Artist’s rendering of proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker expansion
VANCOUVER – An oil pipeline critic and New Democratic MP from British Columbia says plans by the National Energy Board to perform maintenance on its website this weekend are “ridiculous.”
Burnaby-Douglas MP Kennedy Stewart recently said his community office would hold Saturday computer labs to show people how they could apply online to participate in upcoming hearings on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.
The $5.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to B.C.’s coast could result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the waters that surround Vancouver.
But the National Energy Board says on its website that users could experience service interruptions, starting at 6 p.m. this evening and running until 6 a.m. Monday.
Stewart says the public application process was launched last week and is only open for 28 days.
He says the energy board has not made print copies or printable files of the application available so there is no choice but to apply online. Days Stewart:
[quote]With only 20 days yet to go, ‘network maintenance’ that takes the better part of three days is unacceptable and presents yet another challenge for people who want to have their voice heard during the hearing process. Even seeing that notice will discourage people from attempting to apply.[/quote]
Members of the Gitga’at First Nation lead a rally in Prince Rupert in 2012 (Damien Gillis)
by Dene Moore, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER – The Gitga’at First Nation in British Columbia has filed a court challenge to the federal review panel recommendation in favour of the Northern Gateway pipeline, bringing to 10 the number of applications filed in Vancouver against the project.
The small community centred around Hartley Bay on the north coast said its way of life would be severely threatened by the bitumen-laden tankers that would navigate Douglas Channel on their doorstep.
In applications filed this week with both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, the band asks for a judicial review of the joint review panel’s decision.
“We’re talking about hundreds of ships passing by basically our front door… and the impact that that’s going to have on our way of life and the cultural identity of the Gitga’at people,” Cam Hill, an elected band councillor, said Wednesday.
“We are a sea-going people. Our life is on the sea.”
First Nation: Crown failed to consult
The band wants the court to declare that the panel “breached the honour of the Crown in its dealings with the Gitga’at” and failed to fulfil the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginal peoples.
They’re asking the court to quash the report and recommendations or, failing that, to refer the report back to the panel for further consideration.
The joint review panel issued a report last month recommending approval of the 1,200-kilometre pipeline from the Edmonton area to a tanker port in Kitimat, B.C. — with 209 conditions.
Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Northern Gateway, said the company anticipates the court will deal quickly with the legal issues. Said Giesbrecht:
[quote]We’re confident the court will agree that the JRP process was thorough, fair, and based on sound science. In the meantime, we are focusing on the important task of meeting the conditions set forth by the province of British Columbia.[/quote]
Enbridge recommendation faces 10 legal challenges
The Federal Court registry said they have received 10 applications regarding the project with the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Most applicants have filed to both courts.
The Haisla Nation, the Gitxaala and several environmental groups also filed applications to both courts for a judicial review within the 30-day deadline.
The reasons for the court challenges vary, including that the panel erred in law by considering the economic benefits of the project to the Alberta oilsands, but ignoring the adverse effects of the development.
Opponents also said the panel made its decision despite gaps in the evidence, such as the absence of a federal study of diluted bitumen and how it behaves in water. That study, which found the heavier, molasses-like product sinks when mixed with sediment in salt water, was quietly released by Environment Canada after the panel wrapped up hearings.
The panel also didn’t get to consider a federal recovery strategy for humpback whales or a draft strategy for caribou, both published by Environment Canada after the hearings ended and years overdue under the federal Species At Risk Act.
All say the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel, which conducted the review for the agency and the National Energy Board, made legal errors in arriving at the opinion that the pipeline should be built.
Hill said the Gitga’at felt their voices really weren’t heard during the panel process.
“Court is not an avenue that we really wanted to go down,” he said.
The band did not accept any money from Northern Gateway Pipelines to fund its participation at the many months of hearings, but he declined to say where the money came from for panel participation or for a court fight.
The federal cabinet has 180 days from the time it received the report, released in December, to make a final decision.
Council will debate a motion on Monday to seek intervenor status into the upcoming hearings by the National Energy Board.
That would give the city the opportunity to present evidence and question those giving submissions.
Councillor Kim Richter is spearheading the motion because she’s worried any leak would contaminate the municipality’s groundwater, and the Salmon River.
The expansion proposal has no shortage of critics with several municipalities in the Lower Mainland opposing it _ it was also a major issue in last year’s election.
The $5.4-billion venture could result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic into Vancouver.
The National Energy Board is giving people until Feb. 12 to make a submission or to apply for intervenor status. Learn more here.
The 3-member Joint Review Panel for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline
Not even a month has pass since the federally-appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) released its official report recommending approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, pending the fulfillment of 209 conditions. Yet already two separate suits have been filed against the integrity of the report, with groups requesting Cabinet delay a final decision on the pipeline project until the federal court of appeals can assess the complaints.
One of the suits, filed Friday by the Environmental Law Centre on behalf of B.C. Nature (the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists), requested the JRP’s report be declared invalid and that Cabinet halt its decision on the pipeline project until the court challenge is heard. The second suit, filed by Ecojustice on behalf of several environmental groups claims the JRP report is based on insufficient evidence and therefore fails to constitute a full environmental assessment under the law.
Chris Tollefson, B.C. Nature’s lawyer and executive director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, says “we have asked that the federal court make an order that no further steps be taken by any federal regulator or by Cabinet until this request is adjudicated.”
[quote]We’re confident that the federal court will make that order because we’ve raised some serious issues with the legality of the report and if the report is flawed then it can’t go to Cabinet, and it shouldn’t go to Cabinet.[/quote]
Legal errors in Enbridge review prompt challenge
B.C. Nature has identified almost a dozen legal errors that bring the legitimacy of the JRP’s recommendation into question.
“The two [errors] that we think are the most serious among those are the finding with respect to justification of serious harm to caribou and grizzly and the ruling with respect to a potential major oil spill and its consequences. We say that in both of those areas there is a glaring error that’s occurred that has to be addressed by the federal court of appeal,” Tollefson said.
A federal recovery strategy for humpack whales on the B.C. coast released in October cited potential increased oil tanker traffic as a danger to dwindling populations. The recovery strategy, released after a five-year delay, also noted the danger toxic spills posed to critical habitat.
A federal caribou recovery strategy is expected by the end of the month.
“Both those federal strategies have to be consider by the Cabinet when it ultimately rules on this [project]… For caribou this pipeline has some serious consequences and it will be interesting to see what happens when the federal strategy comes down.”
JRP hearing a “failure”
For Tollefson, the inadequacy of the official JRP report points to a failure of the Northern Gateway hearing process.
“It’s disappointing for everybody involved on the intervenor side, how this has unfolded,” he said.
[quote]The report is not only legally flawed in relation to the specific issues that we’ve raised but I think there’s a more general flaw, which is that it’s failed the test of transparency, it fails test of intelligibility. It basically doesn’t grapple with the evidence.[/quote]
The report reaches its conclusions “without setting out its analysis,” Tollefson says, “without discussing the evidence that forms the basis for those conclusions.”
“So we think there’s a basic rule of law issue here: does this report even conform with the basic requirements in terms of intelligibility and transparency that we expect from tribunals?”
“And we say that it doesn’t.”
Tollefson anticipates that the request will delay Cabinet’s 180 decision period, saying it would be “very difficult” for Cabinet to address and respond to B.C. Nature’s complaints within that timeframe.
For Tollefson a delay in Cabinet’s decision isn’t only foreseeable, it’s appropriate.
“Cabinet after all has to make its decision based upon the findings and the recommendations that arise out of this report.” Without a reliable report, what kind of decision can British Columbians expect?
The errors in the report could send the JRP back to the drawing board.
“If we’re upheld on any of our arguments, that report will have to be sent back to the JRP, redone, and we’ll basically be starting, potentially, back where we were in June. In those circumstances, it makes little sense for Cabinet to make a decision given that level of uncertainty around the future of the report.”
An oil pipeline crossing the Tanana River in Alaska
The federal NDP’s BC-based deputy fisheries critic is questioning a quiet deal signed just before Christmas that saw the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hand over the protection of fish habitat and species at risk along energy pipelines to the National Energy Board.
