Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

CIBC: First Nations, lawsuits will block Enbridge for years

June 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Enbridge battle just getting started — A Vancouver rally against proposed pipelines earlier this year (Damien Gillis)

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – One of the biggest hurdles for the Northern Gateway project is one the company has never had the means to address.

Now that the project has received federal approval, the next phase of the pipeline fight will not focus on the Calgary pipeline company but on the government that many B.C. First Nations ultimately blame for the dispute.

More than a pipeline issue

Said Peter Lantin, president of the Haida Nation, Wednesday:

[quote]For us, it’s a rights and title discussion. It’s not necessarily about a pipeline.[/quote]

The Crown has failed to resolve aboriginal rights and title in B.C. for generations, he said. Now, native communities are united for a sweeping legal challenge against the federal government approval, he said.

The expected legal challenge involves a coalition that includes all three major aboriginal organizations in the province: the pro-treaty First Nations Summit, the anti-treaty Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the regional branch of the Assembly of First Nations, as well as dozens of individual bands.

They will meet in the coming weeks to decide on the course their case will take, Lantin said.

Lantin said the Haida recognize the importance of natural resource projects and the national interest, and he said they would be happy to have that conversation — about another project.

“There is no compromise. There is no mitigating measures that we could talk about that would satisfy or change the Haida position,” he said.

[quote]I don’t believe that after the fact we can somehow hit a reset button…The damage is done.[/quote]

Enbridge: ‘We believe that we can move past this’

The company said it will continue trying to engage aboriginal and other communities.

Janet Holder, vice-president of western access for Northern Gateway Pipelines, said there have been some discussions and more are planned.

Enbridge (TSX:ENB) and its partners remain committed to the project, she said.

“We believe that we can move past this,” Holder said. “I don’t think we’ll get 100 per cent support. There’s never anything, any significant issue, that’s ever been dealt with in Canada that has ever had 100 per cent support.”

But the project is worth working on, she said. Canadians are losing billions of dollars a year in revenue without access to the coast for export, she said, and Enbridge and its 10 partners will push forward and find a way to make it work.

“They truly understood before and understand now what the issues are, what needs to be done to move forward, and they’re still willing to fund the project,” she said.

Enrbidge shares dip amid analysts’ pessimism

Analysts and shareholders appeared less optimistic. Shares in Enbridge dropped slightly the morning after the federal announcement.

Said an analysis by CIBC World Markets:

[quote]All told, we see the federal government’s approval largely as academic at this point, with B.C. provincial, environmental and First Nations challenges likely stalling further progress, potentially for years. We do not believe it likely that a consensus can be reached on the project; the environmental and First Nations groups have become entrenched in their positions.[/quote]

In announcing approval, Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the company has more work to do to engage aboriginal groups and local communities.

Onus on federal government to deal with First Nations

But it’s not necessarily the company that has work to do, said one legal expert.

First Nations have legal rights, but in the absence of treaties in B.C., it’s not clear just what those rights entail, said Gordon Christie, an expert in aboriginal law at the University of British Columbia.

“The federal government has the responsibilities to First Nations, not the company,” he said. “This is all about the government making a decision to allow the pipeline to be built.”

Legal challenges could take up to two or three years to resolve, he said.

The Conservative government already faces another challenge in Federal Court that could affect the approval.

The Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake nations in Alberta have filed for a judicial review of changes to the federal environmental assessment rules and the Fisheries and Indian acts included in the Tories’ omnibus budget bill two years ago.

They argue the changes undermine environmental protections and the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginals.

[signoff3]

Are pipeline spills good for the economy, as Kinder Morgan says?

June 15, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Are pipeline spills good for the economy, as Kinder Morgan says — Health concerns plague many who worked to clean up the BP oil spill (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Energy giant Kinder Morgan was recently called insensitive for pointing out that “Pipeline spills can have both positive and negative effects on local and regional economies, both in the short- and long-term.”

The company wants to triple its shipping capacity from the Alberta tar sands to Burnaby, in part by twinning its current pipeline. Its National Energy Board submission states, “Spill response and cleanup creates business and employment opportunities for affected communities, regions, and cleanup service providers.”

