Energy company proposes two routes for pipeline in northern Quebec

On Tuesday morning, environmental groups published a map showing the routes where Norwegian company Marinvest Energy has proposed building a pipeline in northern Quebec.

Marinvest Energy Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian energy company, plans to build a pipeline from Ontario to Baie-Comeau, where it intends to build a liquefaction plant and a marine terminal to export natural gas from Western Canada.

Following presentations to First Nations, environmental groups claim to have obtained the two routes being considered by the Norwegian company.

“We are making these routes public because it is important for Quebecers to see what is currently happening,” said Alice-Anne Simard, director of Nature Québec.

One of the routes proposes that a pipeline pass through Abitibi, north of Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d’Or and south of Amos, then cross the Mauricie region and bypass Lac-Saint-Jean to the north, near Alma, and on to Baie-Comeau.

This scenario is “problematic,” according to the director of Nature Québec, particularly “because it would run very close to Lac-Saint-Jean, in the area where the population of Lac-Saint-Jean is located.”

When questioned by The Canadian Press, Justin Meloche of the National firm, which handles public relations for Marinvest, said on Monday that “this map is already several weeks old” and that this route is “currently being ruled out.”

The second proposal would start in northern Abitibi and head north of Lebel-sur-Quévillon, passing south of Chibougamau to Baie-Comeau, a route that would further avoid populated areas.

This route “is a preliminary draft” and “nothing is final,” said public relations officer Justin Meloche.

Regardless of the scenario, the construction of such a 1,000-km pipeline would result in “deforestation along the entire route and significant fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats, in addition to causing the destruction of numerous wetlands and waterways,” denounced Henri Jacob, president of Action Boréale, in a press release.

“Crossing numerous rivers and waterways also poses risks to aquatic wildlife and water pollution. In addition, the 60-meter-wide pipeline right-of-way would greatly limit many traditional activities, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering medicinal plants, etc.,” said Jacob.

Ten registered lobbyists

The Canadian and Quebec lobbyist registries indicate that Marinvest Energy Canada has hired at least ten lobbyists to promote the pipeline to the Quebec and Canadian governments.

“We can expect the company to try to convince governments to provide public funds for the development of this project,” commented Simard.

According to documents obtained by The Canadian Press last October, Marinvest Energy Canada has been lobbying senior officials, political staff in the office of federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson, a senior advisor to Premier Mark Carney, and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in recent months.

Nature Québec, Greenpeace Canada, and Action Boréale fear that this pipeline project will be designated a project of national interest under federal Bill C-5 or that it will be designated a priority project of national significance under Bill Q-5, introduced by Quebec last week.

Both laws aim to speed up the approval process for major projects.

“These new laws create a window of opportunity for fossil fuel developers: less time to oppose, less protection for the land. This is exactly the time when we need to be most vigilant,” said Louis Couillard, head of Greenpeace Canada’s energy and climate campaign.

According to him, “the Legault government should shut the door on the project immediately” because “the pipeline will not see the light of day anyway, as there is no social acceptability for it.”

On its website, Marinvest Energy describes itself as a company that develops “sustainable” marine energy terminals and systems.

But the director of Nature Québec points out that Alberta gas, extracted mainly by hydraulic fracturing, is not a “sustainable” or transitional energy source.

She adds that this type of project would go against the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency, which argue that “no new fossil fuel infrastructure should be built” if we want to comply with the Paris Agreement.

“In addition to being disastrous for the planet, this project is a financial drain: investing billions in infrastructure that will be obsolete before it even comes into service is completely nonsensical,” says Simard.

Exporting gas to Europe

The facility proposed by Marinvest “could enable Canada to export significant volumes of Canadian natural gas to Europe to support its medium-term energy security and long-term energy transition,” according to a briefing note sent last spring to the deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada, which was seen by The Canadian Press.

For his part, Premier Legault said last July that “if it pays off for Quebecers, we’ll look at it. If it doesn’t pay off for Quebecers, we won’t look at it.”

In 2021, however, his government axed the GNL Québec project in Saguenay, a project similar to what Marinvest Energy plans to do.

The Quebec government claimed that it could “hinder the energy transition.” The following year, the LNG project was also rejected by the federal government after the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency concluded that it was likely to harm the environment.

In a statement sent to The Canadian Press, Marinvest Energy wrote that the pipeline project “has not yet been officially submitted to the relevant authorities and is still in the preliminary stages.”

As a result, “no comprehensive technical, environmental, or economic plans have been finalized or made public.”

For now, the company says its “top priority” is to establish a “respectful and transparent dialogue with First Nations and Indigenous communities” about its pipeline project and a marine terminal to export natural gas.

–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews