Montreal-based Desjardins Group, North America’s biggest association of credit unions, decided Friday to suspend new investments in energy pipelines, citing concerns about their environmental impact.

The mega-investment house, one of more than two dozen institutions that have helped finance Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, “temporarily suspended lending for such projects and may make the decision permanent” in September, Reuters reports, citing company spokesperson Jacques Bouchard. “That would likely mean Desjardins would not help finance other major Canadian pipelines projects, including TransCanada Corporation’s Keystone XL and Energy East and Enbridge Inc.’s Line 3,” the news agency notes.

The announcement followed ING Group’s confirmation that it won’t directly finance any of the four pipelines.




TransCanada: Unlikely To Emerge Unscathed

NOTE: the following article is by a writer for an online news feed about financial markets. It is presented as a “for interest” interest opinion piece, and the information have not been verified.


TransCanada is poised to begin construction on the Energy East Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion in the near future.

Litigation and civil disobedience from Indigenous communities located along the project routes will impede pipeline construction.

Lengthy regulatory delays which have occurred so far have delayed the construction of both projects.

The risk associated with these two projects makes TransCanada an unpalatable near or medium-term investment.

It is a near certainty that TransCanada (NYSE:TRP) will meet ferocious resistance to the construction of the Energy East Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion from Indigenous communities. It is significantly less certain whether TransCanada will be able to bring either pipeline into operation. The risk created by the construction of these two pipeline projects makes TransCanada an unwise investment.

This article will describe the two pipeline projects and the social and political risks associated with each project. It will be demonstrated that management and investors should carefully weigh the risks associated with the construction of both of these large-scale, controversial infrastructure projects.

Energy East

The Energy East Pipeline, if constructed, will transport 1.1 million BPD of crude oil from Alberta to be refined in Eastern Canada. The project route, outlined in the graphic below, runs through six different Canadian provinces.

Proposed Route for the TransCanada Energy East Pipeline

Source: TransCanada

The Energy East Project has already experienced significant delays associated with activism and regulation. In a possible sign of things to come, in August 2016, protesters stormed the National Energy Board hearings over the Energy East Project and caused the hearings to be cancelled. Another significant setback took place on January 27, 2017 as the National Energy Board decidedthat hearings for the Energy East Project would need to be restarted. This decision will result in substantial delays because the public hearings which had already taken place will need to re-occur. This setback, however, may only be the beginning of the Energy East Project’s troubles.

Jul. 3.17 | About: TransCanada Corporation (TRP)

Jesse Donovan
Jesse Donovan
Small-cap, natural resources, biotech, tech


NEB says Energy Board to open up talks with First Nations

North Bay Nugget | The National Energy Board is hoping to open up the lines of communication with more than 150 indigenous communities including Nipissing First Nation.

The board has launched an initiative to gather input from Indigenous peoples to help shape the hearing process and other engagement activities for the Energy East and Eastern Mainline projects.

Energy East is looking to transport 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada and a marine terminal in New Brunswick.

Marc Drolet, communications officer for the National Energy Board, said First Nations communities were contacted individually on how they wanted to host a meeting.

He said the meetings, which will take place over the summer months, will be via video conference, face-to-face meetings and through written communication.

Drolet said the first meeting was held in a First Nations community in Quebec earlier this month.

It’s unclear when the meeting at Nipissing First Nation will take place.

Drolet said he was unaware of any First Nations communities refusing to meet with the board.

“There’s concerns about water protection, water crossing and emergency management. We want to be sensitive to Indigenous traditions and if additional meetings are required, that is fine.”

There has been a lot of public outcry from those against the Energy East project for a variety of reasons, including the potential impact a spill could have on Trout Lake – the city’s local drinking water source, possible spills throughout the pipeline and the challenges of spills during the winter months.

On the opposite side of the fence, Energy East says the project will create thousands of jobs across the country, the oil will be transported in a safe and environmentally responsible manner and it will displace imports to Eastern refineries that currently depend on foreign oil to meet the needs of Canadians.

The National Energy Board stated the federal government has committed to undertake deeper consultations with Indigenous people who are potentially affected by the project and provide funding to support these consultations.

The board is also helping to facilitate expanded public input into the National Energy Board review process including public and community engagement activities.

The Minister of Natural Resources intends to recommend the appointment of three temporary members to the National Energy Board, according to the National Energy Board, as well as assess the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project and make this information public.

By JENNIFER HAMILTON-MCCHARLES, The Nugget, Sunday, June 11, 2017 5:50:43 EDT PM, as posted at

Big business wants to nix climate from regulator’s Energy East review

National Observer | Canada’s largest corporations want to stop a federal panel from investigating how a cross-country oil pipeline would contribute to global warming.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other industry stakeholders raised their objections in a series of letters sent to Canada’s pipeline regulator, the National Energy Board (NEB), over the past few weeks.

The complaints are the latest in a saga of controversies that have plagued the Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East oil pipeline, the largest project of its kind ever to be proposed in North America.

The NEB restarted its formal review of the pipeline in 2017 following concerns that it was rigged in favour of the oilpatch. But the regulator now faces a complaints from big oil and big business over its plans to expand the scope of its review of the project.

In a newly-released letter, TransCanada’s legal team argues that the new proposal from the NEB, made necessary because of conflict of interest allegations, isn’t fair.


By Elizabeth McSheffrey, National Observer, in News, Energy | June 1st 2017, as posted at

Awake: A Dream from Standing Rock | Screening June 14 @ 7 pm, Emanuel United Church, 395 Lakeshore Drive, North Bay

Screening on Wednesday June 14th at 7:00 p.m. at Emanuel United Church, 395 Lakeshore Drive, North Bay, Ontario.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota captures world attention through their peaceful resistance against the U.S. government’s plan to construct an oil pipeline through their land.

Genres: Documentary
Directing: James Spione Josh Fox Myron Dewey
Country: US
Runtime: 84 min.
Quality: HD
Release Date: 2017-04-22

Read more at More

TransCanada wants NEB to change the process for input on draft issues list for Energy East review

TransCanada has written to the National Energy Board reviewing the Energy East pipeline conversion project to argue that TransCanada should have the opportunity to not only comment on the draft issues list (they already have that opportunity, same as everyone else).

In a letter to the NEB, TransCanada’s lawyers complain that in the NEB’s letter which invited public input on draft Lists of Issues and draft EA Factors they set out directions for the public input but “did not, however, provide an opportunity to the Applicants to respond to the comments filed by others”. They then go on to argue that “the Applicants have a legal right to reply” and explain that “the purpose of this letter is to ask the Board to exercise its discretion to change the comment process to provide an opportunity to the Applicants to respond to the comments filed by others.”

The letter is available online at

Auditor General releases report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2017 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada were released today, including Report 7 on Fossil Fuel Subsidies. The report is online.

The “overall message” of the Findings, Recommendations, and Responses is summarized as follows:

7.13 Overall, we found that the Department of Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada did not define what the 2009 G20 commitment to phase out and rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies means in the context of Canada’s national circumstances.

7.14 We found that since 2009, six subsidies to the fossil fuel sector were reformed by legislation. Other tax measures for this sector were not reformed. We also found that the Department of Finance Canada did not consider all tax measures to determine whether they were inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the commitment. The Department also did not develop an implementation plan with timelines to support the phase-out and rationalization by 2025 of remaining tax measures that are inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

7.15 In addition, the Department of Finance Canada refused to provide all the analyses that we requested for tax measures that focus on the fossil fuel sector. As a result, we could not provide assurance that the Department analyzed the social, economic, and environmental aspects of all these tax measures to support informed decision making relating to Canada’s 2009 G20 commitment.

7.16 We also found that while Environment and Climate Change Canada developed a plan to guide the initial stages of its work, it did not yet know the extent of federal non-tax measures that could be inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

7.17 These findings matter because without a clear understanding of the fossil fuel subsidies covered by the G20 commitment and without an implementation plan with timelines, the departments cannot ensure that they are providing the support needed for Canada to meet the commitment by 2025. Meeting this commitment will have a positive impact on the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, and by encouraging investments in clean energy.

Full Report

Audit at a Glance