[quote]It’s not about going back to the Dark Ages. It’s about realizing that a good life doesn’t depend on owning more stuff.[/quote]

Sad but true

It may seem insensitive, but it’s true. And that’s the problem. Destroying the environment is bad for the planet and all the life it supports, including us. But it’s often good for business.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico added billions to the U.S. gross domestic product! Even if a spill never occurred (a big “if”, considering the records of Kinder Morgan and other pipeline companies), increasing capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels a day would go hand-in-hand with rapid tar sands expansion and more wasteful, destructive burning of fossil fuels — as would approval of Enbridge Northern Gateway and other pipeline projects, as well as increased oil shipments by rail.

[signoff3]

The company will make money, the government will reap some tax and royalty benefits and a relatively small number of jobs will be created. But the massive costs of dealing with a pipeline or tanker spill and the resulting climate change consequences will far outweigh the benefits.

Of course, under our current economic paradigm, even the costs of responding to global warming impacts show as positive growth in the GDP — the tool we use to measure what passes for progress in this strange worldview.

It’s not about going back to the Dark Ages. It’s about realizing that a good life doesn’t depend on owning more stuff

Full steam ahead with fracking, pipelines

Horn River fracking — A fracking drill in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)

And so it’s full speed ahead and damn the consequences. Everything is measured in money. B.C.’s economy seems sluggish? Well, obviously, the solution is to get fracking and sell the gas to Asian markets. Never mind that a recent study, commissioned by the Canadian government, concludes we don’t know enough about the practice to say it’s safe, the federal government has virtually no regulations surrounding it and provincial rules “are not based on strong science and remain untested.”

Never mind that the more infrastructure we build for polluting, climate-disrupting fossil fuels, the longer it will take us to move away from them. There’s easy money to be had — for someone.

Conservation must be top priority

We need to do more than just get off fossil fuels, although that’s a priority. We need to conserve, cut back and switch to cleaner energy sources. In Canada, we need a national energy strategy. And guess what? That will create lasting jobs! But we must also find better ways to run our societies than relying on rampant consumption, planned obsolescence, excessive and often-pointless work and an economic system that depends on damaging ways and an absurd measurement to convince us it somehow all amounts to progress.

It’s not about going back to the Dark Ages. It’s about realizing that a good life doesn’t depend on owning more stuff, scoring the latest gadgets or driving bigger, faster cars. Our connections with family, friends, community and nature are vastly more important.

Yes, we still need some oil and gas

Yes, we need oil and gas, and will for some time. Having built our cities and infrastructure to accommodate cars rather than people, we can’t turn around overnight. But we can stop wasting our precious resources. By conserving and switching to cleaner energy, we can ensure we still have oil and gas long into the future, perhaps long enough to learn to appreciate the potential of what’s essentially energy from the sun, stored and compressed over millions of years.

If we dig it up and sell it so it can be burned around the world, we consign ourselves to a polluted planet ravaged by global warming, with nothing to fall back on when fossil fuels are gone.

Waste not, warm not

Scientists around the world have been warning us for decades about the consequences of our wasteful lifestyles, and evidence for the ever-increasing damage caused by pollution and climate change continues to grow. But we have to do more than just wean ourselves off fossil fuels. We must also look to economic systems, progress measurements and ways of living that don’t depend on destroying everything the planet provides to keep us healthy and alive.

Written with Contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Enbridge battle far from over, even if Harper approves pipeline

June 9, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Some time in the next 10 days, the federal government is supposed to announce its final decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline — the multibillion-dollar political minefield dividing the West.

Even detractors expect the federal government to give the $7-billion project the go-ahead.

But the nod from Ottawa would not be the crest of the mountain Northern Gateway must climb before the oil — and the money — begin to flow. The path to the British Columbia coast has many hurdles left for Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB) and its partners.

Panel recommendation came with 209 conditions

A joint review panel of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency recommended approval of the project six months ago, subject to 209 conditions.

“The bottom line is there are 113 conditions that need to be met before construction can begin. That’s going to take a lot of time,” said company spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht.

If approved, that would be merely one more step in an ongoing process, Giesbrecht said.

“We have a lot of work to be done before we would be able to begin construction.”

There are also the five applications before the Federal Court for judicial review of the federal panel recommendation, and further court challenges are likely.

Pipeline faces years of legal challenges

The opposition of environmental groups was always a given. Expansion of Alberta’s oil sands has become an international target for climate activists.

“Approval seems obvious. At the same time, opposition is so strong,” said Nikki Skuce, a resident of Smithers, B.C., and a campaigner for the environmental group Forest Ethics Advocacy.

[quote]It’s going to be caught up in the courts for years and it’s going to be ugly on the ground. People are willing to do what it takes.[/quote]

That is no idle threat in a province that saw a decade-long War in the Woods over logging of old growth forests, which ended with new government regulations.

And opposition is not limited to environmentalists and First Nations.

Kitimat showed resolve of communities to block Enbridge

Another crippling blow to the project came from the residents of Kitimat — the B.C. city with the most to gain as the pipeline terminus — when they voted to reject the project in a non-binding plebiscite.

Kitimat is no stranger to industry, born of an aluminum smelter in the 1950s, but for a majority of those who voted the risks outweigh the rewards.

Liberal govt flip-flops on pipeline

Even the provincial government officially opposed the project at review hearings.

Victoria appears poised to reverse itself, deploying key ministers to a flurry of recent federal announcements on marine and pipeline safety. But the Liberal government may be waiting to see which way the political wind is blowing before they change direction.

“There’s a question of whether going along with the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline will make LNG development in B.C. more challenging by angering First Nations so adamantly opposed to the oil sands pipeline,” said George Hoberg, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s school of forestry and founder of UBCC350, a group pressing for action on greenhouse gas emissions.

There is deep resistance in B.C., he said.

[quote]I think it’s likely to be approved, but I would not be shocked if it was delayed or even denied.[/quote]

The product that the pipeline would carry is a hurdle.

The pipeline west would transport molasses-like diluted bitumen. Studies and previous spills have found that dilbit sinks in turbulent water conditions.

First Nations remain firmly opposed

Opponents like Art Sterritt, director of Coastal First Nations, have said a tanker spill is possible — even likely — and cannot be cleaned up. His coalition of nine aboriginal communities remains vehemently opposed.

The greatest obstacle is the unflagging opposition of First Nations. Hamstrung by the federal government’s failure to negotiate treaties in decades of talks, the company has been left in a legal limbo.

The company said the project has 26 aboriginal equity partners and consultations continue but Clarence Innis, acting chief of the Gitxaala Nation on the North Coast, said they haven’t heard from anyone and no talks are planned.

“We’re going to do whatever we need to do to protect our territory,” said Innis, whose community is located on an island at the mouth of the Douglas Channel.

The Gitxaala are already preparing a legal challenge.

“We played by the rules,” Innis said. “We’ve been ignored.”

The fight is far from over on either side. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, the company has said.

“It’s in the national interest to be able to diversify the markets that we have for our most valuable natural resource,” Giesbrecht said.

“We believe the project is the right thing for Canada, we’ve felt that way right from the very beginning and that’s why we’ve pursued it.

Pipeline debate hits local streets with Kinder Morgan, Spectra spats

June 4, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

Pipeline debate hits local streets with Kinder Morgan, Spectra skirmishes — Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan is taking a tough stand against Kinder Morgan (Photo: Vimeo)

A pair of skirmishes over access for pipeline companies to landowners’ properties in the Lower Mainland suggests the debate over Canada’s energy future is washing up on local streets.

Today, we learned that Burnaby Council – long an outspoken opponent of Kinder Morgan’s plans to expand its TransMountain pipeline to a tanker facility in Burrard Inlet – is blocking the company’s access to Burnaby Mountain. In yet another proposed route change, Kinder Morgan is now mulling tunnelling through the mountain, for which it requires permits from the city.

Meanwhile, a group of local farmers has brought a countersuit against gas pipeline operator Spectra and its subsidiary Westcoast Energy. The claim, filed in BC Supreme Court last week, is in response to Spectra’s attempt to force its way through the courts onto Fraser Valley farmland in order to install new pipeline equipment – a step it resorted to after failing to negotiate mutually agreeable terms with landowners.

[signoff3]

Both incidents foreshadow the future landscape of pipeline disputes, as they filter down to local streets, farms and backyards.

“Every inch of the way”

Despite Kinder Morgan’s claims of longstanding good relations with Burnaby, Mayor Derek Corrigan tells a very different story. Ever since it spilled oil in north Burnaby’s streets in 2007, Corrigan and council have been wary of Kinder Morgan. Now, with plans to triple the flow of Alberta bitumen through the community, Burnaby’s municipal leaders are upping the ante. “We’re fighting them every inch of the way,” Corrigan told The Vancouver Sun.

[quote]We’ve made it clear we are opposed to the pipeline, and they’ve made it clear they want to impose it on us whether we want it or not.[/quote]

Now the company says it’s prepared to take the extraordinary step of going over the city’s head to the National Energy Board, which in rare cases can trump municipal authority over such matters. The move can hardly improve relations with Burnaby, so it looks increasingly like we’re in for a long, nasty battle in the trenches of a local community.

Existing pipeline damaged soil, hinders farming

Meanwhile, in the Fraser Valley, farmers claim that the old Westcoast Energy pipeline, which carries gas from northeast BC to the Lower Mainland, has violated the terms of its easement. They claim the pipeline has:

Damaged soils
Increased soil temperature, leading to crop mutation
Segmented harvesting, which raises costs to unfeasible levels
Wrought other constraints on harvesting

They further claim that Westcoast has failed to provide adequate compensation for these impacts – all of which add up to a breach of the original terms of the easement, meaning the company has forfeited its right to further access.

The landowners are seeking an injunction to block Westcoast and its agents from accessing their properties until these historical impacts to their land have been rectified.

The NEB’s big stick

While the above dispute is playing out in BC’s courts, the National Energy Board is being asked to intervene in the Burnaby matter, marshalling special federal powers it holds for such situations.

The NEB may wield a big stick for “resolving” local disputes on the land – but it should carefully consider the impact of using it. The Board’s recommendation of the proposed Enbridge pipeline, despite some 96% opposition – through the thousands of official submissions and public comments during the review process – has irked everyone from citizens to expert engineers to scientists, 300 of whom recently called out the panel for its unscientific reasoning.

Early on, the NEB review of Kinder Morgan’s project has already met with similar criticism for rejecting many of the applicants who sought to contribute to the process. Local NDP MP Kennedy Stewart has called out the review panel repeatedly for frustrating public participation and giving Kinder Morgan special treatment.

Backlash brewing

We’re starting to see a backlash on the ground in local communities who want to exercise their own democratic say on these issues – including Kitimat’s recent plebiscite, which rejected the proposed Enbridge pipeline. Judging by the considerable resources and boots on the ground Enbridge invested in its losing campaign there, pipeline companies are wary of the power local communities can wield, even where the law is not technically on their side.

In communities like the Hazeltons and the Kispiox Valley in northwest BC, local landowners and First Nations are getting riled up over TransCanada and Spectra’s attempts to push through gas pipelines bound for LNG terminals on the coast.

With municipal elections looming around the province, we can expect to see these energy issues play out on an increasingly local level. Alberta energy companies dominated campaign funding on both sides of BC’s recent provincial election. Now watch for Kinder Morgan, Enbridge, TransCanada, Spectra and their emissaries to start investing heavily in municipal politics this year. But in doing so, they risk further polarizing the debate and galvanizing local opposition, as they’re already beginning to see.

300 scholars to Harper: Enbridge recommendation based on junk science

June 3, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, UncategorizedfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

In an open letter, 300 scholars poke holes in the Joint Review Panel’s recommendation of the proposed Enbridge pipeline, urging PM Stephen Harper to reject its final report.

May 26, 2014

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

Based on the evidence presented below, we, the undersigned scholars, have concluded that the Joint Review Panel’s (JRP) assessment of the Northern Gateway Project (the Project) represents a flawed analysis of the risks and benefits to British Columbia’s environment and society. Consequently, the JRP report should not serve as the basis for concluding that the Northern Gateway Project is in the best interests of Canadians. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report.

The Canadian electorate expected the JRP ruling to present a balanced and appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of the Project, drawing upon the best available evidence, and expressing a cogent rationale for the final ruling.

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel’s review:

Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents,
Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent’s yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

Below, we expand on these five fundamental flaws that invalidate the report as an appropriate basis for your Cabinet to approve the Project.

1. Failure to articulate a rationale

The panel failed to articulate a rationale for numerous findings, and failed to satisfy the criteria of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” expected of administrative tribunals. Such a rationale is fundamental to both scientific and legal judgment. The Panel’s charge was to determine whether the Project is in the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians, based on a critical analysis of the Project’s economic, environmental and social benefits, costs and risks over the long term. Instead of such a balanced consideration, the panel justified its recommendation of the project by summarizing the panel’s understanding of environmental burdens in five short paragraphs and judging that these adverse environmental outcomes were outweighed by the potential societal and economic benefits. Without a rationale for why the expected benefits justify the risks (e.g., why must an environmental effect be certain and/or permanently widespread to outweigh economic benefits that themselves are subject to some uncertainty?), any ruling of overall public interest is unsupportable.

2. Consideration of narrow risks but broad benefits, omission of key issues

The panel included in its deliberation a broad view of the economic benefits, but an asymmetrically narrow view of the environmental risks and costs. The need for the Project as stipulated by Enbridge includes consideration of the enhanced revenues that would accrue from higher prices for oil sands products in Asian markets. These enhanced revenues are benefits to producers from production. The environmental risks, however, were only considered if they are associated with transport, not production or later burning/consumption. All negative effects associated with the enhanced production of oil sands bitumen, or the burning of such products in Asia, were excluded, as were greenhouse gas emissions generally. This exclusion of the project’s contributions to increased atmospheric emissions undermines Canada’s formal international commitments and federal policies on greenhouse emissions. Other key issues omitted include the difficulty of containing freshwater spills under ice, as has already been demonstrated on the Athabasca River from oil sands developments.

3. Reliance on information from the Proponent, without external evaluation

On critical issues, the panel relied on information from the proponent without external assessment. For example, on the pivotal matter of the risks of a diluted bitumen tanker spill, the panel concluded that a major spill was unlikely. Yet, a professional engineers’ report concluded that the quantitative risk assessment upon which the panel relied was so flawed as to provide no meaningful results. Regarding the consequences of such a spill, the panel relied on the proponent’s modeling to conclude that the adverse consequences of a spill would not be widespread or permanent, even as it acknowledged that there is much uncertainty about the behavior of diluted bitumen in the marine environment. That modeling discounted the prospect that diluted bitumen could be transported long distance by currents, when the product submerges, as it does under a wide range of conditions. Thus, the panel may have underestimated the scale of potential damages. Because the proponent is in a clear conflict of interest, an independent assessment of potential oil spill damage should have been commissioned.

4. Contradiction of official government documents

A decision on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on any species or habitat must be consistent with the government’s own official documents. The panel’s conclusions that marine mammals in general will not suffer significant adverse cumulative effects stands in direct contradiction to the government’s own management and recovery plans. For example, the Recovery Plan for large whales (blue, fin, and sei whales—species-at-risk under the federal Species at Risk Act, SARA) lists “collisions with vessels, noise from industrial … activities, [and] pollution” as imminent threats —all three threats are associated with the NGP proposal. Contamination has also been identified as a threat for other marine mammals: the management plans for both the sea otter and the Steller sea lion identify a risk from marine contamination—in particular the acute effects of large oil spills, but also from the toxicity of smaller, chronic spills that are likely to increase proportionally with vessel traffic. The panel also failed to account for newly identified critical habitat of the humpback whale and failed to specify how the proponent’s mitigation plan would reduce the significant risks from increased shipping, a serious threat identified in the recently published Recovery Strategy for the species. A plan to manage the threats to the species and its habitat is a legal requirement given that the humpback whale is a species of Special Concern under SARA.

