Canada: Need And Resistance: A Review Of The Status Of Major Canadian Pipeline Projects In 2014

Pipeline capacity continues to lag North American production gains. Increased pipeline access to refineries in the U.S. and Eastern Canada and, particularly to the coasts and new international markets beyond, remains critical for the Canadian energy sector even with oil prices perilously low. Alberta's Premier recently reported that lack of access to oil markets cost the federal and Alberta government about $6 billion last year alone. Access is needed to (i) reduce the impacts of the discount that Western Canada Select heavy crude sells for; and (ii) mitigate against the impacts of the increased reliance of U.S. markets on its own domestic production, particularly Marcellus and Utica shale gas and Bakken shale oil. We have seen this reality play out over the last number of years on TransCanada's Canadian Mainline, where even the Ontario and Quebec markets are placing ever-increasing reliance on shorthaul capacity from the Dawn Hub in favour of historic reliance on longhaul capacity from the WCSB.

In this climate of much needed access, pipeline projects necessary to access  refineries and new markets are continuing to face fierce resistance. Opposition from First Nations and environmental groups continued throughout 2014; heading into 2015, the new source of resistance is political, and comes from our very own provinces and municipalities. While their jurisdictional and constitutional footing to make demands or impose certain conditions on particular pipeline projects is questionable, their influence is unmistakable and their concerns will have to be addressed. After all, public expressions of a lack of confidence in Canada's federal energy regulator from provincial governments do little to instill confidence in Canadian energy sector investors. 

Developments over the course of 2014 on various major approved and proposed pipeline projects are outlined below. While slumping oil prices may have an impact on whether some of these pipelines are ultimately built, given the long lead-times required to navigate regulatory and appeal processes, and to construct major pipelines, we do not expect current oil prices to significantly influence the proponents' continued pursuit of the projects discussed below. 

Energy East

TransCanada filed its application for approval of its Energy East Pipeline Project with the National Energy Board on October 30, 2014, some three business quarters later than anticipated. The holdup? Presumably learnings from the Enbridge Northern Gateway project gave rise to serious introspection on the adequacy of TransCanada's consultation program. Additionally, TransCanada would certainly have been motivated to keep the Energy East project as far away from its Mainline Toll Settlement proceeding as possible given that a segment of the natural gas pipeline to be repurposed as part of Energy East is being used at capacity and has been the subject of demands for new capacity given its location within the "Eastern Triangle", where Ontario and Quebec distribution companies had been fighting tooth and nail with TransCanada for greater access to the Dawn Hub and the Marcellus and Utica gas beyond. This is why Quebec's largest gas utility has been splashing full-page ads opposing Energy East in national newspapers.

The Energy East Pipeline is TransCanada's $12 billion project comprised of a proposed 4,600- kilometre pipeline to carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada (Montreal, Levis and St. John). The project entails converting 3000 kilometres of an existing natural gas pipeline to oil service between Saskatchewan and Ontario, and building 1600 new pipeline segments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick to connect with the converted pipe (plus 250 kilometres of new natural gas capacity to replace the fully utilized segment discussed above). There are also numerous associated facilities, including two export marine terminals.

Just a month after filing its application, amidst public and political outcry, TransCanada has put its plans for a controversial marine terminal in Cacouna, Quebec on hold. The announcement came on the heels of a report by a federal government wildlife committee concluding that beluga whales in the area are endangered. It also came just a week after the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec announced that Energy East would have to meet seven conditions before they would approve the project in their respective provinces. Of course, the provinces' approval of the project is not strictly necessary, but that's a discussion for another day. Of the seven conditions, most notable are demands that natural gas capacity be sufficient to meet the needs of the respective provinces (i.e. the Mainline end game), and that the project be subject to a comprehensive environmental assessment taking into account greenhouse gases. This last "condition" will likely be the subject of most controversy and it is not clear that the Ontario and Quebec Premiers had the same scope of assessment in mind. Quebec appears to be seeking an environmental assessment that includes consideration of upstream greenhouse gas emissions from production outside the province. The National Energy Board has consistently refused to require the inclusion of upstream gas emissions in its assessment of other pipeline projects. In fact, the failure to include upstream emissions in its environmental assessments is one of the issues before the Federal Court of Appeal in the numerous appeals and judicial reviews of the approval of Northern Gateway.

The regulatory review before the National Energy Board is anticipated to take 18 months. Should Energy East be approved, TransCanada anticipates that the pipeline could be in service for deliveries in Quebec and New Brunswick by late 2018. In 2015, watch for political maneuvering as Alberta Premier Jim Prentice engages in productive conversations with other provincial leaders to extoll the overwhelming economic benefits of Energy East while appreciating the need for a common and meaningful approach to environmental issues. Notwithstanding its PR false start, we anticipate that Energy East will be approved and built within a reasonable timeframe. The need to move Canadian oil through Canadian refineries and then on to tidal waters converges with 3000 kilometres of existing right of way and mostly unutilized Mainline capacity.

Trans Mountain Expansion

On the other side of the country, all is not well in Burnaby B.C., where protesters successfully impeded Trans Mountain's ability to complete aspects of additional geotechnical studies to support its proposed revised routing through Burnaby Mountain to avoid the streets of Burnaby between the Burnaby Storage Terminal and the Westeridge Marine Terminal.

Kinder Morgan filed its application for approval of the $5.4 billion Trans Mountain Expansion Project with the National Energy Board on December 16, 2013. The project contemplates the twinning of the existing 1150 kilometre Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby. to increase the capacity of the system from 300,000 barrels per day, to 890,000 barrels per day. The existing line would carry refined products, synthetic crude oils, light crude oils with capability for heavy crude oils, while the new line would carry heavier oils. Significantly, the expansion project also includes the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby to be expanded with three new berths that would increase the number of tankers to be loaded and to travel down the Burrard inlet from 5 to 34 per month.

On April 2, 2014, the National Energy Board announced that it would hold a public hearing with a legislated 15 month timeframe. There are 1650 registered participants in the process, 400 of which have been granted full intervenor status to participate in the public hearing (the most to ever participate in the hearing process). In August of 2014, the National Energy Board extended the process by seven months to consider supplemental materials related to Kinder Morgan's proposed revised controversial routing through Burnaby Mountain. This pushes the National Energy Board's recommendation to the Federal Cabinet out to January 2016.

TransMountain's supplemental work to assess the feasibility of the Burnaby Mountain alternative has been mired by roadblocks both figurative and literal. There have been court proceedings and applications before the National Energy Board to address the Municipality of Burnaby's attempts to forestall work expressly permitted under the federal regulator's enabling legislation. First the City refused to issue permits to conduct work in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area, then it began issuing various bylaw infractions to Kinder Morgan including an Order to Cease. In response, Kinder Morgan filed a motion with the National Energy Board seeking an order directing the City of Burnaby to permit access to the required lands, which motion resulted in an important decision from the federal regulator addressing constitutional issues that may well have to be addressed again given the increasing trend of municipalities and provinces to make demands and assert conditions precedent to federal pipeline project proponents.

The City of Burnaby too sought legal intervention, filing an application with the B.C. Supreme Court seeking an injunction preventing Kinder Morgan from undertaking any further work in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area in contravention of its municipal bylaws. This application was denied on September 17, 2014 and leave to appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal has been sought. On October 23 2014, on jurisdictional and constitutional grounds, the National Energy Board granted Kinder Morgan's motion directing the City of Burnaby to permit access to Trans Mountain representatives to conduct the necessary studies and forbidding Burnaby from denying or obstructing access. With the law having landed on its side, Trans Mountain workers attempted to resume work on Burnaby Mountain only to be met with protesters and blockades necessitating another application to the B.C. Supreme Court for injunctive relief. Since issuing an injunction in favour of Trans Mountain, it is reported that over 60 protesters have been charged with civil disobedience pursuant to the injunction.

On December 1, 2014, Trans Mountain filed its supplemental information in respect of routing options between the Burnaby Storage Terminal and the Westeridge Marine Terminal. Trans Mountain determined horizontal directional drilling through Burnaby Mountain is not feasible. Its preferred alternative is tunelling through Burnaby Mountain, but it is also putting forward a revised corridor through Burnaby Streets as a viable alternative for the regulator's consideration. Trans Mountain had advised the regulator that it was revising its preferred route through Burnaby streets to tunneling through the mountain because of significant public outcry from Burnaby residents who did not want a pipeline in their streets. Of course, it turns out they were equally, if not more, opposed to tunneling through Burnaby Mountain and the conservation area in which it lies. In fact, their Mayor has said in no uncertain terms that no route through Burnaby will be acceptable to the City.

Assuming issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Kinder Morgan projects that the Trans Mountain Expansion could be in service in 2018. It will not be approved in 2015.

Northern Gateway

The Northern Gateway project consists of two pipelines that would run 1,178 kilometres from Bruderheim, Alberta to a marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C. One pipeline would take 525,000 bpd of Alberta oil west to the coast for export; the other, would bring 193,000 bpd of much-needed condensate back east to thin Alberta's land-locked bitumen. The Joint Review Panel issued its report to the Federal Cabinet on December 19, 2013, recommending approval of the project subject 209 conditions. By Order in Council dated June 17, 2014, the Federal Cabinet accepted the Joint Review Panel's recommendation and ordered that the National Energy Board issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity subject to the 209 conditions.

With the required approvals in hand, is Enbridge on track for its 2018 start-up date? In a word – no. Northern Gateway's President has been reported as saying that any possibility of a 2018 start-up date is "quickly evaporating". He admits that the process of re-engagement with First Nations will take time and Northern Gateway is focused on gaining the support it needs to go ahead. The Joint Review Panel was openly critical of Enbridge's consultation with First Nations and a number of conditions relating to continued consultation with First Nations prior to construction and throughout the life of the Northern Gateway project are among the 209 conditions.

