Line 9B Reversal Brings Tar Sands to New England’s Doorstep; Faces Major Obstacles to Get In
Today, Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) approved Enbridge’s controversial application to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of Line 9B between southern Ontario and Montreal. Enbridge’s requests are part of an effort to ship tar sands oil to Eastern Canada and the United States. Anti-tar sands groups in Canada and the United States are united in condemning the decision.
Though the NEB approved this request, the tar sands industry is still a long way off from sending tar sands into New England. Without a path to Southern Portland, which the industry currently lacks, the Line 9B reversal permit will only allow tar sands and other crude to travel as far as Quebec. The Enbridge Line 9 reversal project, in its current form, will not enable large-scale tar sands expansion at the magnitude expected from larger, export-focused projects like Keystone XL and Energy East:
- Approval does not mean easy access to overseas export markets;
- Approval does not increase the tar sands industry’s cross-border capacity;
- Approval does not provide significant access of transport options to the tar sands industry; and
- Approval takes tar sands one step closer to exporting tar sands through Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire but major obstacles will likely prevent this from happening.
The citizens of New England have mounted a campaign to keep tar sands out of the region, and will continue to work with regional leaders and the State Department to keep the region tar sands free. The NEB decision will serve as a rallying point for local communities to intensify the efforts to keep tar sands out of the Northeast.
Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation Legal Counsel: “While today’s ruling brings the threat of tar sands to New England’s doorstep, it will only stiffen the resolve of New Englanders who have adamantly rejected the idea of allowing tar sands into the region at every turn. New England will refuse to accept the risks of this carbon intensive dirty fuel, and instead continue the push forward for a clean, advanced energy future that will benefit our children and wildlife.”
Emily Figdor, Environment Maine Director: “Today’s news only redoubles our commitment to block the oil industry from using our beautiful port to ship the dirtiest oil on earth around the word so they can make billions in profits. For our coast, our water, and our climate, we simply will not allow tar sands to be shipped through and out of Maine.”
Dylan Voorhees, Natural Resources Council of Maine Clean Energy Director: “Today’s decision brings toxic tar sands oil right to New England’s doorstep, and one step away from flowing south through Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. This decision should put Maine on high alert for the threat of tar sands transportation through our state. That would be unacceptable. Now is the time for the U.S. State Department to commit to an environmental review of any tar sands project in our state.”
Danielle Droitsch, Natural Resources Defense Council Canada Project Director: “Approving this pipeline would take us one step closer to the threat of tar sands to New England, considerable local opposition will prove to be a significant barrier. And while approval of this pipeline would not enable the tar sands industry in any major way, piping tar sands in any amount would still pose major risks to water supplies to local Canadian communities.”
Kate Colarulli, Sierra Club Beyond Oil Deputy Director: “New England families are now confronted with a dangerous tar sands pipeline spills that could poison homes, drinking water, and air. Pipeline failures like those that devastated families in Michigan and Arkansas could desecrate the White Mountains or Casco Bay with tar sands. Tar sands have no place in the clean energy economy we are building in New England. We need to keep New England tar sands free.”
Jade Walker, 350Vermont Tar sands Campaign Organizer: “The approval of this pipeline puts tars sands in our backyard, a threat that is all risks and no benefits to the people of New England. We stand in the company of all those resisting the tar sands expansion from the Beaver Lake Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan in Alberta, Canada to the Nebraska farmer’s resisting the Keystone XL. Working together we will keep New England tar sands free and strive to keep all fossil fuels in the ground, our future depends on it.”
Beth Nagusky, ENE Maine Director: “ENE will be releasing an analysis soon showing that the Northeast does not need oil from the tar sands. Clean energy alternatives — including energy efficiency, advanced technologies such as air source heat pumps and electric vehicles, and cleaner fuels — can displace the tar sands at lower cost and with far fewer greenhouse gas emissions.”