5. Inappropriate treatment of uncertain risks, and reliance on yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures

The panel effectively treated uncertain risks as unimportant. For instance, Northern Gateway omitted specified mitigation plans for numerous environmental damages or accidents. This omission produced fundamental uncertainties about the environmental impacts of Northern Gateway’s proposal (associated with the behaviour of bitumen in saltwater, adequate dispersion modeling, etc.). The panel recognized these fundamental uncertainties, but sought to remedy them by demanding the future submission of plans. However, the panel described no mechanism by which the evaluation of these plans could reverse their ruling. Since these uncertainties are primarily a product of omitted mitigation plans, such plans should have been required and evaluated before the JRP report was issued. To assume that such uncertainties would not influence the final decision of the panel, is to sanction the proponent’s strategic omissions, and effectively discount these potentially significant risks of the Project, to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public.

Conclusion

The JRP report could have offered guidance, both to concerned Canadians in forming their opinions on the project and to the federal government in its official decision. However, given the major flaws detailed above, the report does not provide the needed guidance. Rather, the JRP’s conclusion—that Canadians would be better off with than without the Northern Gateway Project given all “environmental, social, and economic considerations”xvii—stands unsupported.

Given such flaws, the JRP report is indefensible as a basis to judge in favour of the Project.

Sincerely,

Kai MA Chan – Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

Anne Salomon – Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University

Eric B. Taylor – Professor, University of British Columbia

Read original letter with 300 additional signatories and supporting evidence here.

Read: Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety

Read: It’s all about the economy…no evidence required

Quebec won’t see job benefits from Line 9, Energy East: report

June 2, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Quebec won't see job benefits from Line 9, Energy East-report — TransCanada CEO Russ Girling promoting Energy East (Canadian Press)

MONTREAL – A new report says proposals to pipe oilsands crude to Quebec refineries would only deliver negligible economic benefits to the province.

An economist who co-authored the study says job creation and spinoffs from several active pipeline-and-processing proposals would be insignificant to Quebec’s overall economy.

At the same time, Brigid Rowan says a pipeline accident could cost lives and put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars — particularly if a spill takes place in an urban area like Toronto or Montreal.

The report was conducted by California-based consulting firm The Goodman Group Ltd. at the request of the Greenpeace and Equiterre environmental organizations.

Two pipelines planned from Alberta to Quebec

The study examined possible economic advantages of the Energy East pipeline project by TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP), a plan by Suncor Energy Inc. (TSX:SU) to enable its Montreal refinery to process thick oilsands bitumen and the Line 9 reversal by Enbridge (TSX:ENB).

Rowan argues that even if all of these projects moved forward, they would generate few long-term jobs in Quebec.

She also says while refiners would likely benefit from the lower-priced crude, the savings probably wouldn’t be passed on to consumers at the pump.

Controversial Line 9 already approved

Earlier this year, the National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s controversial plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of Line 9, a project that would transport crude eastward to refineries in Ontario and Montreal.

The board said its decision would allow Enbridge to “react to market forces and provide benefits to Canadians, while at the same time implementing the project in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.”

The federal government welcomed the decision, saying the project would protect high-quality refining jobs in Quebec, open new markets for oil producers in Western Canada and replace more-expensive foreign crude.

Opponents of the Line 9 project often highlight Enbridge’s 2010 spill in Michigan, where 20,000 barrels of crude leaked into the Kalamazoo River.

Kinder Morgan faces 10,000 questions on Vancouver pipeline

May 29, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

By The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Kinder Morgan is asking for more time to respond to over 10,000 questions submitted to the National Energy Board about the proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline.

The company has until June 4 to respond to information requests from 117 of the 398 groups and individuals granted intervener status by the board for the application.

