciaux pour la population», a dit M. Brand en entrevue hier avec La Voix de l'Est.
À l'instar du Comité d'environnement de Dunham, le Sierra Club ne croit pas que le projet d'exporter du pétrole des sables bitumineux sur la côte est américaine en passant par Montréal a été abandonné. La compagnie Enbridge, instigatrice du projet, travaille à mettre les pièces en place, estime M. Brand. «Ils sont en train de procéder étape par étape et prennent tous les moyens pour préparer le terrain. Ça leur permet d'éviter que les citoyens en fassent (du projet) un examen minutieux.»
Étape de franchie
En mars dernier, une lettre du ministre des Ressources naturelles du Canada, Joe Oliver, informait le ministre du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, Pierre Arcand, que Enbridge avait abandonné son projet de transporter du pétrole des sables bitumineux vers les États-Unis en transitant par le Québec.
Tous les détails dans notre édition de mercredi

vendredi 22 juin 2012

PipeLine Portland-Montréal : l'État américain du Vermont se questionne...


This map shows the U.S. portion of a Montreal-Portland, Maine pipeline, in red. Map courtesy National Wildlife Federation
 source web : http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/19/will-tar-sands-oil-flow-through-vermont/

Will tar sands oil flow through Vermont?

Editor’s note: A companion story to this piece, Environmental groups push for preemptive halt to oil transit, by Alan Panebaker, was published on VTDigger.org today.
New England environmental groups are sounding the alarm over a Canadian oil company’s plan to bring tar sands oil from Alberta to refineries in Eastern Canada. Environmentalists believe the proposal by Enbridge Oil is the first step in a long-range plan to move tar sands oil through Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom and New Hampshire to Portland, Maine, for export. The oil company says, “There is no active plan at this point.”
In a statement, an Enbridge spokesman, citing their pipeline that runs between Sarnia, Ontario, to Montreal, Quebec, says it does not go further east. “The projects Enbridge have currently proposed for Line 9 are limited to the reversal of this line, which terminates in Montreal. There is a pipeline between Montreal and Portland, Maine, but it is not owned by Enbridge; any decisions related to this pipeline would be for that company to make.”
It’s believed that the oil that will move east from Alberta will be tar sands oil. The technique has allowed for the capture of previously untouched oil deposits, but it is also estimated by environmentalists to take between 14 percent and 20 percent more energy than the extraction of conventional oil.
“Oil is already incredibly dirty and tar sands are that much worse,” said Ben Walsh, clean energy advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “Tar sands is to oil as fracking is to natural gas, and Vermont just banned fracking.”

Exporting oil is the new thing

Currently, a pipeline exists that brings imported oil from Portland to refineries in Montreal. Environmentalists warn that the pipeline reversals in Canada signal an attempt by the oil company to revive a 2008 plan to export tar sands oil through Portland. The plan, dubbed Trailbreaker, would reverse the flow of the pipelines between Alberta and Portland.
“They put a very clear plan out in 2008, when tar sands oil really wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen,” said Jim Murphy, a Vermont wetlands and water resources lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation’s Northeast Regional Center in Montpelier. “Then the economy tanked.”
Since then, environmentalists have mobilized to oppose tar sands oil. They argue that the emissions from the fossil fuel energy needed to extract the oil dangerously accelerate climate change. In the U.S., there was a large grassroots push to pressure President Barack Obama to not fast-track the authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would connect Alberta oil to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico; President Obama declined to fast-track the project. Also, an Enbridge plan to create a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia has run into logistical hurdles and has met stiff resistance from some tribes of the Canadian First Nations.
But Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration favors more development of the tar sands oil industry, and industry analysts say the demand for the oil is unmistakable. Because the oil is extracted closer to home, it can be refined at a discount, said Andy Black, president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. Increased Canadian oil and natural gas production is causing pipeline owners in Texas, Oklahoma and the Great Lakes region to rethink which way oil should flow.
“It’s cheaper to reverse a pipeline than produce a new pipeline,” said Black. “Pipeline operators are trying to think creatively about ways to meet demand.”