“The Conservatives have gone too far,” says New Westminster–Coquitlam & Port Moody MP Fin Donnelly.
[quote]They have gutted the Fisheries Act, slashed DFO’s budget, launched an all-out attack on science, and now they have handed over the power to make decisions on the environment to a body whose mandate is to deal with pipeline and energy development.[/quote]
The NEB lacks the knowledge to properly assess fisheries issues, says Donnelly. “The federal government is still the only body with the jurisdiction and sufficient expertise to assess potential damage to fisheries.”
Rather than making any legal changes to the Fisheries Act or Species at Risk Act, the deal came in the form of a “memorandum of understanding” between DFO and the NEB, making the Calgary-based energy regulator the point agency in determining whether aspects of a pipeline project could pose a risk to fish habitat or species at risk. Only then, in certain specific cases, would the NEB turn to DFO for what sounds very much like a rubber-stamped permit:
[quote]The NEB will assess a project application and determine if mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent impacts to fish or fish habitat. If the project could result in serious harm for fish then the NEB will inform DFO that a Fisheries Act authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) is likely to be required. DFO will review and issue an authorization when appropriate, prior to project construction. Authorizations issued by DFO would relate to those watercourses impacted, not the entire project.[/quote]
“Streamlining” pipeline approvals
The memo clearly states the reason for its creation – part of the Harper Govenrment’s continued efforts to clear roadblocks to energy development: “This MOU better integrates the Government of Canada’s initiative to streamline application processes by eliminating the requirement for duplicate reviews.”
“This clearly demonstrates the Conservative government’s complete lack of understanding of and regard for science in decision-making, and the importance of proper environmental assessment,” counters the NDP’s Donnelly.
DFO: Nothing fishy about deal
DFO issued a statement yesterday in response to concerns about the MOU, suggesting that the deal with the NEB is similar to previous collaborative agreements with provincial regulators. “Over the years, DFO has established similar arrangements with some Provinces and with Conservation Authorities,” the statement read. “In all cases, the standards for fisheries protection are established by DFO and the Fisheries Act Authorizations continue to be done by DFO.”
Yet the department strains belief in touting the NEB’s ability to protect fish habitat as well as DFO:
[quote]Our collaborative arrangement builds on the decades of training, experience and expertise of NEB biologists in assessing the potential environmental impacts of development projects, including regarding fish and fish habitat…The National Energy Board is best placed to deliver regulatory review responsibilities under the Fisheries Act for activities relating to federally regulated energy infrastructure (such as pipelines).[/quote]Ecojustice Executive Director Devon Page sees this as the latest in a long line of coordinated attacks on Canada’s environmental laws by the Harper Government. Says Page, “Taking authority for assessing harm to fish and their waters from fisheries experts and granting it to a pipeline approving body, after having vastly weakened of our laws through omnibus bills, is pretty much the straw that breaks the environment’s back when it comes to appropriate stewardship of the thousands of lakes, rivers and streams that are proposed to be bisected by pipelines.”
2011 Rainbow Pipeline diluted bitumen leak in Alberta (Rogu Collecti/Greenpeace)
VANCOUVER – A new federal government study has concluded that diluted bitumen — the product that would be transported by the Northern Gateway pipeline — sinks in seawater when battered by waves and mixed with sediments.
However, when free of sediments, the molasses-like crude floats even after evaporation and exposure to light.
The report also says that the commercial dispersant, Corexit 9500, used in previous clean-up efforts had a limited effect on dispersing diluted bitumen.
The study examined two blends of crude, the Access Western Blend and Cold Lake Blend, which represent the highest volume of bitumen products transported by pipeline in Canada between 2012 and 2013.
Conducting research on how the oil would behave in a marine environment was one of the 209 conditions announced by a review panel that approved the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in December.
The pipeline, if approved by the federal government, would carry diluted bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to tankers on the British Columbia coast.
It’s the latest in a long line of efforts by the Harper Government to dismantle Canada’s environmental laws in order to facilitate energy development. In a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the National Energy Board – quietly released just before Christmas – DFO relinquished much of its oversight of fish habitat in pipeline corridors.
The decision means that Enbridge and Kinder Morgan – which formally filed its own pipeline application on December 16, the same day the NEB memo was made public – will no longer need to obtain permits from DFO to alter habitat for their projects. “Fish and fish habitat along those pipelines is now the responsibility of the Alberta-based, energy friendly National Energy Board,” notes Robin Rowland of Northwest Energy News, who broke the story yesterday.
NEB takes point on fisheries, species at risk
Under the terms of the agreement, the NEB becomes the lead agency in determining issues that relate to the Species at Risk Actorthe Fisheries Act and, only involving DFO should they deem it necessary:
[quote]The NEB will assess a project application and determine if mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent impacts to fish or fish habitat. If the project could result in serious harm for fish then the NEB will inform DFO that a Fisheries Act authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) is likely to be required. DFO will review and issue an authorization when appropriate, prior to project construction. Authorizations issued by DFO would relate to those watercourses impacted, not the entire project.
This MOU better integrates the Government of Canada’s initiative to streamline application processes by eliminating the requirement for duplicate reviews.[/quote]
Asks Rowland, “Just how much expertise, if any, in fisheries and fish habitat can be found in the Calgary offices of the National Energy Board?”
First Nations consultation impacted
The memo – particularly the following passage – is likely also to provoke legal challenges from First Nations over the dimishing of their constitutional rights to consultation and accommodation:
[quote]When the Crown contemplates conduct that may adversely affect established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to the issuance of authorizations under the Fisheries Act, and/or permits under SARA, the NEB application assessment process will be relied upon by DFO to the extent possible, to ensure Aboriginal groups are consulted as required, and where appropriate accommodated[/quote]
The move hardly comes as a surprise, given the gutting of the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and many other longstanding Canadian environmental laws in order to push forward the Conservative energy policy. Yet it is sure to provoke a serious backlash amongst British Columbians and First Nations as the ramifications of this quiet deal sink in.
Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, circa 1976
by Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press
JUNEAU, Alaska – Gov. Sean Parnell on Friday announced a new way forward on a long-hoped-for natural gas pipeline that includes scrapping the terms of a 2007 law he says no longer works well for the situation.
In a major policy speech in Anchorage, Parnell said the state and Canadian pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. have agreed to terminate their involvement under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. He made clear, however, that TransCanada would remain a partner in the project, just under new terms.
[quote]The proposed line would run from the North Slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion.[/quote]
Parnell said he would seek legislative approval for the state to participate in a new commercial agreement with TransCanada; the North Slope’s three major players, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and ConocoPhillips; and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. He said he expected a set of terms to be signed soon.
Natural Resources Commissioner Joe Balash called the commercial agreement a “broad roadmap” and statement of intent. He said in an interview that legislation would have to be passed to accomplish what is being contemplated and the state plans to enter a separate, more narrowly defined agreement with TransCanada for pipeline services.
The terms of the inducement act will remain in force for the time being, though the parties envision transitioning into the new arrangement once enabling legislation is passed, Balash said.
“Nobody’s letting go of the rope just yet,” he said, but he noted the state and TransCanada had “pre-agreed” to make the transition. A TransCanada spokesman said the company would continue working to advance the pipeline project.
State to be a partner in pipeline, gas exports
Parnell said he would propose legislation that would allow the state to enter into shipping agreements to move and sell gas. The legislation also would ask lawmakers to switch to a flat gross tax and allow for certain leases to pay production taxes with gas. Parnell previously said he would not propose gas tax legislation unless he saw demonstrable progress on the line.
“The bottom line: We will have an investment-quality project when that’s complete,” he said Friday.
Balash said he thinks the Legislature can act on the proposal this session — which is what the commercial agreement contemplates — “in large part because what we’re asking the Legislature to do essentially is set some of the specific terms that would then go into a contract to be negotiated over the next 18 months or so and would then come back to the Legislature for approval.”