The company says it cannot meet that deadline with such a large number of requests, and it has asked for a delay until June 27.

Kinder Morgan’s Scott Stoness says questions cover everything from marine operations to finance and spill response, and the company is working around the clock to answer every one.

Under new rules introduced two years ago by the federal government, the regulatory process has strict time limits for hearings and a final decision, but Stoness says he’s hopeful the extension will not affect the overall timeline.

Like the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, the Trans Mountain expansion is controversial and has spurred opposition from environmental groups and several First Nations.

Spill liability changes could be paving way for Enbridge approval

May 15, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Pipeline safety changes could be paving way for Enbridge approval — An oil pipeline crossing the Tanana River in Alaska

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – The federal government announced new measures Wednesday to ensure pipeline companies pick up the tab for any spills, as cabinet prepares to announce its decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the new rules are not tied to any particular project but put in place an unmatched regime for pipeline safety.

“Even in the most extreme, rare or unlikely circumstances, the government will ensure that the environment, landowners and taxpayers are protected and the polluter pays,” he said in Vancouver.

“There is no country in the world that transports oil and gas as safely as Canada.”

“Absolute” liability

Under the new rules, pipeline companies will have absolute liability in the event of a spill. It means they will have to pay all costs and damages related to oil spills, without needing to be proven negligent or at fault.

Pipeline operators will also be required to have a minimum amount of cash available for cleanup costs. The National Energy Board will have the power to order reimbursement of spill costs and to take over spill response should the pipeline company be unable or unwilling to do so.

The federal government will cover any spill-related costs a company cannot pay, and the national energy regulator would recoup the money from industry.

Changes come amid pipeline debates

B.C. is in the midst of a divisive debate about two major pipeline proposals — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s expansion of its Trans Mountain line — both of which would traverse the province with diluted bitumen from Alberta.

The changes, which have yet to be tabled in Parliament, are the latest in a slew of amendments aimed at appeasing public concerns over the two proposals.

Rickford said the federal government will also develop a strategy to increase First Nations’ participation in pipeline safety planning, monitoring and spill response.

“Working in full partnership with aboriginal communities, with our provincial and territorial counterparts and industry, Canada will become a supplier of energy to the world,” Rickford said.

A day earlier, the federal government announced changes to marine safety regulations affecting oil tankers.

Rickford was joined Wednesday by B.C. Transport Minister Todd Stone.

Provincial governments support changes

The B.C. government has set out five conditions for supporting any oil pipeline project, including an undefined “world-leading” oil-spill response and prevention on land and at sea.

Stone wouldn’t say whether the measures meet that criteria but called them “a step in the right direction.”

“Are we all the way there? I think there’s always more that can be done, but what I think is demonstrated by the federal government here today is a very strong commitment towards ensuring that the standards here in Canada will be world-leading,” he said.

Alberta Premier Dave Hancock said the new rules “strengthen the responsible development of energy resources.”

“Every Canadian, no matter what province or territory they call home, expects that energy development is done with a high degree of environmental safeguards,” he said in a statement.

Government claims companies “responsive” to spills

Natural Resources officials said there are 825,000 kilometres of pipelines throughout Canada — 73,000 of them are cross-border pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board.

There has never been an incident in Canada where a pipeline company was not responsive to a spill, they said.

And there has only ever been one pipeline spill that exceeded $1 billion to cleanup. That was a 2010 spill from an Enbridge pipeline into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, which is still being cleaned up.

Ziad Saad, vice-president of safety for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, welcomed the changes. There are measures in place now for extreme circumstances, he said.

“We are clarifying and strengthening those provisions to ensure the public that they won’t be on the hook in case of a pipeline incident,” he said.

The federal government is expected to announce its final decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline next month.

READ: Oil transport engineers say Enbridge tanker plan unsafe

Tougher Canadian oil tanker rules leave liability cap in place

May 13, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

SAINT JOHN, N.B. – The federal government says it is aiming to make polluters pay as it makes changes to legislation and regulations on oil tanker safety.