Environmentalists connect the dots

Environmental groups believe that connecting the dots between Enbridge’s recent moves shows that the big picture is a plan to move tar sands oil through Vermont. For example, they point to Enbridge’s little-noticed court battle in Quebec over the construction of a new pipeline pumping station close to the Vermont border. Environmentalists argue the pumping station is only necessary if the company plans to reverse more of the line than is being announced.
The Quebec provincial government has twice denied the application on procedural grounds, but Enbridge is expected to reapply, they say. An Enbridge spokesman said he was currently too unfamiliar with the pumping station project to comment.
Also, environmentalists argue that if Enbridge goes through with the flow reversal of its Canadian pipelines, then it would create an expensive redundancy in its pipeline system. Currently, the Portland-Montreal pipeline pumps some 170,000 barrels of imported oil a day, but the pipeline system has the capacity to carry more than twice that. Meanwhile, the Montreal refineries can’t handle much more than the amount already piped from Portland, Murphy says, adding that exporting oil seems the only way to make the plan worthwhile and that Enbridge is taking an incremental approach only to avoid public alarm over the idea.
“There’s really not much other explanation for the piecemeal approach to the project that exists,” he concludes.

Oil pressure

Environmentalists also fear the decades-old pipeline isn’t equipped to handle tar sands oil, which they argue is more toxic, has more sediment and flows at a higher temperature inside the pipeline. They worry a break could endanger New England’s waterways, including Crystal Lake and the Connecticut River. Enbridge has come under fire for its handling of a recent 800,000-gallon spill of tar sands oil in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. Its engineers apparently misread the problem as one of low pressure in the pipeline.
“It took the company about 12 to 15 hours to really notice there was a spill. In the meantime, they put the foot on the gas, pumping-wise,” Murphy said.
But Enbridge spokesman Graham White counters that transporting tar sands oil poses no additional risk compared to transporting heavy crude oil. He also denied that Enbridge has any current plans to move tar sands oil through Vermont.
“We have been perfectly clear and completely forthcoming in multiple public forums, hearings (sic), to news media on both sides of the border and to communities and stakeholders that this is not the Trailbreaker project and that we are not pursuing the Trailbreaker project,” Enbridge spokesman Graham White said in an email.
“We have been perfectly clear and completely forthcoming in multiple public forums, hearings (sic), to news media on both sides of the border and to communities and stakeholders that this is not the Trailbreaker project and that we are not pursuing the Trailbreaker project,” White said in an email.
But he refused to speculate on the future of the Montreal and Portland pipelines, saying they were independently owned. Ted O’Meara, a spokesman for the Portland Pipeline, said there was no active plan to reverse the flow of the pipeline, but also that the company wasn’t immediately concerned about Enbridge’s move to bring more oil to the Montreal refineries. O’Meara said there is more potential for refinery capacity in Montreal than is currently estimated, but to comment further would be pure speculation.
But environmentalists throughout New England remain unconvinced by the denials and are using protests and publicity campaigns to raise awareness about an eventual move by Enbridge to propose bringing tar sands oil through New England.
“There is an overwhelming market drive to get that oil out,” said Dylan Voorhees, clean energy project director of the National Resources Council of Maine. “This is really coming. It’s just a matter of time.”

Pipeline Montréal-Portland Lte : interrogation sécuritaire dans l'État américain du Maine



June 20 

Maine foes of tar sands oil sticking together

They say that moving the oil from Montreal to Portland would threaten Maine's quality of life.

source web : http://www.pressherald.com/news/foes-of-tar-sands-oil-sticking-together_2012-06-20.html
PORTLAND — Brooke Hidell of Casco has lived near the Crooked River for much of his life. He has fished and taught others to fish there. He understands the river's role as a feeder into Sebago Lake, the main source of drinking water for residents of Greater Portland.

