France Lamonde

Ultramar Pipeline length: 245 km Builder: Ultramar Number of owners affected by the route: 690 Investment: $250 million Take-off: 18 meters Protection zone: none Start-up: ? Cacouna LNG Port Pipeline length: 230 km Builder: TQM Number of owners affected by the route: 1000 Investment: $740 million Take-off: 23 meters Protection zone: 30 meters Start-up: ? Rabaska LNG Port and related infrastructure: Pipeline length: 42 km Builder: ?

Number of owners affected by the route: 125 Investment: $840 million, of which $65 million for the pipeline Takeover: 23 meters Protection zone: 30 meters Start-up: summer 2010 PHOTO: PRECIOUS 64 The Agricultural Co-operator, OCTOBER 2007, is not against the Ultramar pipeline. And our goal is not to send him to another's yard! But the state is being asked to establish a structured corridor of easements and plan the future needs of the energy sector to preserve Quebec's agriculture," explains France Lamonde, co-owner with her husband, Alcide Cantin, of the Montaye inc. farm, located in Saint-Jean-Chrysostome.

In a voluminous investigation report released on September 10, a panel of the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment (BAPE) gave Ultramar the green light for the construction of a 245-kilometre-long pipeline to deliver products from its Lévis refinery to its main distribution centre in eastern Montreal. The pipeline, a strategic investment of $250 million, would double the daily shipment from 50,000 barrels to 100,000 barrels to meet growing demand in the metropolitan area, western Quebec, Ontario and the Northeast American region.

The Panel's report agrees with the arguments of Louis Forget, Vice-President of Public Affairs at Ultramar, who states that the company has considered other options – train blocks, ships – or a combination of the two means of transportation to meet this request, but that "government studies suggest that the pipeline is the safest way to deliver large volumes from point A to point B." If the Panel finds that the use of Hydro-Québec and 20 rights-of-way is technically inconceivable, however, some portions of land along the highway could be used.

The same reasoning applies to the use of a portion of a right-of-way for an Esso-owned pipeline. In opposition to certain portions of the route, the Chair of the Commission recommends to the Minister of Sustainable Development and the Environment, Line Beauchamp, the formation of a consultation table. "There will be no producer directly affected by this pipeline sitting at this table," says France Lamonde, Vice-President of the Association of Private, Agricultural (Aceric) and Forest Owners (APPAF), a group of 255 people who claim to hold 50% of the land affected by the pipeline's current route.

The pipeline chosen by Ultramar is located in the middle of Ms. Lamonde's fields. The field producer has already seen her 300 hectares of land shrink like a skin of grief by the successive installation of three Hydro-Québec lines in 1973, 1978 and 1984. Ms. Lamonde estimates that 35% of her land was on the face of her lands affected by the easements and access roads of HydroQuébec for the maintenance of the sixteen towers erected on the farm. Thirty years of viiation with the Québec energy giant generated more tension than the 735 kV electrical lines that were overturning her terraces.

And the only amount collected of $25,000 for the election of these towers would not compensate for the headaches suffered and the financial losses incurred during all this time. "We had to fight in court to get a decent route during the last break!" continues the producer whose ancestral land is also divided by two CN tracks. Also, the possibility of being imposed another 18-metre-wide perpetual easement to establish the Ultramar pipeline leaves it a bitter taste, because the pipeline would cut its fields in half over a length of 1.7 km.

Adopted by the Charest government in June 2005, a month before Ultramar publicly announced its project, Bill 229 gives a right of expropriation to build and maintain the pipeline in the name of the "public good." "Ultramar is not Hydro-Québec! It is a subsidiary of the American company Valero that earns record profits," Lamonde continues. In other words, we leave our land to the energy sector, land on which taxes are paid, which we have to monitor and where we are responsible for everything.

If the pipeline is listed as an asset in the books of Ultramar, it is listed as a financial and environmental liability in ours!" Ms. Lamonde blames the UPA for having signed a framework agreement with Ultramar in October 2006 that does not include compensation for the constraints caused by multiple easements. Furthermore, according to the producer, the perpetual nature of the easement granted to Ultramar in exchange for a single compensation for the disadvantages caused by a pipeline that has a life of more than 50 years (80 years according to the company) is a dupe market.

"It's not a shot deal," says the UPA Vice President, Martine Mercier, who led this case. "Producers have a choice. They can receive a single cheque or a phased compensation throughout the life of the pipeline. For example, if you make the assessment and it's worth $10,000 today, it can be worth $9500 or $18,000 over time.

The negotiated tiered payment formula av ec l'UPA would be similar to the five-year review of periodic payments compensation recommended by the National Energy Board (NEB). The federal agency al regulates the 104 companies operating 45,000 km of interprovincial and international pipelines in the country. And the compensation offered by Ultramar, based mainly on 250% of the market value of the land, compensates owners for the inconveniences and restrictions associated with the enterprise.

However, the difference in the market value of the region such as Saint-Hyacinthe and Bas-Saint-Laurent raises a question of fairness, according to Lamonde, "because the disadvantages are the same for all." The assessment of compensation for the market value of the soil goes back to the first agricultural territory OCTOBER 2007!"The Agricultural Co-operator 65 l ́énergie or agriculture! "The fight of France Lamonde A producer of field crops, France Lamonde crosses iron with the Ultramar pipeline.

Across the country, tension is rising between farmers and energy giants. David's fight against Goliath with, for the background, a heated debate of society. France Lamonde argues that Quebec, with 2% of the land cultivated, should better plan the development of the energy sector. By Nicolas Mesly PHOTO: NICOLAS MESLY PHOTO: NICOLAS MESLY THREE PIPELINE PROJECTS IN QUEBEC: Ms. Lamonde fears that the introduction of the pipeline will restrict the circulation in the fields due to the weight of modern and future agricultural machinery and then prevent the evolution of the conformation of the land.

OCTOBER 2007: Agricultural Co-operator 67 property taxes, etc. Ms. Lamonde regrets that there is no provincial government authority to arbitrate potential conflicts between farmers and companies, as there are with federally regulated pipelines. According to the Gas Pipeline Arbitration Secretariat of the Department of Natural Resources Canada, out of 141 cases of conflicts between pipeline companies and landowners, 28 have been resolved since 1995, a long list of grievances Although Ultramar and UPA are trying to show a blank edge in this pipeline project, there appears to be no guarantee that the concerns of the APF are being addressed.

The group's drawbacks include the 1.2 metre depth of the pipeline and the company's limit to ground work at a depth of up to 40 cm. However, F orget indicates that it has provided a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week emergency line in the event that a producer simmers near the pipeline and the gas produced has buried twice the minimum depth required by the Canadian Standards Association (60 cm).

"It is not a wind turbine, it is a pipe that passes toxic products, and who is responsible for breaking it?" asks Lamonde. "The Commission notes that "a number of pipeline leaks of the order of 50,000 litres, or even 200,000 litres, have occurred in Canada in recent years," and invites the company to refine its method of intervention, including the systematic inventory of all individual wells along the right-of-way. The producer of wheat and barley for human consumption and soybeans for Japan is also questioning the consumer's reaction to healthy or bio-based grains produced in land where a gas pipeline will be buried.

In the event of a leak, the Commissioners note that Ultramar would be required to decontaminate the site and that the company committed to remediate the ground while compensating the per cents.

Forget says this is speculative: "If one day we go on the moon, will we take the pipeline to the moon?" It is no less relevant to landowners, because once a pipeline crosses a provincial or international boundary, the pipeline falls under the authority of NEB. As a result, 30 metre protection zones are added on either side of the pipeline right-of-way. This additional 60 metre protection zone is contested by two producers in southern Ontario, Dave Core, a turkey producer and president of the Canadian Alliance of Agreement with Hydro-Québec in 1999, says Mercier who adds: "We will enhance the Ultramar agreement with the new waters pipeline projects related to the LNG tankers by quantifying these disadvantages and studying the allocation of possible royalties to producers."

During the BAPE hearings, producers wanted to receive a royalty in the form of a shareholding in the wind energy sector as it exists. However, the question was raised of renegotiating to improve the Ultramar-UPA agreement, as indicated on both sides of the table before the BAPE report was released. According to the spokesperson for Ultramar, more than half of the 690 owners affected by the pipeline route have already signed an easement agreement that establishes the company's own and land ownership's owning companies.

Ms Mercier also mentioned that it was too early to say whether a producer could use the UPA defence fund in the event of a conflict with the company. The agreement provides that for a producer to be prosecuted, "it should have had to deliberately brace the pipeline." Forget: "The producer is immune from any prosecution unless a voluntary act like dynamiting over the pipeline is taken. This includes an accident, unlike Hydro-Québec, which sends you a $150,000 bill if you hang a pylone by mistake."

In fact, Éric Boutin, a dairy producer, neighbour of Monique Lamonde and member of the L'apPAF, was given a $152,033 bill in June 2006, which was the cost of repairing a tower accidentally hung with a hay car in October 2005. Members of the APPAF sought a total compensation that would cover farm employees and contractors working on a lump sum. The compensation negotiated between the oil and gas companies and farmers for obtaining an easement was based on several factors: market value of the land, loss of crop area and harvest, adverse effects on surface and underground drainage, damage to neighbouring land, estimate of the Agricultural Territory PHOTO: PRODUCTOR PLUS Terre de France Lamonde PHOTO: NICOLAS MESLY 66 Agricultural Co-operator OCTOBER 2007 PHOTO: LAURIE TALLUTO, CF Éric Boutin was seen to re-issue an invoice of $152,033 for a box with a box attached to it.

"There was no $1,000 in scrap metal damage," says the farmer. Boutin received a one-time compensation of $900 in 1971 for the installation of this tower on family land. At a cost of $740 million, will reach 1,000 owners, 95% of whom are farmers. Batani anticipates that the pipeline project will be submitted to BAPE hearings in the fall of 2008. Meanwhile, discussions on a compensation framework agreement with the UPA will continue.

The BAPE also endorsed the construction of a second LNG port in July, Rabaska, a $840 million project that includes the construction of a 42-km pipeline at $65 million and will affect 125 owners located 98% in the green zone."The Rabaska consortium will propose a route for its pipeline. TQM is submitting its proposal to us at this time. Both affect our land.

No one seems to have an overview of the energy projects to limit the damage. It is an anarchic development!" explains Luce Bisson, President of the Kennedy Union. The CPTAQ must approve a 272 hectare exclusion zone for the construction of the Methaneous port of Rabaska before deciding on the passage of the pipeline of a hydroelectric line and a road of access. The consortium R abaska hopes that the decrees of the government were issued this autumn to consider the construction in spring 2008.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife of Q uébec, Claude Béchar d, inv oque la "diversification du portfolio énergie du Québec" pour entenir le construction d'un premier port méthanier en sol québécois. At a press conference last June, Mr. Béchard admitted that he had not ordered any study on Quebec's energy needs from the Régie de l'énergie. And that the profitability of the two projects, Rabaska and Energie Cacouna, located on the shores of the St. Lawrence just 200 kilometres from each other, was not within his purview.

Both projects are dependent on internationally negotiated supply agreements for a limited number of natural gas exporters, including Russia and Algeria. The NEB also justifies the 30 metre protection zone on each side of a pipeline on safety grounds."This regulation reduced the risk of rupture caused by external interference to 3%, which is 17% in the United States, 27% in Europe and 31% in Alberta that do not have such regulation," explains Paul Trudel, extracting this data from a comparative analysis of pipeline performance conducted by the Agency from 1991 to 2005, published in March 2007.

The first cause of pipeline recovery was the occurrence of the period under study, followed by metal degradation. The only incident that was caused by an exterior cause was identified. 68 The Agricultural Co-operator, OCTOBER 2007 Pipeline Landowners Association (CAPLA) and Ron Kerr, a producer of field crops. Both farmers cross iron in court with Alberta-born Goliaths, TransCanada Pipeline and Endbridge, arguing that the feedstock imposed by the NEB limits their capacity to grow while increasing their feed costs.

The producers claim to be liable to $1 million fines and up to five years' imprisonment if they contravene NEB's directives."L'ONÉ never consulted with farmers to establish regulations for pipeline cracking under pipeline lobby influence. We are calling for a change in federal law because pipelines force us to change our farming practices. In addition to suffering all the inconveniences, we must ask the companies for permission to do our job," says Dave Core.

The two Ontario producers filed a $500 million class action against the two energy giants operating under NEB regulations. In November 2006, they were dismissed by a judge of the Ontario Superior Court, but they brought their case in court of appeal and could be heard in early 2008. "It is not yet known whether this class action will include all landowners who are dealing with a pipeline or only those who have on their land TransCanada and d'Endbridge pipelines operating under federal law," says John Gouldy, the lawyer for the two producers who have paid more than $250,000 each to defend their case.

Impacts in Quebec This potential class action initiated in Ontario could have a direct impact in the Belle Province at a time when the debate on the relevance of the construction of two competing LNG port projects is raging. TransCanada Pipeline is one of two promoters of the Cacouna LNG terminal near Rivière-du-Loup. While Endbridge is part of a limited partnership of Gaz Métro and Gaz de France to develop the one from Rabaska to Lévis. Both projects are not viable without the construction of pipelines to transport natural gas to North American markets.

In the absence of Quebec regulations, the two future pipelines are subject to the NEB regulations and will have to have a 30 metre protection zone on each side, in addition to their right of way. After having also obtained its pass mark at BAP E, the Government of Quebec has just given the green light to the construction project of the first LNG port, that of Gros-Cacouna, in July, a loan of one milliar d dollars, without the pipeline (or the electrical line) necessary for the operation of the terminal has been the subject of a very high level or an environmental assessment.

The President of BAP E, William J. Cosgrove, told the Minister of the Environment that the two components of the project should have been studied together."Everywhere in Canada, including Quebec, there is no regulatory process that allows projects to be seen as a whole, how these projects can affect the public and whether their construction is really necessary because they are presented by the companies in the room. One reason why few people are interested in these issues is that organizations must make representations at their own expense.

