Brotman Generating Station in Rosharon, Texas, has similar components and layout to the proposed project that a U.S. company is proposing to build on 50 acres in Tantramar. Image from Environmental Impact Assessment document
Tantramar Mayor Andrew Black says it’s “incredibly unacceptable” that the town was not informed or consulted before NB Power announced construction of a 500 megawatt, natural gas generating plant in Centre Village near Midgic.
“I can honestly say that neither myself and council through governance, nor the CAO and staff through operations, received any indication of this project before we all heard about it on the news,” Black writes in an e-mail to Warktimes.
“Yet again the municipality, as has happened often over the last couple of years, was not informed or communicated with about this project, its impact, and the public input which is a huge issue as seen through the obvious divisiveness of opinion of the residents of Tantramar,” he adds.
“Just like when the province decided to close a culvert wash-out on the way to Dorchester, closing the Wheaton covered Bridge, reducing the weight tonnage of the Peck’s Point Bridge, and the tearing down of the old Aulac tourism information centre, here we are again being surprised at a project that stands to have considerable impact on this community in many ways.”
Mayor Black was referring to the announcement that NB Power had awarded a contract to PROENERGY, an American company that would operate the facility under a 25-year power-purchase agreement.
As CHMA journalist Erica Butler reported, NB Power announced the project last Monday, the same day that the comment period opened for its federal environmental impact assessment process. The comment period closes August 1.
As part of the EIA process, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is hosting online (Zoom) information sessions on Monday, July 21 and Tuesday, July 22 for members of the public to learn more about the project.
Mitton criticizes use of shale gas
Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton
In a post on her Facebook page, Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton says she has serious concerns about holding the comment period in the middle of summer when many people are away on vacation.
And in a separate post, she questions building a plant that would be powered by shale gas from the U.S.
“This will cost taxpayers, increase emissions, threaten sensitive wetlands, and disrupt major wildlife corridors between provinces,” she writes.
“NB Power calls this project a ‘renewable energy integration project.’ But let’s be clear: hydraulic fracking gas is neither renewable nor clean. Methane, which escapes at every stage, from extraction to transport, is more than 80 times more powerful than CO2 in the short term,” Mitton adds.
“This project will lock us into expensive fossil fuels for 25 years as neighboring provinces switch to 100% renewable energy over the next decade. All this while our province is under a heatwave alert and faces growing climate risks.”
Atlantic Wildlife Institute at risk
Barry Rothfuss, executive director, Atlantic Wildlife Institute
In a letter to PROENERGY posted on Facebook, Barry Rothfuss, executive director of the Atlantic Wildlife Institute, writes that the environmental impact assessment documents do not mention that the natural gas generating plant would be located on the ecologically sensitive Chignecto Isthmus, an indication that it is not a serious, well thought-out plan.
During an interview today at the Institute, Rothfuss pointed out that his organization is the only one in Atlantic Canada that is certified to deal with risks and threats to ecologically sensitive flora and fauna and the only one certified to suggest ways of mitigating damage when it occurs.
And even though the Institute would be only 4.5 kilometres from the gas plant, he says no one called to consult him about the threats it would pose to an area that has been recognized regionally, nationally and internationally as a critical wildlife corridor between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
“It tells me that they had no concept of what they’re actually building here in relationship to its impact on the environment,” he says.
Gas pipeline damage
He recalls that when a gas pipeline was built in the area in the late 1990s, the environmental damage that occurred over several years was devastating.
“It’s just got worse and worse to the point of where we had a large lake in front of our property that’s now shrunken down to a very narrow marsh with a channel that runs through the middle of it, which was due to siltation caused by development,” he says,
“And that siltation has built up to the point where it’s choked off the entire wetlands.”
He also recalls how he was called in to assess the deaths in 2013 of 7,500 songbirds that flew into a burning gas flare at the Canaport LNG facility in Saint John.
He says the proposed gas plant in Tantramar would probably have to use flaring systems too to relieve the buildup of pressure within storage tanks.
“We have huge migratory bird populations that fly in and out of here that could have very similar consequences as to what we saw in the LNG incident and it just takes one day with one instance where they’re flaring at the wrong time,” he says.
“Birds fly by light, stars and moon, and when you throw their senses off, they are attracted to these things.”
Threats to water
AWI photo
Rothfuss also worries about the potential for spills of toxic materials that can affect surface and ground water on the Isthmus and notes that the EIA documents show that the proposed gas plant would require 7,000 cubic metres of water every day when an average household uses 10 to 15 cubic metres per month.
“From our own perspective…I have a 120-acre site here, and we’re directly downstream from a facility that’s going to be basically pulling most of the groundwater out of the ground here,” Rothfuss says,
“It’s going to affect our wells, the quality of our wells. Then on top of that, the sound pollution that comes out of these facilities is going to be a major issue,” he adds.
“Then you’ve got a higher degree of traffic going up and down an area, which we’re trying to keep open for movement of wildlife, so you’re going to have impact issues. You’re going to have all sorts of problems that didn’t exist in the past that are going to be there, but it’s also going to directly affect our ability to stay here and do the type of work that we do,” he says.
He adds that the main reason he came to the area was that it was conducive for treating injured animals before releasing them back into the wild.
Rothfuss worries that his Atlantic Wildlife Institute will be pushed out of the area.
So, you know, we’ve put 30 years into building this program, and now we’re being threatened by a project that essentially will undermine and remove all of the positive work that we’ve done, not only through the province, but also here locally in the Isthmus itself.”
To read Barry Rothfuss’s letter, click here.
To view the Environmental Impact Assessment document, click here.
For Erica Butler’s story based on her interview with the president of PROENERGY, Canada, click here.
To read a recent Canadian Geographic article on the Chignecto Isthmus, click here.
There are better projects for power generation than fracked gas.
But I think what burns the most is not that it’s just fracked gas, but it’s a US COMPANY, ESPECIALLY with all this insanity coming out of and from the US!
I thought there was nothing the US “needed” or “Wanted” from Canada?
Except I guess our land?
No; on that principle alone there should be no plant. If this US company wants to have a plant, build it in one of THEIR states, NOT here.
(I’m not ignoring the environmental and local impact either; there are some serious issues I have in both those regards as well, but that this is a US company, a new one, looking to build here where we don’t even want local fracking is so totally ignorant of NB Power that I wish I could be surprised by it)
The link to the CIAS comment submission site is here:
https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/89719/consultations?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaegC63Laqt9KB5XakxTbJ6ZxA11RJrC8VdPX5LpDtzkvUpKGppE65Zmu1aTRQ_aem_cGJraPV0JhHeQYn0dvEyiQ
Once again, the mayor and local MLA plant their feet solidly below their nose in comenting on this issue, perhaps showing their unsuitability for the roles they now have. Any gas would be transported through the old Maritmes and Northeast Pipeline (which the writer helped build in 1999) and the gas plant would tap into the supply, just like the gas loading facility does outside of Baie Verte. There woud be no fracking involved. The gas is from Western Canada, originating and transported via the TC Energy network, or, when the writer worked for them, TransCanada Pipelines. Pipeline is by far the most secure, cost efficient and environmentally safe method to ship natural gas. Public consultation is part of the permitting and licensing process, which the companies are obligated to do. I never heard the mayors of Calgary, Edmonton, Nelson BC, Fort McMurray, Swift Current SK, North Bay ON or other places that have pipelines in the ground, cry spilt milk as this mayor does. It may be a good idea for him to learn about a subject matter and understand the process, before he claims the sky to be falling.
A longer consultation period so that the public could clarify our understanding would be helpful in this case.
I searched for the M&NP natural gas pipeline and found this government site with a profile of the pipeline: https://apps.cer-rec.gc.ca/PPS/en/pipeline-profiles/maritimes-northeast-pipeline
It shows the level of natural gas exports and imports at the Maine / New Brunswick. Since around 2015, gas has been imported not exported through M&NP.
I care a lot about having the right data to develop an informed opinion. That’s hard to do in a rush, so if others have better sources, please share them!
If we were talking about gas (whatever the form) from Canada, it’d be an issue but perhaps less of one.
But we’re talking imported stuff from the US.
“And in a separate post, she questions building a plant that would be powered by shale gas from the U.S.” – Megan Mitton, Quoted from the article.
The company is also US owned (Canadian affiliated).
Maybe you haven’t heard but we “Nasty” Canadian “Don’t have anything” the US needs and while some may be okay with us just bending over to take whatever the US throws at us, I CERTAINLY refuse to do so.
They also showed in slides at the discussion Monday that after 25 years, there would be a decommission.
So after 25 years, that’s it, the plant would be gotten rid of? That’s PRETTY darn limiting for all the negative that could affect our area well beyond that time frame.
I would be interested in seeing where the Canadian mainline pipeline runs in New Brunswick. This map shows that methane gas does not enter NB other than through Maine, USA.
https://www.tccustomerexpress.com/docs/ml_system_maps/Canadian%20Mainline%20Tariff%20Map.pdf
You are correct, Harold. The M&NP routing had landfall from Sable Island near Goldboro, N.S., which then had a pipeline right of way extending all the way to Dracut MA and situated close to New Glasgow, Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John. Had the former PM and his minions not scrubbed it, the Energy East pipeline would have tied into the Canadian mainline system near Levis QC and proceeded east towards Riviere du Loup QC, ultimately heading south to terminate in Saint John. When you have a minute, perhaps google Canadian oil and gas mainline pipelines and you should see a map of the different lines. You could also look up the different gas transmission companies (TC Energy, Enbridge, Cenovus, BP, etc) who should have a map on their respective websites showing their pipeline routing.
“Had the former PM and his minions not scrubbed it, the Energy East pipeline would have tied into the Canadian mainline system near Levis QC and proceeded east towards Riviere du Loup QC, ultimately heading south to terminate in Saint John.”
How is that connected to gas supplies? Energy East was a proposal to convert natural gas pipelines to carry crude oil, wasn’t it?
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/applications-hearings/view-applications-projects/archive/energy-east/
Hi Jon, I was pointing out that TransCanada Pipelines (now TC Energy) has access to the East Coast via the Maritimes and Northeast system and was the proponent for the bitumen line as you referenced from a previous comment. If need be, oil and gas can be shipped in the same pipeline, as both have roughly the same MAOP (mean average operating pressure). It would be a bit messy cleaning the bitumen from the lines, but that’s why they make smart and cleanout pigs.
Charles – I was under the impression that Quebec refused a pipeline into their province, which is why there is no east pipeline. Are you suggesting the previous PM didn’t want that pipe instead?
Hi Elaine! Without a doubt, QC had a hand in killing the Energy East, as did bill C-69, which was called the “No New Pipelines Act,” but officially known as the “Impact Assessment Act,” which put strict protocols in place for any new pipeline/mining or resource-based project construction. This ultimately killed numerous projects and resulted in loss of investment and revenue in Canada. When the Energy East public consultations were being held, I was scheduled to be one of the presenters at a forum held in Quebec City. The previous nights’ positive and optimistic mood during dinner with the project executives, gave way to disappointment that next morning at 7am, when I was told via phone conversation that the project was scrubbed, by “Ottawa,” was the response I received. Shame.
I can’t remember, was the “No New Pipelines Act” before or after the Government at the time bought a pipeline?
Considering the environmental concerns and how trade would be affected if we’re not environmentally conscious, such impacts need to be considered, heavily, before projects of any kind go ahead. Canada is going to have to balance the environmental risks vs. the need/push for projects, and which do we want to risk more – no money/investments or no environment (or trade in the end if we’re found to be not holding up environmental standards other countries have for trade partners).
So question for you – if the decision was made tomorrow to push a pipeline through from Alberta to Saint John, how long would that project take to be complete if everything went smoothly, no issues?
And what if things happened to stall that project, what would the projection of finishing date be, hypothetically?
Hi Elaine! The government bought the TransMountain Pipeline project in 2018, whereas the Impact Assessment Act was introduced in 2019. I worked for a time on the TMPL project, which was the worst pipeline job I was ever on and resigned with just around 6 months in. Prior to the former PM and his cabal dismantling it, the National Energy Board in Calgary was the body responsible for oil and gas, pipeline and trans-provincial projects, They were tough yet fair and any presentation I did in preparation for a new pipeline project for them was about the same intensity as being in a court of law. To have their mandate and reputation diminished by the former gang in Ottawa, was not necessary. Environmental laws in Canada pertaining to pipeline construction are very strict and not a question of choosing those that fit a specific project. Non compliance is not allowed and companies have paid huge fines in the event thereof. Assuming there will be a pipeline from AB to NB, it would most likely start in area east of Ontario where it can connect with existing infrastructure, like the EE project was going to do near Levis, QC. Typically, a project is divided into sections, or, spreads that permit a flurry of activity within one calendar year from ground prep to in service. You’d probably see half a dozen or more pipeline construction contractors working at one time. If a propbllem pops up and they typically do, it can derail construction for months, even years. In the case of the Keystone XL portion in the US, there has been pipe and machinery on the ground at points between Oklahoma and Texas, stockpiled for potential use. It has been there for a few years, being scrubbed by 2 US presidents.
Charles,
So… in short, you don’t know/can’t estimate how long it’d take to make any pipeline’s go from West to East.
Let’s hypothetically give a minimum of at least 5-7 years (I’ve heard 10 mentioned but we’ll go lower for funsies). It’s 2025 now, so the lines would be done and in use by 2030 at earliest.
My first concern is – the changes to the world in that time, especially when it comes to trade with other countries demanding strict environmental conditions to those they trade with, now makes it so Canada is not a viable trade partner anymore, since we just spent five years working on a oil/gas line when other countries are going wind, solar, water or other means of resources to power their projects.
My second concern is – we do all that work and by 2030, we have no trade partners (save maybe questionable ones who don’t give a damn about the environment) we’ve just wasted that time and money that could have been used for projects that matter. R&D for better ways to make renewables, implementation of European style of travel and electrical power collection, working in conjunction with places like Australia, Japan and others where Hydrogen as a power source is developed further than what we’re doing now, tying in R&D to further make hydrogen a viable resource.
I’d rather Canada look more towards the future and not into the lessening influences of oil and gas.
As an aside, calling Trudeau’s government a “cabal” and a “gang” actually doesn’t help your points, but rather points out biases that make me take what could very well be legitimate information and degrading it as to be biased information. I certainly can’t take you seriously even if you could very well be right about what you said.
Perhaps next time, keep the broader political opinions you have out of the conversation.
Hi Elaine, I gave you a reasonable estimate on the timeframe involved, which would be dependent on several variables, including number of sections or spreads, routing, permits and licensing, availability of pipe and workers. Offhand, I’d say 2-4 years to build a line from just west of Montreal to Saint John, which would follow the old EE routing/alignment.
Your theorizing about hydrogen and world markets is a bit ‘out there,’ IMHO, but nonetheless are good points to think about. Hydrogen is coming, but most likely won’t be there for a few years yet. Make no mistake, natural gas will continue to be around for a long time and is by no means a ‘lessening influence.’
Am I biased regarding the former powers that were in Ottawa? You bet I am. With the stroke of a pen and the influence that went with it, thousands of folks like me who worked in oil and gas were rendered unemployed, for no reason than political will. Projects dried up and investment in this country suffered.
It’s your call on whether to read my comments as legitimate, or not. It makes no difference to me. One of the problems we have in this part of the country is the negative and willful distrust of any project that even smells like oil/gas or mining, despite the strong regulatory protocols in place. It seems to be easier to bash and ridicule versus educate, read and listen about a proposed project like this. I suggest you do a little personal research and educate yourself on the whole process, instead of perpetuating fear mongering and ignorance. Your call.
I don’t see a problem with this energy project going ahead in Tantramar.
I support new developments for the region.. I wasn’t opposed to the AIL plant.