In answer to how Enbridge's re-engagement with First Nations is unfolding, one need only look as far as the registry at the Federal Court of Appeal. Approval of the Northern Gateway project is the subject of 18 proceedings before the Federal Court of Appeal filed by nine different Applicants. There are five judicial reviews in respect of the Joint Review Panel's Report; nine judicial reviews of the Cabinet's Order in Council directing the issuance of the Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity; and four Appeals of the Certificates ultimately issued by the National Energy Board. Eleven of these proceedings were commenced by First Nations and Bands challenging, among other things, the adequacy of consultation and whether the Crown met its duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations interests. The other Applicants are largely environmental groups challenging the adequacy of the environmental assessment, including the findings that the significant impacts on woodland caribou and grizzly bears are justified in the circumstances, and the Joint Review Panel's refusal to take into account the upstream environmental effects of oil sands production.

In 2015, watch for decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal on the above judicial reviews and appeals, which will not come until the latter part of the year. If unsuccessful, expect to see applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Line 9 Reversal

On March 2 2014, the National Energy Board approved Enbridge's application to reverse the segment of its existing 639 kilometre Line 9B between North Westover, Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, in addition to expanding the entire Line 9 capacity from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal (from 240,000 barels per day to 300,000 barels per day), and permitted the transportation of heavy crude. Enbridge had already obtained approval to reverse the pipeline's flow for the Line 9A section running between Sarnia and North Westover, in southwestern Ontario. With Western Canadian oil now priced lower than foreign sourced oil being shipped Westbound from Montreal, the Line 9 reversal will allow Quebec refineries to remain viable.

While one might have reasonably expected an application to return a pipeline to the purpose it was originally built for 1976, and which has been operated without major incident for 35 years, to be relatively uncontroversial, that was not the case. The current state of public pipeline sentiment in Canada is such that proceedings before the National Energy Board escalated to a state where the regulator had to cancel the final portion of oral argument and resort to written submissions due to fear for the safety of attendees.

During the hearing, the regulator predominantly heard concerns respecting pipeline integrity and spill prevention and response given that Line 9 travels through the some of the most populated parts of Canada including Montreal and the suburbs of Toronto. Heightened concerns were not unexpected given that the hearing came on the heels of major incidents including the Lac-Megantic train derailment and Enbridge's own Line 6 spill into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Notwithstanding that the project contemplated no new permanent land rights, the regulator also heard concerns respecting the adequacy of consultations with First Nations.

Before being granted leave to open, Enbridge is required to demonstrate that it has met all of the conditions set out by the regulator. On October 9, 2014, the National Energy Board determined that Enbridge failed to meet condition 16 because it had not installed shut-off valves around some major waterways. The regulator noted that Enbridge only has shut-off valves on both sides of six of 104 major water crossings and directed it to file a revised submission for condition 16, at least 90 days prior to applying for the final leave to open of the Project. This may not be an insignificant set-back for Enbridge and will push the in-service date of the reversed Line 9 into 2015.

Keystone XL

Finally, an oldie but goodie; Keystone XL, which has remained on life support for five long years amidst hyperbolic political posturing in both U.S. houses and on both sides of the aisle. Any reader can be forgiven for having forgotten the particulars of this long ago proposed pipeline project, the Canadian portion of which obtained National Energy Board approval in 2010, and which has languished awaiting a coveted Presidential Permit. To recap, Keystone XL is a proposed 1897 kilometre crude oil pipeline beginning in Hardisty, Alberta and extending south to Steele City, Nebraska, with a capacity to transport up to 830,000 barrels of WCSB and Bakken oil per day to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries.

In May of 2012, TransCanada filed a new application for a Presidential Permit with the U.S. Department of State. After controversy in respect of routing through Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sands Hills region, the Governor of Nebraska approved a revised route in January of 2013. In March of 2013 a Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement reaffirming no significant environmental impacts. On April 18, 2014 Obama's adminstration announced that its review of the project would be extended indefinitely, pending the result of a legal challenge to a Nebraska pipeline siting law that could result in route amendments. Argument was heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court on September 5, 2014 on issues including whether the landowners had standing to bring the action and whether the Legislature violated the Nebraska Constitution when it passed the law that allowed the Governor to approve the pipeline, the routing of which would typically be approved by the Nebraska Public Services Commission.

November 2014 saw a bill approving Keystone XL pass in the House of Representatives for the ninth time. The bill went on to be defeated in the Senate by one vote. While Republicans regained the majority of the Senate in recent midterm elections, the newly elected Senators had not been sworn-in yet. The bill will surely be reintroduced in the very near future, the Senate Republican Leader having declared it to be a priority item on the Senate agenda for 2015.  Even if the bill had passed, President Obama was expected to veto it and may yet veto it should the opportunity present itself.

In 2015, watch for the imminent decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the pipeline siting law as Obama's administration has repeatedly indicated that it will not act prior to a ruling on routing through that state. It will also be interesting to watch whether the Republican held Senate will be able to muster up the 67 votes necessary to override the presidential veto.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.