• 3 minutes War for Taiwan?
  • 7 minutes How China Is Racing To Expand Its Global Energy Influence
  • 10 minutes Is it time to talk about Hydrogen?
  • 10 mins U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 12 hours CV19 VACCINE : Medical Ethics , "Do no harm"
  • 4 hours Tesla Semi
  • 2 days “Consumers Will Pay For Carbon Pricing Costs” by Irina Slav
  • 9 hours British PM Eyes Banning Gasoline and Diesel Car Sales
  • 14 hours “Cushing Oil Inventories Are Soaring Again” By Tsvetana Paraskova
  • 81 days China Must Prepare for War Says State Media

TransCanada’s LNG Pipeline Project Hits Legal Setback

Canada’s federal court of appeal has sent TransCanada’s proposed gas back for redetermination by the National Energy Board (NEB), which had previously dismissed requests that the project be subject to federal, not provincial, approval.

The court ruled earlier this week that the NEB had made a mistake in determining that the project was not under federal jurisdiction when it sent the plan to provincial approval.

Michael Sawyer, a former environmental consultant, wanted the 900-km pipeline project to be considered to be under federal jurisdiction. After the NEB disagreed, Sawyer appealed the decision.

The appeals court ruling comes as a major blow to TransCanada, which even applied to proceed with construction of the North Montney Mainline (NMML) Project, contingent on a positive final investment decision on the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG (PNW) Project, which is being developed by Malaysia’s Petronas.

At that time, TransCanada said that “Subject to regulatory approvals, TransCanada plans to begin construction in the first half of 2018, with facilities being phased into service over a two-year period, beginning in April 2019.”

“The board had put a lot of weight on the fact that the pipeline begins and ends within British Columbia but didn’t take into account the jurisdictional consequences of the fact that the purpose of the Prince Rupert pipeline is to bring gas from the northeast of B.C. to Prince Rupert for export — and it’s that ‘for export’ that is a factor pointing to federal jurisdiction,” Sawyer’s lawyer, William Andrews, told The Northern View.

“I don’t think we should be exporting our natural resources, particularly energy resources, if we haven’t determined what’s in our public interest,” Sawyer said in a statement released by Skeena Wild Conservation Trust.  

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage



Leave a comment
  • Andrew on July 22 2017 said:
    The mindset of people like this seems to be, 'why export when we can just print money and take out free debt?' I mean what's the big difference? They are more than willing to sabotage incoming income but unwilling to cut spending. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut back on fossil fuels, but the logical conclusion to this is to also cut spending. I don't sabotage my personal income and then keep on spending the same amount. If these people took some basic economics and math we would have many less economically illiterate voters. This debt will come back to bite us one day. What's amazing to me is the impressive environmental foresight these people have but the complete lack of economic foresight. We can't keep up the spending and reckless debt without a financial bubble 2.0 that will make 08 look minor

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News