In the case of NEB, there is no refund for this purpose," says lawyer John Gouldy. "The NEB, which has just completed a second round of pan-Canadian consultation on Canada's future energy needs, is due to publish its report in November 2007. However, neither the UPA nor CAPLA nor the Canadian Federation of Agriculture participated in the exercise. Philippe Batani, spokesperson for Gazoduc TQM, the proponent selected by Cacouna Energy to construct the indispensable pipeline, indicates that a preliminary route was under consideration during the summer of 2007.

The construction of the 250 km pipeline, A easement may include one or more pipelines. Servitude Protection zone 30 m Protection zone 30 m Agricultural territory OCTOBER 2007

This is not without leaving a deep ecological footprint, including the loss of agricultural land and woodlots, nor considering a possible terrorist attack on the liquefied natural gas pipeline. However, this latter possibility is considered minimal by the authorities* after the events of September 11, 2001. * Report of B EPA n

For the time being, only one NEB-managed pipeline system has ceased to exist, namely the Yukon pipeline built by the U.S. Army in 1942 to meet the requirements of the D-Elseth G world-wide. Yukon Pipelines, owner of the 133 km-long pipeline that is winding into Canadian territory, applied to the NEB for a cessation of operations in 1996, and the decommissioning of the pipeline is not completed to date. "Everything needs to be cleaned," says Paul Trudel of NEB, adding that the conditions for abandonment of a pipeline are strict, but "case by case."

However, once a pipeline has been abandoned, it is no longer under the authority of the NEB."If this pipeline has contaminated the land, you are responsible!" says David Core. "You must turn to Alberta, where the subsoil contains a total length of pipeline almost sufficient to get from land to the moon (373,000 km) to see the state of the place. The beef country has twice as many abandoned pipelines (25 000 km) as the entire province has pipelines and pipelines (12 000 km).

"To stop operating a pipeline, companies must leach and purge it with fresh water, air or inert gas to prevent contamination as the pipeline rusts," says Leo Touchette, of the Alberta Energy Utility Board AEUB, a quasi-judicial body that regulates the oil and gas industry. "A report by the organization on the performance of the Alber pipelines lists just over 12,000 incidents from 1990 to 2005. In the 904 cases identified this year, 61 were caused by trails, 709 were leaks and 11, were ruptures.

In 2006, almost half of the total number of disputes heard by the Alberta Surface Rights/Land Compensation Board involved pipelines."We do not have statistics on the number of cases of land or water contaminated by a pipeline," says Arlene Chmelyk, who states that the maximum compensation awarded by the organization is $25,000. The spokesperson states that she cannot comment on whether this amount is sufficient to cover damage caused by contamination. And if the amount required is more than $25,000, parties must go to court.

"Abandoned pipelines can be used as a drain and cause water problems on land or lead to polluting materials," says Core. "If it is a large pipeline that rusts underground, there is a risk of a fatal accident when the machinery is passed through, because the soil can collapse."The producer also takes steps with the federal government to force the companies to put in place a fund to stop pipeline operations to remove them from the earth at the end of their useful life.

OCTOBER 2007: Agricultural Co-operator 71 L

According to some sources, these costs can be equal to those of the facility. Lamonde, as for her, said she was unable to guess the fate or condition of her land in 2087. It is certain that if the ancestral land "disabled" by a multitude of easements did not transfer to an industrial vocation and that it is still cultivated, it may be by neighbours and not by its descendants. Her two children were not interested in taking over. 70 Le Coopérateur agricole OCTOBER 2007 Territoire agricole Sources : BEGIN, Pierre-Yvon.

"TQM Gazoduct, the promoter says he is conscious of royalties", La Terre de chez nous , June 14, 2007. "Ports méthaneiers, Québec authorizes Gros-Cacouna", La Terre de chez nous , July 5, 2007. L

"Une proof à faire", Le Devoir , July 10, 2007. MERCIER, Julie, "Rabaska, le BAPE le projet enconfirms le projet", La Terre de chez nous , July 12, 2007. L

Francis Gardner, an Alberta producer, in great conversation with employees of a pipeline on his land at the foot of the Rockies. For this breeder, the millet planted by the company in the pipeline right-of-way threatens the survival of the plains fescue, the herbage of the bison, with which he feeds his herd of organic beef. According to the spokesman for Ultramar – the second largest refiner in eastern Canada and the first distributor of petroleum products in Quebec and the Maritimes – Louis Forget, the pipeline is an asset for the company.

"The big advantage of the pipeline is that we control 100% of our costs for the next 50 years. We don't have to charter ships or trains with which our agreements are renewable every 10 years. It's the difference between being a landlord or a tenant. We increase or decrease the pipeline flow according to demand without it cost us more."