Current Mayor Andrew Black has no real vision for this region to develop, grow, thrive, expand… just net zero climate and flooding doom and gloom… not much to show for his time in office. Can’t really think of anything big that he can be credited with [his legacy is what?]….. not even a new skatepark project which seems to be ignored still despite their own Budget showing $600K in funding available specifically for the project.. Pity.
Hi Charles,
Thinking I missed something, I went back to re-read your reply, and there is nothing there even in hypothetical that gave a timeline, The only time frame you give i: “Typically, a project is divided into sections, or, spreads that permit a flurry of activity within one calendar year from ground prep to in service.”
That’s not a time frame, that’s a start date. So perhaps you meant to, but didn’t?
My mention of Hydrogen was with knowing it’s “out there” still, we’re a long ways from anything reasonable, hence why I suggested putting R&D into it; more eyes on the work and whatnot.
I agree that gas and oil will be around for a while yet, I am not one of those “We need Green Energy NOW” types, rather I’m realistic. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother looking into more R&D though, and that’s where problems lie; seems a good section of the population would rather no R&D happen at all so dependence on oil and gas continues, which isn’t feasible for the reasons I mentioned before.
As for what happened to you, while I sympathize with the job loss and now understand why the slight to the former government, calling them a “Cabal” still doesn’t help your cause any.
Yes, I agree, there is a distrust of oil and gas – perhaps instead of claiming people are ignorant and uneducated ask them why? And as you say “Educate” them WITHOUT coming across as someone who is belittling people who may just not understand, or who only has heard/researched ‘half-truths’? Because while to you it seems they are bashing and ridiculing, the same could be said for you as well. Lastly, your assumption that I “need to educate” myself is funny because it’s why I was actually asking you questions, and until you threw out the anti-previous Government stuff, it was an “education” I was at least happy to have. Now though…
I’ve looked elsewhere for my “Education” thanks and with someone more understanding and patience, and a bit less snide commentary.
Hi Elaine,
Thanks very much for your replies.
I have looked forward to reading them and for the most part, have enjoyed the ‘back and forth’ these past few weeks.
As a person who has been involved in pipeline/oil and gas projects from initial conception, front end engineering, regulator presentation and advocacy, pre-construction and commissioning, I have seen both the best and worst of the process, the latter most notably in the attitudes/behaviours of those who adopt a negative slant. Typically, this IS fueled by a lack of knowledge that presents itself as opposition to the project, with defined half-truths and innuendo. I see that happening here already, be it in your picking apart my comments in this forum, or in the recent position of the local MLA and various interest groups, loudly crying foul. From working on similar projects across Canada, the USA, UK and Africa, I have not seen the level of opposition to a proposed project, as exists here in this province. I recall handing a court injunction to a protest group during the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline construction, who were blocking the right of way, preventing construction. Their rationale? We were destroying the environment and knocking the planet off true alignment by using natural gas.
Seeing as there are a couple public information sessions in the near future in and around Sackville, perhaps you would consider attending one. In that way, you could hear directly from the involved proponents.
Cheere!
Hi Charles,
Again, I think you’ve lost me somewhere because I didn’t pick anything of yours apart nor did I throw out half-truths or innuendo. I asked questions, I asked clarifications, and not sure where you got the idea otherwise. My only comments were about your biases and how they color your own responses.
I did not pick apart your comments. If I had, I would be copying and pasting direct quotes of what you said and replying to each of those.
You seem to be well travelled/well experienced in all this line of work, but don’t seem to understand or think the concerns of people are legitimate, am I understanding your summary of the situation correctly (or is that picking apart your comment?)
I don’t know if you attended the first comment session on this project that was given to the public but I did, and nothing that the parties involved – whether from NB Power nor the Company itself – was exactly reassuring when people asked questions. And I do plan to attend the in person session for the Civic Center to see if a different answer of “we’ve never had problems before so we won’t now” can be given in regards to potential incidents that could happen at the plant.
Perhaps you will attend the session as well, and hear from those concerned what their issues are especially in regards to environment and the water supply and understand their concerns.
Hi Elaine,
Thats a great idea you have, suggesting I attend the public forum.
Thanks for passing it along.