RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "A new analysis released today by national and regional environmental groups shows that US oil giant Exxon Mobile and Canada's Suncor hold a majority stake in a pipeline system that local residents along its route fear could soon be used to transport tar sands from western Canada to the New England coast."

Exxon Mobil's local subsidiary, the Portland Pipe Line Corporation has an 'active' proposal to transport tar sands through New England. (photo: Common Dreams)
Exxon Mobil's local subsidiary, the Portland Pipe Line Corporation has an 'active' proposal to transport tar sands through New England. (photo: Common Dreams)


New England Tar Sands Pipeline Plotted 'Behind Closed Doors'

By Common Dreams Staff

11 October 12

 

Oil giants lobby tar sands plan behind closed doors while denying their intention

new analysis released today by national and regional environmental groups shows that US oil giant Exxon Mobile and Canada's Suncor hold a majority stake in a pipeline system that local residents along its route fear could soon be used to transport tar sands from western Canada to the New England coast.

The central concern of the report (pdf) surrounds a 2008 proposal by Canadian oil giant Enbridge to reverse the flow of existing east-to-west oil pipelines that would allow transport of tar sands oil - categorized by many as the "dirtiest oil in the world" - from Alberta to the deepwater harbor of Portland, Maine. Documents reveal that the Portland Pipeline Company met with Maine's Republican teaparty Governor Paul LePage last year specifically to discuss Canadian tar sands. That meeting happened in October 2011, several months after Enbridge submitted an application in Canada to reverse the Canadian portion of the project in order to carry dangerous tar sands oil eastward. (AP)

The local companies who manage the pipelines companies insist the idea has been shelved for economic reasons, but multiple recent actions lead the environmental groups to believe that the proposal is now being quietly revived behind closed doors. Pointedly, the groups argue that the oil giants who own these local pipeline subsidiaries should not be trusted.

"Unbeknownst to most of the public," said the groups in a statement, "a major portion of the proposed tar sands pipeline that would cut across the Great Lakes, Ontario, Quebec and New England to Portland, Maine, is actually owned by oil giants Exxon-Mobil, Imperial Oil, and Suncor Energy - all of whom have a deep stake in tar sands extraction."

As the report explains:

The line has two direct corporate owners: Montreal Pipe Line Limited (MPLL), which owns the stretch in Canada, from Montreal to the U.S. border; and the Portland Pipe Line Corporation, which owns the U.S. section and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLL. In turn, Montreal Pipe Line Limited's ultimate parent is ExxonMobil: Exxon subsidiary Imperial Oil Limited holds a majority interest in the pipeline. A smaller portion is owned by the Canadian giant Suncor Energy. Imperial and Suncor are among the biggest developers of Alberta's tar sands and stand to benefit greatly from this project to transport tar sands oil across the region for export.

With regionally-anchored names like "Montreal Pipe Line Limited" and "Portland Pipe Line Corporation," the ten environmental groups involved with the report - which represent members in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont - claim that the international oil giants who own these subsidiary companies would rather hide the fact that some of the world's most notorious polluters are operating in their backyards.

By hiding their identities behind a convoluted ownership structure, "It's easy to lose sight of who is really driving this tar sands pipeline proposal," said Dylan Voorhees, Clean Energy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. "But the company's corporate family tree reveals that the vast majority of the pipeline is ultimately owned by the world's largest company - ExxonMobil, and, unfortunately, Exxon does not have Maine's interests in mind. They will act to maximize their tar sands profits with little regard to the risk poised to Maine's people, environment or natural resource economy."

"This information is a double whammy - not only is ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world, behind the plan to transport dangerous tar sands oil through Maine, but its local representatives have misled the public about the status of the project," said Environment Maine Director Emily Figdor.

According to the report:

For months ExxonMobil's local subsidiary, the Portland Pipe Line Corporation, has sought to deflect rising concerns in Maine about tar sands transport by denying that there is an "active" proposal to reverse the use the existing pipeline to transport tar sands. However, documents released today reveal that the company met with Governor LePage and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection last year specifically to discuss Canadian tar sands. That meeting happened in October 2011, several months after Enbridge submitted an application in Canada to reverse the Canadian portion of the project in order to carry dangerous tar sands oil eastward.

On the Canadian side of the border, advocates of the first phase of the project have repeatedly claimed that they want to bring tar sands east for Canadian use and denied that they are resurrecting the full tar sands reversal plan formerly known as "Trailbreaker." But this just doesn't fit the facts - including the fact that the Canadian consulate itself joined the Maine leadership meetings to talk about tar sands.

"Today's revelation is doubly troubling because Exxon's apparent partner in this tar sands pipeline scheme is Enbridge, the company that owns the line from Ontario to Montreal where it connects to Exxon's line to Portland," said Jim Murphy, an attorney with National Wildlife Federation. "Two years ago Enbridge spilled a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, with devastating impacts to the ecology, public health, recreation and property values. Independent review found that extreme negligence led to the spill. These aren't the kind of companies we can trust with Maine's natural resources."

