The Refusal of the Energy East Pipeline

by EDion on September 25, 2015 - 3:29pm

In this article, René Bruemmer explains how the city of Laval has declined the Energy East pipeline proposal as well as encouraging other communities to do the same. They have the power together to change things and they intend on using it. Laval worries about its citizens’ wellbeing, the impact on the environment as well as the possible spills in the bodies of water surrounding the city. Pipelines in use cause several spills already and the mayor of Laval does not want it happening to his city. The community has a desire to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels which is a reason why they are not willing to accept this project. Further in the article, the opposing party, TransCanada, says that pipelines are the safest way to transport fossil fuels. They will be transported one way or another so it is better to do it with these pipelines. TransCanada knows that the use of oil will not stop for several years. Their goal is to do it in the most secure way that they can and pipelines are the best way yet.


I agree with the city of Laval. We need to limit the chances of environmental damage and declining pipelines can be a way to do so. Although, knowing that pipelines are safer than railways makes it challenging to decide whether pipelines should be accepted. If declining the pipeline proposal means more fuels being transported in railways, Laval’s arguments could be said to be contradictory in a certain way. Despite this, I believe the pipeline proposal should be rejected. Accepting this project would encourage the use of fossil fuels, as well as being a threat to the environment.


I really like the topic you chose because it is one of the most important things affecting our society both economically and environmentally. Your point about wondering how to transfer the oil, whether it is via the pipeline or some other mode of transportation is an important question because I don't believe anyone truly knows the answer to it, or is at least not presenting all of the information. When 'officials' say that the pipeline is the safest mode of transportation, I think that there are a lot of questions that need to be asked to make sure that their position is not biased. The pipeline would make the transport of the oil faster, which means that they can process it quicker and probably make a larger profit, having a constant stream of oil coming in instead of big batches from trucks. I also think that when they say that it is safer to transport with a pipeline that there is the huge question of whether they will be regulated and maintained to a high enough standard to ensure that nothing goes wrong, even then mistakes eventually happen. We should absolutely discourage the amount of fossil fuels being used but the problem is that it has become so engrained in our society. We have become very dependent on it, so much so that the current Canadian economy was supposed to essentially be based on it, then the cost of oil went down and so did our dollar.

About the author