But under proposed changes announced today by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt in Saint John, N.B., Ottawa stops short of following a recommendation from an expert panel to remove the current $161-million liability limit for a spill in favour of unlimited liability for polluters.

The report on tanker safety done last year by a three-member panel of experts made 45 recommendations for improving Canada’s preparedness for oil spills from tankers and barges.

Raitt says the government is removing the existing liability limit of $161 million under Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund.

Instead, the full amount for a single accident will be made available from the fund, which the government says currently stands at about $400 million.

Raitt says if all domestic and international pollution funds are exhausted, the government will ensure compensation is provided and recover those costs from the industry through a levy.

She says with ship owners’ insurance, and international and domestic pollution funds, about $1.6 billion will be available to cover damages from oil spills.

READ: Oil transport engineers say Enbridge tanker plan unsafe

Pro-Keystone XL pipeline bill stalls in Senate

May 2, 2014Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCanadian Press

Pro-Keystone XL bill stalls in Senate — Sen. John Hoeven has been unable to gather the votes for his pro-Keystone XL bill (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

By David Espo, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Senate supporters of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline conceded Thursday they lack the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation authorizing immediate construction of the project, but said they remain hopeful of prevailing.

“At this point we’re still working to get 60,” said Sen. John Hoeven. R-N.D., as he and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bipartisan bill to end the delays and build the proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, faces a tough re-election challenge this fall, and has said she will use all her power to make sure the project is built.

In remarks on the Senate floor, she said supporters of the project think:

[quote]There is so much potential for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico … to become completely not only energy independent, but an energy powerhouse for the world…what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here?[/quote]

11 democrats support bill, but still not enough

In their statement, Landrieu and Hoeven said the legislation has the support of 11 Democrats and all 45 of the Senate’s Republicans, a total of 56 of the 60 that will be needed. “A vote on the bill is expected in the coming days,” they added.

The obvious targets for additional support include six Democrats who voted in favour of a non-binding proposal 13 months ago that expressed general support for the project: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Tom Carper of Delaware, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida.

Among the group, Casey noted he has twice before voted in favour of the project, and said it was “probably a good guess” to assume he will do so again.

Carper said he is undecided, and intends to meet with Landrieu, Hoeven and others in the coming days.

Johnson, Coons and Nelson indicated Thursday they do not support the legislation to require construction.

Senators want to know where Obama stands

In an interview, Johnson said he wants to know President Barack Obama’s position. Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, said the lawmaker “believes the law makes clear that it’s up to the (Obama) administration to make permitting decisions like this one,” and not up to Congress.

Nelson’s spokesman, Ryan Brown, said the Florida lawmaker favours the pipeline’s construction, but won’t vote for the legislation because it permits the oil that would flow through the project to be exported.

Bennet could not be reached for immediate comment.

The proposed pipeline would carry oil from Canada to the United States, where it eventually would reach Gulf Coast refineries. Supporters say it would create thousands of jobs and help the United States get closer to a goal of energy independence. Opponents include environmentalists who say the project wouldn’t create much permanent employment once it was finished, and say it would reinforce the nation’s use of an energy source that worsens global warming.

White House delays Keystone decision indefinitely

The legislation is the latest response in Congress to the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it was delaying a decision on the pipeline indefinitely, citing a Nebraska court case relating to the project.

The House has voted previously to approve construction of the pipeline.

The White House has not taken a formal position on the legislation, although Democratic officials in the Senate as well as Republican lawmakers say they expect Obama likely would veto it if it reaches his desk.

In a sidebar dispute, some Republicans said the vote should occur on an amendment to energy efficiency legislation that is expected to reach the Senate floor in the next few days. That would present Obama with a more complicated choice, since large numbers of lawmakers in both parties are likely to favour the broader measure.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said a vote on a free-standing bill that deals only with the pipeline is insufficient “because it will never see the light of day. The president’s not going to sign it.”

He said the pipeline’s fate is in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “and how serious he and our Democratic friends are about this issue.

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Alan Fram contributed to this report.