"This pattern of misleading statements and trying to hide what is really going on is troubling," said Glen Brand, Executive Director of Sierra Club Maine. "Clearly these pipeline companies are worried that if Maine people and others really see the full picture of what is going on to bring tar sands through the region, they will face even greater public opposition. Exxon and Enbridge have dirty track records with oil and tar sands, so it is understandable why they prefer their dealings to be behind closed doors."

And what are the main issues for these environmental groups and concerned residents? NRDC's Elizabeth Shope offers just a few:

  • Tar sands is a dirty fuel - extra damaging and risky to the environment and public health throughout its entire life-cycle of extraction, pipeline transport, refining, and combustion. An area of Alberta's Boreal forest the size of Florida could eventually be decimated if industry is allowed to continue expanding their extraction efforts. The damage from tar sands extends globally, as it causes 20% more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, taking us in the wrong direction when the world needs to transition to clean energy.
  • Tar sands pipelines pose greater safety risks to the land and water along their path. Diluted bitumen - raw tar sands mixed with a diluent so that it can be transported via pipelines - is more corrosive and abrasive than conventional oil, creating a greater spill risk. And, when tar sands pipelines do spill into rivers, rather than floating on the surface, the diluted bitumen separates - with the diluents evaporating and the bitumen becoming submerged and impossible to fully clean up.
  • Exxon and Enbridge already have a bad track record with tar sands pipelines. ExxonMobil, the company responsible for the disastrous Valdez oil spill that rocked the world in 1989, was also responsible for the July 2011 Silvertip Pipeline spill that dumped 42,000 gallons of oil into the pristine Yellowstone River in Montana. While that oil spilled happened to be conventional crude oil, the pipeline is also used to move corrosive tar sands "diluted bitumen." Enbridge's best-known pipeline spill was the million gallon tar sands spill into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in July 2010. Just last week - more than two years after the spill - the Environmental Protection Agency told Enbridge that they still need to keep cleaning up the river.
  • It is unacceptable for pipeline companies to deceive the public - especially when it comes to tar sands pipelines. With all the risks posed by tar sands pipelines, the public deserves to know and have a say in what toxic substances can come through their communities. It seems that realizing the strong opposition to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia Coast, Enbridge, Exxon and its subsidiaries, and Suncor may be trying to sneak this pipeline through piecemeal, and without letting communities along the pipeline route know that the true purpose for the pipeline reversal would be to transport tar sands to Portland, Maine.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+16 # AMLLLLL 2012-10-11 10:44
This must not continue. Period.
 
 
+12 # mdhome 2012-10-11 11:40
Why not load it into tankers in Montreal? Or Lake Superior, or Hudson bay? Why not refine it right there where they are mining it? The desperate digging of this stuff proves we are heading toward the limit of world oil supply, maybe the money would be better spent on clean energy that will never go up in price, WIND, and SOLAR?
 
 
+3 # panhead49 2012-10-11 14:14
Quoting mdhome:
Why not load it into tankers in Montreal? Or Lake Superior, or Hudson bay? Why not refine it right there where they are mining it? The desperate digging of this stuff proves we are heading toward the limit of world oil supply, maybe the money would be better spent on clean energy that will never go up in price, WIND, and SOLAR?


Ditto that refine it where it is - won't it take as much energy as it will produce to move it that far? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the industry doesn't come up with some line of PR when something goes wrong that 'well, at least it killed all the quagga/zebra mussels' in the Great Lakes.
 
 
+5 # AMLLLLL 2012-10-11 15:42
mdhome, you can't load it into tankers because it's HAZMAT material, able to corrode its way through ANYTHING, which is why it's constantly causing spills. They have to add a toxic stew of chemicals and heat it to make it travel in pipes. Aside from the danger of contaminating anything it comes into contact with,it takes 4 times the water and other resources to refine it into what one could call 'oil'.
 
 
+8 # WolfTotem 2012-10-11 12:05
WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS???

OK, OK, YOU'D NEED AN AWFUL LOT OF FEATHERS TO TAR THESE CORPORATE "PERSONS"...
 
 
0 # Darr247 2012-10-11 22:12
I had a comment, but it was too long, so I just submitted my first article. :-)

I live about 40 miles from where the Enbridge pipeline dumped 800,000+ gallons of tar sand slurry into the Kalamazoo river, by the way. :-|

Their 'fix' amounted to buying up all the houses on both sides of about 25 miles of the river downstream from the spill. As far as I know, they actually recovered less than 25,000 gallons; the other 700,000+ gallons is apparently coating the bottom of the river.
 
 
0 # ER444 2012-10-12 00:18
Where are the great citizens of Canada??? Why are they so willing to pipe their slime through the USA. Maybe it is time for world activists to stop this insanity at its source and put an end to the outright destruction of the Canadian wilderness.
 
 
0 # akh752 2012-10-12 13:31
The should just run the pipeline straight across to the Hudson Bay -- what with global warming and the ice melt at the north pole, the Canadians can have a dandy refinery and export operation set up right their in their own country.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN