Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

Former DFO Manager, Minister: Harper ‘Disembowelled’ Science Budget for Enbridge Review

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on evidence that despite his feigned commitment to “listen to science” on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, Prime Minster Stephen Harper has “disembowelled” the science budget for the pipeline review. (Aug. 20, 2012)

VANCOUVER – While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.

And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn’t have them.

“As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.

The response went on to say there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.

DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.

“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response.

“Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.”

Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.”

He went on to say “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

“He (Harper) says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”

Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.

Share

Audio: Damien Gillis Discusses Energy and BC’s Economy on Co-op Radio

Share

Check out this interview from Aug. 15 on Vancouver Co-op Radio’s “Discussion”, with host Charles Boylan. Guest Damien Gillis and Boylan cover a wide range of topics relating to energy and the future of the BC and Canadian economy. The pair discuss the myriad alternatives popping up of late to the embattled Enbridge pipeline, including Kinder Morgan’s planned twinning of its Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver, and shipping bitumen by rail. They also cover natural gas development in northern BC – including controversial hydraulic fracturing and the building of a new pipeline to carry this gas to Kitimat and covert it to Liquified Natural Gas to sell in Asian markets – plus an alternative economic vision for BC that doesn’t depend on becoming a major fossil fuel corridor to the world. (Aug. 15 – 1 hr)

Share
BC media mogul David Black announces his plan to build a $13 Billion oil refinery in Kitimat (Photo: Darryl Dyck/CP )

Refining the Black Stuff in Kitimat Doesn’t Make Sense

Share

One must, I suppose, take newspaper tycoon David Black’s offer to build a refinery near Kitimat seriously, although the idea is preposterous on several fronts.

For openers, he doesn’t tell us who will be behind such a refinery. He admits he doesn’t have the money – an important matter.

Of course, Mr. Black tosses out employment as jelly bean for us to enjoy, citing 6,000 jobs over the six year construction period and 3,000 long-term in the operation of the refinery. He doesn’t mention any research on this issue – one must take these numbers with the skepticism which always rightly greets announcements of undertakings like this.

Mr. Black ignores the fundamental issues here.

He ignores the certainty that the pipeline will continue to have spills of bitumen – Enbridge averages one per week – and BC will watch as its wilderness is incrementally destroyed.

It’s interesting to note that Mr. Black doesn’t deny the dangers from oil tankers but allays our fears by saying that because refined oil and gasoline will be replacing bitumen, that our worries are over!

What also is puzzling is the timing of this announcement.

Mr. Black is a self-made billionaire who admits that he knows bugger all about refineries. This suggests that he has some backers in the oil business who are a bit shy about having their pictures in the papers.

Wasn’t the deal that the main customers were Chinese who want the raw bitumen to refine themselves?

Was this idea from David Black? If it means anything at all it must be a diversion to focus on jobs! Jobs!

The announcement attracted attention – but when one reads it, it’s a damp squid.

In my view, the public will have no trouble seeing this proposition for what it is – environmentally unacceptable and as not only no improvement on the Enbridge proposal but, on analysis, worse.

Mr. Black should stick to publishing newspapers.

Share

BC Media Mogul David Black Proposes $13 Billion Refinery in Kitimat Linked to Enbridge Pipeline

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC media mogul David Black’s proposal to build a $13 Billion refinery in Kitimat to process Alberta bitumen from the Enbridge pipeline. (Aug 17, 2012)

VANCOUVER – B.C. community newspaper tycoon David Black proposed today building a $13-billion oil refinery near Kitimat to use all of the crude from Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway pipeline.

It would mean tankers would ship refined fuels like gasoline off of B.C. northwest coast, not heavy oil from Alberta, reducing environmental risks, says Black.

A refinery also promises 10 times as many jobs as an export pipeline.

See more David Black photos here

Black is hoping his proposal will change opposition from British Columbians and first nations, many of which have rejected the $6-billion project because they say the economic rewards for B.C. are not great enough to offset the risk and consequence of an oil spill on the pipeline or off the northwest coast of British Columbia.

Last month, B.C. Premier Christy Clark also declared the province would not even consider the Northern Gateway project unless it gets a much greater share of the economic benefits.

Acknowledging that oil producers that want to ship oil on the Northern Gateway pipeline are not in favour of a refinery in B.C., Black said his new company, Kitimat Clean Ltd., is submitting an environmental assessment application to build the refinery.

Since the economic returns from a refinery are less than exporting oil, and no company has stepped forward to spearhead the project, he decided to do it himself, said Black.

He first proposed the idea to Canada’s oil companies seven years ago when he was chairman of the B.C. Progress Board, and resurrected the idea 11 months ago.

“I am hoping to serve as a catalyst to attract an industry consortium that will undertake the project. But if no industry player steps forward during the two-year environmental assessment I will do all that I can to organize the capital and build the refinery,” said Black, who owns 150 community newspapers in B.C. and the United States.

Added Black: “I think the pipeline and the refinery are crucially important to our northern communities, to B.C., to Alberta and to Canada. We must protect the environment, but we must create jobs for the next generation as well. It is our responsibility to do both.”

The proposed refinery in Kitimat would provide many more jobs than an export pipeline.

The refinery is estimated to create 3,000 jobs, half of those directly in the refinery and the other half in contract jobs. Another 6,000 workers would be hired during the five-year construction period.

Black is proposing to reduce capital costs from Canada’s high labour rates by building refinery modules offshore to be shipped to Kitimat.

The Northern Gateway pipeline is estimated to create about 350 permanent and contract jobs in B.C., one-tenth of the permanent jobs a refinery would create.

A pipeline would also create thousands of jobs during its three-year construction phase.

The planned Northern Gateway pipeline is meant to open up new markets for crude from the Alberta oilsands, breaking the reliance on the U.S. market, and as a result bringing a higher price for Canada’s oil, an estimated $25 billion more a year.

That goal can be achieved with a refinery on the coast with access to Pacific Rim markets, said Black.

The refinery will also remove any threat of “catastrophic” offshore pollution from heavy crude oil because refined fuels such as diesel, gasoline and kerosene evaporate, said Black.

Share

Cartoonist Murphy at it again: New video mocks Enbridge’s route animation

Share

Province cartoonist Dan Murphy is back at it – poking fun at Enbridge’s laughable marketing campaign for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Incidentally, The Common Sense Canadian first alerted the public to Enbridge’s deceptive animated map back in February).

This time, it’s a spoof on the company’s bucolic animation of the pipeline and tanker route, derided by the public and media of late for its airbrushing out of the significant geolocial and environmental challanges to the project posed by BC’s rugged landscape and coast. This latest cartoon comes on the heels of the one he made several months ago, taking on the company’s newly-launched TV ad. That spoof stirred up major controversy as it emerged Enbridge had leaned on The Province’s parent company, Postmedia, to yank the cartoon, under threat of pulling a million dollars of advertising from the media chain. Murphy bravely went public with the situation, which helped the cartoon to go viral, giving both the paper and Enbridge a black eye in the process.

Check out Murphy’s latest cartoon:

Share

Global TV: Enbridge Under Fire for Misleading Animation of Pipeline, Tanker Route

Share

Watch this video news story from Global TV on the controversy over Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker route animation, which is drawing criticism for its misleading portrayal of Douglas Channel without the many navigational impediments it contains. The Common Sense Canadian broke this story months ago with this story by Damien Gillis. (Aug. 15, 2012)

 Watch video here: http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?v=Is64y8ASHdAdTsYZEpfELzqMJHMzKE46#news+hour+final

Share

Enbridge CEO Whines About Environmental Groups “Seizing Control” of Pipeline Debate

Share

Read this story from the Edmonton Journal detailing the whining of Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel about environmental groups seizing control of the pipeline debate. (Aug. 13, 2012)

EDMONTON – Environmental groups opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline have seized control of the public debate, Enbridge Inc. CEO Patrick Daniel told a radio audience Monday.

“Everything that we say sounds defensive and self-interested, and on the other side, everything they say … is really taken as gospel — and it isn’t,” Daniel said on the Rutherford Show.

“I think we’re facing a very strong, almost revolutionary movement to try to get off oil worldwide, and it creates a lot of passion and drive in those revolutionaries that are trying to change the environment in which we work.

“They know that going after the end user, going after you and I when we drive our cars, … won’t work. So they’re coming after what they consider to be the weak link in the whole process, and that’s the infrastructure part of it.”

Calgary-based Enbridge wants to build the pipeline to the B.C. coast to export Alberta’s oilsands products to booming Asian countries.

The company is mounting its own public relations offensive, taking out newspaper advertisements and pressing its leaders into the public spotlight, highlighting the company’s long safety record and decades of “dependable service” to Canadians.

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/blogs/Enbridge+says+environmental+groups+have+taken+control+pipeline+debate/7084411/story.html

Share
CN already transports bitumen by rail - more proposals to do the same are now being floated as Enbridge runs out of steam

Replacing Enbridge with Rail, Other Routes Misses the Point

Share

The tide seems to be turning against the Enbridge Pipeline but we must take great care not to lose by winning.

Industry seems to be talking alternative routes by using rail or other methods.

My old friend Tex Enemark weighs in this morning in an op-ed in the Sun(August 15) and makes several points – we can soak the companies by levying high taxes for rights of way, we can make the pipelines safer (you will note he doesn’t say “safe”), we can use other routes, and that if we don’t permit the pipelines China will retaliate by reducing imports of our other goods.

WHAT NONE OF THESE VOICES SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SPILLS,THE DAMAGE, EVEN OF SMALL SPILLS, OF BITUMEN IS SO TOXIC THAT IT CAN NEVER BE REPAIRED AND THAT THE GUNK MUST GO TO MARKET VIA SOME OTHER METHOD.

Let me deal with the last point first – are we to announce to all trading partners, including the USA, that if you threaten our exports, you can come here and do as you please?

This is not a rhetorical question because a new government in 2013 will surely look at Private Power projects, many American owned, which could be canceled, altered or refused in the first place. Do we back off our sovereignty and say, “sorry for even thinking of this, Uncle Sam, please bring your money here and do with us that which you wish”?

Taxing the pipelines misses the point – this isn’t about money but our environment and while I know that old pols seem to believe that money solves all disputes, when it involves our sacred wilderness and our fish, money is off the table.

Making the pipelines safer is, with respect, a non starter. “Safer” does not mean “safe” and the latter is what we insist upon.

Let me pause for a moment and deal with the allegation that we environmentalists are simply bloody minded and are against all projects. The answer to that, from my perspective at any rate, is fourfold:

  1. We question all projects that impact our environment – if we didn’t, corporations would do as they pleased and that’s bad enough as it is.
  2. We insist upon any project that impacts our environment to leave little or no permanent damage. This can be and indeed is done all over the province.
  3. We expect the Precautionary Principle to be always in place, meaning that the onus of proving the environmental viability of any project rests with the proponent.
  4. We regard the safety and protection of our environment as protecting a sacred trust to be passed on.

The issue is unsolvable. It can’t be compromised or mitigated or compensated – not all problems can be solved by compromise, this and lost virginity being examples.

We run a very grave risk here – because once we get rid of the Enbridge line, we will be expected to go away.

We seem to be ignoring the Kinder Morgan line already pumping bitumen across British Columbia and plans to do more are coming. It will be said that because the absence of the Enbridge line removes the tanker issue in Douglas Channel, we can go away.

This simply is not so. Railways simply move the problem. The suggestion by Mr. Enemark that the port of Prince Rupert be used overlooks the fact that that pipeline would be alongside the Skeena River, one of the last great salmon rivers in the world. Always bearing in mind that pipeline leaks are inevitable, do we want to see the same happen to the Skeena that happened to the Kalamazoo?

We are, then, a hell of a long way from success and, in fact, must re-double our efforts.


A response from Tex Enemark:

Well, Rafe, there is a difference between “fair inferences” and quotes. You say flat out I said “safer” which I did not, and then reinforce your point by saying I did not say “safe” when in fact I said neither. I said “politically acceptable”. I think there is a very clear and quantifiable difference between the two. I made no mention of safe pipelines. Nor, as you say in your response, did I say anything about “better testing pipelines”.

One puts me in the position of being some kind of proponent or apologist for pipelines, which I am not. I am simply bringing out issues that have not yet surfaced.

The same with the allegation that I favour a pipeline to Prince Rupert. There are vast differences between the loss/possible breakage of a few rail cars that hold bitumen which will literally go nowhere when they hit cold water, and a pipeline in which the tar has been diluted.

Nonetheless, the damage to my reputation has been done among the readers of your blog.

I think a simple correction is in order, frankly–and fairly.

Share
Alberta bitumen must be diluted with toxic condensate just to make it flow

Meet ‘Dil Bit’: The Enbridge Testimony Stephen Harper Doesn’t Want Heard

Share

The following statement was made by Miranda Holmes today at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in Comox, BC.

——————————————————————————————

Many voices have been heard during these hearings, yet one has remained silent: the oily character at the centre of the debate. I think that’s a shame and so I am using my time before the panel to allow this character’s case to be made.

Hi, my name’s Dil Bit. That’s short for Diluted Bitumen, but I feel like I’m amongst friends here, so let’s not be too formal.

I come from the tar sands and, as you know, Alberta totally digs me. Alberta’s so generous she wants to share me with everyone.

If she gets her way, I’ll be passing through British Columbia a lot in the future, so I thought I should introduce myself properly.

As fossil fuels go, I’m a bit unconventional. But, as Alberta’s favourite son Steve will tell you, I’m totally ethical. (And don’t let those jet setting celebrities tell you any different.)

I’m also way better than conventional crude oil.

For instance, my total acid concentrations are up to 20 times higher than conventional crude. My sulphur content is up to 10 times higher and I’m up to 70 times thicker. Pretty impressive, eh?

Yeah, it’s true I can be a bit abrasive. Bits of quartz, pyrite, silicates, sure I carry them around. It’s just the way I’m made.

So conventional crude doesn’t have my grit. So what? No need to point out, like those granola eaters at the Natural Resources Defense Council did, that putting me in a pipeline is “like sandblasting the inside of the pipe.”

I don’t know why the Americans have taken against me, because – like so many of them – I pack some serious heat. Thanks to my true grit and my thickness (I like to think of it as strength), I make pipes hotter than conventional crude – and harder to monitor. In fact, pipelines carrying me are16 times more likely to leak.

See? I told you I was better.

I’m Alberta’s most precious resource. You think she and Steve are going to let just anyone transport me? No way.

For my travels through British Columbia, they’re going to use Enbridge, a fine, upstanding company with an excellent track record. Why, it took Enbridge 10 years to spill half as much oil as the Exxon Valdez. And they didn’t just spill it in one spot – they spread it around.

Regulators in the US thought the three million litres of me Enbridge spilled in Michigan was so funny they compared the company to those great comedy characters the Keystone Kops.

If Enbridge maintains its current success rate it should be able to meet Steve’s federal standards, which allow undetected pipeline leaks of less than 2% of capacity per week.

For the Northern Gateway project that means Enbridge could legally leave 11 million litres of me a week behind on my way to Kitimat without getting into any serious trouble. And why should they? Eleven million litres of me would be more than three times funnier than Michigan, right?

That’s good news for me, because I’ve heard there are some mighty pretty places in northern BC and I think it would be a shame not to get to know them better.

And it’s good news for BC, because your premier’s promising lots of jobs out of oil and gas exports, and cleaning up after me will sure keep people employed.

Sorry if any of the spots I’m going to wreck is one of your favourites, but I’ve got to keep Alberta happy. You know what she’s like. 

Share
Would the Enbridge pipeline really deliver Canadian jobs?

Audio: Damien Gillis on Enbridge ‘Jobs’ Myth, Harper Working with Oil Lobby, Pipeline Politics

Share

Listen to this half-hour interview of Damien Gillis on Opposition Radio, an Ontario-based online radio program. Hosts Mike and Tony discuss with Damien the recent revelation that the Harper Goverment has been working with the oil lobby on a coordinated PR strategy to promote the Alberta Tar Sands. The three also delve into recent pipeline politics in BC and the “jobs” myth around the proposed Enbridge pipeline, discussing a recent story by Damien on the drive to import American and Chinese labour to build the pipeline and expand Tar Sands operations, and how that flies in the face of the Harper Government’s contention these developments are good for the Canadian economy. (30 min – recorded July 31, 2012)

Share