click image to enlarge
Dylan Voorhees of the Natural Resources Council of Maine speaks Tuesday at Portland City Hall. “The risk of pushing tar sands through this pipeline is just too great,” he said.
Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer
Hidell has counted the number of times the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line crosses the Crooked River – six. For him, that means at least six chances for an oil spill that would threaten the waterway.
As speculation grows about the possibility of tar sands oil flowing from Canada through Maine, environmental advocates are banding together to oppose what they see as a risky proposition.
On Tuesday at Portland City Hall, Hidell joined representatives from the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the local chapter of the Sierra Club to protest what they say is a growing threat to Maine's quality of life.
Enbridge Corp., a major petroleum company in Canada, has applied for a permit to reverse the flow of oil between Ontario and Montreal. Dylan Voorhees of the Natural Resources Council of Maine and others predict a similar reversal of the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line, so Canadian oil could be loaded onto tankers in Casco Bay and then shipped to refineries.
Voorhees said that would provide no real benefits to Maine, but would threaten the environment.
"The health of Maine people and our economy and our way of life depend on clean water for drinking, for tourism, for our fishing industry and for recreation," he said Tuesday. "The risk of pushing tar sands through this pipeline is just too great."
For years, light crude oil has flowed from Portland to Montreal. The difference in moving oil the other way lies in the type of oil, said Shelley Kath with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Tar sands oil is dirty and corrosive, opponents say. Just to get it moving through pipelines, the thick oil must be diluted with chemicals. Kath said tar sands oil is much more likely to spill than traditional oil.
Canadian companies are committed to getting the most out of tar sands oil, even with the challenges. A Montreal-to-Portland route would be just a small part of what industry watchers expect to happen over the next decade.
How that could play out is unclear, Voorhees said, and the decision would involve multiple jurisdictions. In Maine, the pipeline is operated by Portland Pipe Line Corp. of South Portland. The company recently declined a request for comment about future plans, but its website says there are no active plans to move crude oil from western Canada through Maine.
Environmentalists don't buy it.
Four years ago, Enbridge introduced a project called Trailbreaker, which would have moved tar sands oil from Alberta to Montreal and eventually to Portland. That project was shelved because of the recession, but now it appears to be moving forward in smaller pieces.
"Everything is pointing toward a revival of this project," Kath said.
Elsewhere, TransCanada Corp. has faced stiff opposition from environmentalists in the U.S. to its Keystone Pipeline, which would transport oil down the country's midsection to the Gulf Coast.

Staff Writer Eric Russell can be contacted at 791-6344 or at: erussell@mainetoday.com


mercredi 13 juin 2012

Information de l'Office national de l'énergie (ONÉ) sur l'inversion de la Line 9 Sarnia-Montréal

bonjour ,
je met en ligne le lien de l'Office national de l'énergie du Canada (ONÉ) qui explique et documente tout le processus du Projet de la Compagnie pipelinière Enbridge correspondant à la mise en application d'une inversion de la Line 9 entre l'Alberta et Montréal pour faire passer du pétrole issu des sables bitumineux..

Cette information est publique, donc je la partage avec vous...merci jesourisvert


version française
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/nbrdgln9phs1/nbrdgln9phs1-fra.html

english version
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/nbrdgln9phs1/nbrdgln9phs1-eng.html#s1

Le Maine et la Nouvelle Angleterre s'interrogent depuis avril sur le projet de Pipeline Montréal-Portland Ltee


Tar sands oil heading east? Controversial crude could make its way to New England via pipeline

By JIM HADDADIN
jhaddadin@fosters.com
Sunday, April 22, 2012

Picture
David Dodge photo A Canadian tar sands oil mining operation as seen from the air.
DOVER — The Keystone XL pipeline extension, which would transport an oil product known as "tar sands" to refineries on the Gulf Coast, has received a wealth of media attention this year.

However, the Keystone XL pipeline isn't the only transportation path for tar sands oil. Oil suppliers have explored a number of ways to move the controversial petroleum product to market, including pathways through the Northeast.

One of Canada's largest pipeline operators, Enbridge, Inc., developed a plan in 2008 to reverse one of its existing lines to begin moving tar sands oil east from Western Canada, where the industry is set to boom.

Enbridge's Line 9, which starts in the western part of the country, would be capable of delivering tar sands oil to Montreal if the company reversed the flow of the entire line.

Enbridge proposed doing just that four years ago with it's so-called "Trailbreaker" project.

To move the tar sands oil on the final leg of the journey from Montreal to Maine, the company proposed utilizing the existing Portland-Montreal Pipe Line.

PMPL stretches more than 200 miles, cutting through Vermont and northern New Hampshire. It currently transports crude in the other direction, from Maine to Montreal.

Enbridge officials have since scrapped the Trailbreaker project, citing a sour economy. But environmental groups in both Canada and the United States believe recent actions indicate the company is working to revive the proposal incrementally.

Recently, Enbridge filed a request with Canada's National Energy Board to reverse the flow of oil in a segment of Line 9, which connects Sarnia and Westover in Ontario.

Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Varey said the company is making the move in order to begin transporting light crude to a facility in Westover.

Varey said Line 9's future use will be dictated by the demands of shippers, and Enbridge has not determined whether to request permission from Canadian officials to reverse the entire pipeline.

"It's one of those things where, if the market demand is there, there is the possibility that we would be bringing Canadian oil to those markets," in the Northeast, she said.

In addition to the activity around Line 9, environmental groups in Canada have been following developments near Montreal, where the operator of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline is seeking to build a new pumping station.

That pumping station would provide the necessary machinery to push oil over a range of mountains near the Vermont border, which would be an impediment if the flow of the pipeline is reversed.

However, the company has lost legal battles over its request in at least two Canadian courts — most recently from the Court of Quebec.

"The project itself of reversing the flow of the pipeline, at this time, is not moving forward because the market conditions, at this time, do not warrant that project to move forward," said Denis Boucher, a PMPL spokesperson.

However, Dylan Voorhees, director of the clean energy project at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, which was been following the issue, worries it's only a matter of time before the pipeline operators decide to renew the project.

Voorhees said the situation is concerning because moving tar sands presents a greater risk for an oil spill than moving conventional crude oil.

Tar sands is more acidic — and therefore more corrosive — than conventional crude oil, and it must be transported at hotter temperatures and faster speeds, according to Voorhees.

"I think that's one of the concerns that people in New Hampshire might have, is, 'What are the resources and special places that this pipe passes through?'" Voorhees said.

Tar sands, referred to as oil sands in Canada, are a combination of clay, sand, water and bitumen — a heavy, black, asphalt-like substance. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the bitumen, which is then refined into oil.

The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state. Instead, tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating, according to information available from the U.S. Department of Interior.

As a result of the more energy-intensive extraction techniques, environmental groups argue the production of fuels derived from tar sands is more damaging to the environment than crude oil extraction.

California was set to become the first state in the country to implement a low-carbon fuel standard this year, which could have significant consequences for producers of tar sands products.

The standard would impose penalties on fuel suppliers who ship products with a higher "carbon intensity," like tar sands-derived gasoline, to California. Money collected through the program would support production of cleaner fuel sources.

New Hampshire is among 11 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic considering a similar program called the Clean Fuels Standard, which has been in development for nearly five years.

Arthur Marin is executive director of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), the group developing the Clean Fuels Standard.

Until this year, he said, the group had been modeling its design on the California fuel standard, but recent developments in the Golden State have cast doubt on the constitutionality of the program.

Opponents challenged the program in court in December, arguing the fuel standard violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution because it attempts to impose a penalty for extraction techniques used in Canada, outside of the state's borders.

With California's program facing an uncertain future, NESCAUM is now examining alternative models for a low-carbon fuel standard, Marin said.

Marin said those involved with the project are realistic about the inevitable rise of tar sands-derived fuel production.

"We've had many discussions with representatives from Alberta, from the oil companies ... and I think everyone understands that that's a potential new source of oil that's going to be playing in the United States market," he said.

