Vermont environmental groups react strongly to Canadian pipeline decision

A decision by Canada’s National Energy Board on Thursday will bring oil extracted from tar sands a step closer to New England, alarming a coalition of Vermont environmentalists.

The board authorized the Canadian energy company Enbridge to reverse the flow of crude oil in a section of its Line 9B pipeline running from Westover, Ontario, to Montreal.

National Wildlife Federation map.

National Wildlife Federation map.

Vermont environmentalists immediately expressed concern that the decision could lead to the reversal of flow in a pipeline that traverses northeastern Vermont. The 263-mile Portland-Montreal pipeline currently carries light crude oil from Maine through the Northeast Kingdom to Quebec. Owner Portland Pipe Line Inc. has not applied for a reversal of flow, but activists fear the company may seek to allow crude to flow from Montreal to Portland.

An Enbridge spokesman said Thursday the company has “no interest” in using the Portland-Montreal pipeline to move tar sands oil.

If the Portland flow was to be reversed, Thursday’s decision would create the logistical opportunity to move crude from Western Canada’s tar sands fields to a seaport from which it could be shipped to refineries. That could provide Enbridge with an alternative to building the controversial Keystone XL pipeline through the Central Plains states.

Environmentalists are concerned that the heavier, tar sands oil might lead to leaks in the 63-year-old Portland-Montreal pipeline.

More than a dozen Vermont communities voted on Town Meeting Day to oppose the reversal of flow.

“Vermonters have already loudly signaled opposition to transporting tar sands across our rivers and farms, alongside lakes, and through communities of the Northeast Kingdom,” Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation senior counsel, said in a statement. “A spill would have a devastating impact on our water supplies, wildlife habitat and tourism industry. And any transport of tar sands through Vermont would encourage growth of an industry that contradicts all of our state’s leadership and hard work on moving toward cleaner sources of energy.”

Enbridge said 300,000 barrels a day will move east to two Quebec refineries through the 30-inch Line 9B pipeline, up from 240,000 barrels a day that were transported in the opposite direction.

Graham White, a spokesman for Enbridge, said that amount is less than the two refineries it seeks to serve can process, meaning there is no surplus oil to send further east.

“The combined capacity (of the refineries) is 400,000 barrels,” White said. “It makes no mathematical sense.”

The coalition of Vermont groups said in a statement that reversing the Portland flow would require federal approval and a state Act 250 permit.

”Our leaders – Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sens. Peter Leahy and Bernie Sanders, and Rep. Peter Welch – have been strong allies in the fight against toxic tar sands oil,” said Ben Walsh, clean energy advocate at VPIRG. “We call on them once again to stand up for Vermonters, and make sure the federal government gives any tar sands project the scrutiny we deserve.”

Tom Brown

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Vanessa Mills

    Green Mountain Power…….. Gaz Metro………Enbridge……..Valener………….connect the dots.

    GMP…..They are not out for the environment. They are not here to save us, not withBig Wind or any other modality.
    Same song-and-dance. Just different steps. And Shumlin (has and still) aids and abets.

  • Kim Fried

    Why would we be so concerned state wide about this issue and turn are backs on the issue of blasting the tops of our mountains for ridge line industrial wind development?
    Yes, it’s the same story, big energy, big out of state, out of country corporations mixed in with big money and the politics of Montpelier. What a shame.

    • Most of us who are concerned about the Pipeline are concerned about the blasting of the Ridgelines. It is all about profits and politics. And dividing us doesn’t solve the problem of Corporate Greed

      • Vanessa Mills

        Thanks for that point, Pam Ladds. Many have tried already, but……explain that one to Paul Burns & VPIRG/David Blittersdorf/Mary Powell & GMP/Ginny Lyons/Rep. Tony Klein/Senator Bernie Sanders/Peter Welch/Peter Shumlin to name a few who seem hell-bent on drawing dividing lines such as those you speak well to here!

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont environmental groups react strongly to Canadian pipeline deci..."