“It’s not like we’re asking the Legislature to make the big decisions this year, but we’re asking them to make some pretty important ones,” Balash said. The next set of agreements would set out specific equity terms, he said.
Parnell said having the state participate in a line is a way to protect the state’s interests, and as a partner, Alaskans stand to gain more. He said the structure is attractive to North Slope oil and gas companies, too, because it could reduce their costs.
The scheduled 90-day legislative session begins Jan. 21.
New line to cost $45-65 Billion, terminate in Alaska, not Canada
Alaskans have long seen as a gas line as a way to create jobs, provide energy for residents and shore up revenues as oil production declines. There have been fits and starts over the years, but Parnell and other state officials believe the current project has momentum.
While Parnell in the past argued for continuing to pursue a project under terms of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, even as some state legislators saw it as a dead end, he has indicated he no longer views it as the best way forward. He said the law was designed for one project developer, but the project initially envisioned — a pipeline that would run from the prodigious North Slope into Canada to serve North America markets — has changed, and so have the players.
In 2008, TransCanada won an exclusive license to pursue the project, with a promise of up to $500 million in reimbursable costs from the state. Exxon Mobil later joined TransCanada’s effort. ConocoPhillips and BP, which opposed provisions of the law, pursued a rival line of their own before abandoning it in 2011.
The companies, at Parnell’s urging, united in the last few years behind a liquefied natural gas project capable of overseas exports. The proposed line would run from the slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion, according to company estimates. The companies have repeatedly said they need competitive, predictable and durable terms on oil and gas taxes and royalties but also have indicated they are open to having the state take an equity position.
Natalie Lowman, a spokeswoman for ConocoPhillips Alaska, said the company sees the new direction laid out by Parnell as a positive step forward and looks forward to working with the state and the Legislature.
CIBC VP and former Conservative Environment Minister Jim Prentice (image: youtube)
CALGARY – Former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice is urging Canada and the United States to look beyond the contentious and high-profile Keystone XL oil pipeline when it comes to their trade relationship.
Prentice, now a senior executive at CIBC (TSX:CM), says “we must move beyond this distraction” and calls for a “bigger picture” and “longer term” focus.
In a speech in Calgary Thursday evening, Prentice reiterated his staunch support for the $5.4-billion project, which would enable oilsands crude to flow to Texas refineries, saying it’s in the national interest for both Canada and the United States.
Moving forward, Prentice says Canada and the U.S. must work on harmonizing national energy standards, instead of leaving it to a patchwork of state and municipal rules, many of which single out oilsands-derived fuels.
He also says the two countries should work together on environmental policies that are in their mutual interest and building the necessary infrastructure to export both oil and natural gas to international markets.
VANCOUVER – A task force report has been handed in to the British Columbia and Alberta governments that examines the idea of transporting oilsands’ crude via rail if proposed pipelines don’t get the green light, government documents show.
It’s an idea the environmental group ForestEthics calls “underhanded.”
It’s a “backdoor way for industry to bring tankers to the coast without the same sort of public oversight or public process that we’ve had around the Enbridge pipeline or would have around the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” said Ben West, campaign director for ForestEthics.
Oil-by-rail a back-up for pipelines
A joint provincial working group was announced by premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford in July to develop recommendations related to energy exports and the opening of new export markets for products like bitumen for the two provinces, including pipeline and rail transport.
“Rail can be considered a viable alternative to pipeline movement based on costs of transport,” the terms of reference for the group states.
[quote]If pipelines are not developed, rail will step into the void to deliver bitumen to the West Coast.[/quote]
West said the report raises safety questions, especially in light of two recent high-profile train accidents.
“Myself and other people were pretty freaked out about what happened there,” West said of the two fiery blasts.
The provincial working group was mandated to submit a report to both leaders by the end of December.
An Alberta government official did not respond to a question about the completion or release of the report, while an official in Clark’s office said the report is complete but that no date has been set for a public release.
CN Rail declined comment.
The task force is led by Steve Carr, deputy minister of natural gas development in B.C. and Grant Sprague, deputy minister of energy in Alberta.
No one from either ministry could be reached for comment.