Last month, the non-partisan, nonprofit news group InsideClimate News reported that New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his counterparts in the other NESCAUM states were recently contacted by an oil industry group regarding the uncertainty over California's standard.

The oil industry has also taken an interest in developments in the New Hampshire Legislature. Last month, the House passed bills that would pull New Hampshire out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an air quality compact, and free it from any commitment to the low-carbon fuel standard.

HB1487, the bill barring the state from adopting the Clean Fuel Standard, passed the House on a 243-96 vote.

Rep. James Garrity, chairman of the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, said he helped to promote HB1487 because his time in the Legislature has given him insight into the drawbacks of participating in regulatory pacts like RGGI. Garrity said opponents object to the program because it relies on a "central-planning, state-directed" approach to developing clean fuels.

"We're making the message clear to the rest of the New England states," he said. "New Hampshire's not going to go there."

One of the state's representatives in the regional fuel standard talks, Mike Fitzgerald, called the House bill "somewhat unfortunate." Environmental regulations such as the low-carbon fuel standard must be adopted broadly to be effective, he said, and New Hampshire's primary leverage in the discussions has been the fact that it might or might not participate.

The House bill does not prevent the state from helping to draft the fuel standard. But if New Hampshire declares it won't cooperate, the state will be in a weaker position to shape the regulations, which could have an impact on fuel prices.

One of New Hampshire's primary concerns in the ongoing discussions is ensuring the standard doesn't increase the price of gasoline or diesel fuel, according to Fitzgerald.

"Obviously, the state is looking at what can we do to mitigate climate change, and so there would be, potentially, some balancing of economic and environmental interests," he said, "but obviously, if there was something that was going to significantly impact the price of petroleum and diesel and gasoline, that would be a major concern." Although the prospect of tar sands piping through New Hampshire's north country remains hypothetical, Garrity said he would back initiatives to ship the product through the state, and oppose new efforts to curtail tar sands production.

"Tar sands oil is no different from oil coming from Texas or Saudi Arabia," he said. "It's all refined into the same product, so what I get at the pump is gasoline. What I get is number two fuel oil in my fuel tank. When your prevailing world view is all fossil fuels are evil, nothing but zero will satisfy."


Picture
David Dodge photo Heavy equipment dredges a tailings pond at a Canadian tar sands oil mining operation. The pond is the byproduct of mining for tar sands oil and is made up of water, clay, sand and "residual product." Some officials are concerned the controversial fuel could make its way to the New England states.





Picture
David Dodge photo An aerial view of a Canadian tar sands oil mining operation.





Picture
Courtesy image This pipeline spanning from Motreal to Portland, Maine could potentially bring tar sands oil to New England states. Canadian pipeline operator Enbridge, Inc. could revive a plan to bring the controversial fuel to the region.



Shell plaide coupable à une pollution toxique en Alberta-Canada


Publié le 12 juin 2012 à 17h22 | Mis à jour le 12 juin 2012 à 17h22

Shell paie 225 000$ pour le déversement d'une substance toxique en Alberta

source web :http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/201206/12/01-4534250-shell-paie-225-000-pour-le-deversement-dune-substance-toxique-en-alberta.php?
La Presse Canadienne
Shell Canada a plaidé coupable à une accusation en lien avec le déversement d'une substance toxique dans la rivière de la Paix en Alberta.
Le géant pétrolier, qui possède une installation de traitement des sables bitumineux près de la rivière, versera une amende de 225 000 $.
La quasi-totalité de cette somme servira à la conservation et à la protection de l'habitat des poissons de cette rivière, l'une des plus importantes de l'Alberta.
Shell a été accusée après avoir relâché accidentellement plus de 12 000 litres d'un produit chimique utilisé pour retirer l'oxygène de l'eau.
Un porte-parole de la compagnie a souligné que les employés de Shell avaient patrouillé la rivière tout de suite après l'incident et n'avaient pas trouvé de poissons morts sur les rives.
Un consultant embauché par Shell a quant à lui conclu que ce déversement ne mettait pas en péril la viabilité à long terme de l'environnement des poissons vivant dans cette rivière.