Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

Northern Gateway: Pipeline to Problems

Share

Enbridge’s proposal to build a 1,172 km Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat through some of the most challenging and remote territory on the planet exposes wild rivers, landscapes and a pristine BC coast to inevitable oil spills. This is the most obvious argument against building this project. But a closer and deeper scrutiny reveals more fundamental flaws that are not immediately obvious.

While Enbridge may assume responsibility for the safety of its pipeline – offered with the usual over-confidence of a developer promoting its project – it cannot claim responsibility for the fleet of international tankers that would arrive almost daily to transport the oil to foreign ports. Such tanker traffic is risky enough in open waterways and accessible harbours. But a trip to Kitimat to back to sea again would require huge and notoriously unmanoeuvrable ships to navigate 580 km of narrow, winding channels. Reefs, storms, tide rips, fog, extreme waves and complex course changes make the passage treacherous. And who guarantees the quality of the ships and seamanship that would ply BC waters? Foreign captains and crews on vessels registered in countries of convenience introduce risks for oils spills that are beyond the control of Enbridge.

Enbridge’s focus, of course, is the pipeline, a $5.5 billion investment that would provide considerable employment when being built but little thereafter – except to the burgeoning oil industry processing bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands. And, as critics rightly point out, the pipeline would be a viable investment only if it operates at capacity. The pipeline, therefore, is a means to both justify and encourage the development of the tar sands, a source of oil that is recognized as “dirty” because of pollution and the huge quantities of energy and water used in production. These larger implications compound the need for a careful examination of the whole project.

So, why the hurry and why the federal government’s objections to a thorough environmental assessment of the Northern Gateway project? Because other oil supplies will soon be available when new technologies are extracting oil from the vast shale sources being discovered elsewhere. The hurry is to secure markets before the opportunity evaporates, a race that inevitably leads to miscalculations, undue risk and promised trouble. And future competition could make this pipeline less than profitable, subjecting it to the eventual cost-cutting measures that are prelude to disaster.

The rush to build the Northern Gateway also obscures long-term perspectives. Canada has no national energy policy. The $20 billion invested in the tar sands by China may be in China’s interests, but what of Canada’s? The eastern half of this country gets its oil from foreign sources arriving in Atlantic ports, a compromise to national energy security. Why not develop the tar sands to meet Canadian interests, refine our own oil on site, and thereby gain energy self-reliance and extra jobs?

This raises the issue of “ethical oil”, an argument used by advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline that is proposed to transport Alberta crude to America’s Gulf States. Foreign oil, they argue, is deemed “unethical” because it comes from countries of dubious political reputation. The same argument is being applied to the Northern Gateway pipeline. Although Alberta’s oil is environmentally “dirty” and the transportation route is risky, at least Asia, like the US, would be receiving Canada’s “ethical oil”. Curiously, the argument doesn’t seem to apply to the half of Canada presently receiving its oil from the same international sources as other countries. Why is the issue of “ethical oil” applicable to the US and Asia but not to Canada? Wouldn’t we be more “ethical” by supplying ourselves with our own “ethically” superior oil?

Money, of course, lurks behind the facade of “ethics”. Huge amounts are to be made by building the Northern Gateway pipeline. Most of the benefits, however, would go to Alberta and the oil industry operating there. Canada would benefit from thousands of new jobs. But as usual, the issue is more complicated than first appearances. Robyn Allen, a noted Canadian economist, points out in her study of the Northern Gateway project that the premium price received for oil going to Asia would force up the price in Canada by $2-3 per barrel, an effect that would dampen the Canadian economy and counteract any benefits accruing from the pipeline. The multi national investors in Alberta’s oil industry would benefit at the expense of everyone else in Canada.

And this raises the phenomenon of the so-called “Dutch Disease”. The Dutch discovered to their chagrin that a huge influx of revenue from oil inflated the value of their currency, made their exports more expensive and less competitive, increased unemployment and weakened their entire economy.

Other disadvantages of oil-supported economies are also noteworthy. Unstable boom-and-bust economic cycles are created by fluxuating oil prices. And a single source of monetary wealth tends to cause governments to neglect the other vital drivers in their economies.The resulting loss of diversity is diminished democracy, alienation, cynicism and social unrest. The eventual outcome is the failed petro-state so reviled for its “unethical” characteristics.

And a final argument against the Northern Gateway pipeline is the extra carbon dioxide emissions it will encourage. Refining Alberta’s tar sands already produces about 6 percent of Canada’s total greenhouse gases. A doubling of production will double emissions to about 12 percent – an annual 90 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020. This output further handicaps Canada’s ability to meet its reduction obligations to the global community and further vilifies Canada’s already dismal environmental reputation. From every conceivable perspective, the Northern Gateway is a pipeline to problems.

Postscript: In order “…to find the best solution for Canada”, Enbridge is considering changing its pipeline port from Kitimat to Prince Rupert (Globe & Mail, Feb. 10/12).

Share

Transport Canada Clears Enbridge Tanker Route, Baffling Many

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on Transport Canada’s decision to clear the proposed tanker route from Kitimat relating to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines as safe for navigation by some of the world’s largest vessels. (Feb. 24, 2012)

Transport Canada says oil supertankers can safely access a terminal in Kitimat to collect loads of crude from Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The federal department has determined that the marine passages connecting Kitimat to the Pacific Ocean contain no obstructions that could pose a safety risk to fully loaded oil tankers. It expects the project would attract 250 or more such tankers a year to the northern B.C. community.

“The proposed shipping routes are appropriate for the oil tankers that will be used at the proposed terminal,” says the assessment by the federal department, submitted Thursday to a joint regulatory panel reviewing the $5.5-billion pipeline proposal for the federal government.

The review, posted online by the joint panel, notes the routes provide the required clearances for good vessel manoeuvrability and allowances for very large crude oil tankers to safely navigate…

…Environmental groups, first nations and other pipeline critics of Northern Gateway have flagged narrow marine passages and inclement weather as among the biggest contributors to a risk of oil tanker spills in coastal waters that they associate with the pipeline.

Share

Transport Canada’s Clearing of Enbridge Ignores the Facts

Share

What an interesting pair of stories – on the one hand Transport Canada has said that tanker traffic is safe on our pristine west coast while another tells of Enbridge repairing its faulty pipeline that resulted in yet another spill for the company this past May in the Northwest Territories.
 
Now sisters and brothers, repeat after me: LEAKS AND SPILLS FROM THE TAR SANDS TO THE COAST AND THEREAFTER, DOWN THE COAST ARE INEVITABLE AND THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE CATASTROPHES.
 
We are being subjected to an Orwellian barrage of bullshit.

What I’m saying re the pipelines and tankers is true – the dangers of this horrific Northern Gateway are absolute. They are mathematically inevitable.
 
This is not some hyperbole but absolute fact matched I might say by Environment Canada’s own documents which predict periodic oil spills from tankers with one “major spill every 15 years”.
 
I wonder of Environment Canada has ever met with Transport Canada.
 
If you scan Enbridge’s documents you will see reams and reams of stuff on how to deal with spills and nary a suggestion that they can be avoided.
 
It’s interesting to note how the PR flacks have got people changing “Tar Sands” to “Oil Sands”, which this gunk clearly is not.
 
The federal government, with backing from Victoria, is now embarked on a careful policy of propaganda and bribes. They want us, the public, to accept the inevitability of the pipelines and tankers. The propaganda will be flying. Evermore bribes will flow to First Nations, communities and lower level governments. BC citizens of all stripes will be tempted with prospects of jobs (about 560, mostly in Calgary – with fewer than 40 permanent ones in BC). The construction jobs will mostly be done by expert teams with lower income, short term jobs to locals.
 
As the huge campaign gets going and you are bombarded with crap, please remember this – it is inevitable that there will be leaks and spills and the consequences to our land and oceans catastrophic…And remember, no one is going to stop the pipelines and tankers after a disaster – they will continue to run as if nothing had happened!
 
When these catastrophes happen, and you have supported them either actively or by your silence, please then look your kids and grandkids in the eye and say, “I didn’t care enough to fight the bastards.”
 

Share
A freeze frame from Enbridge's pipeline route animation

According to Enbridge, BC’s Rugged Wilderness is a Putting Green Between Two Molehills

Share

Last week I was privileged to host an evening at the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival which featured four recent documentary films dealing with Enbridge’s proposed twin Northern Gateway pipelines and the Alberta Tar Sands that would feed it.

Close to 400 people turned out to North Vancouver’s Centennial Theatre to take in the show, which included adventure filmmaker Frank Wolf’s entertaining and insightful On the Line. The film documents Wolf’s arduous 50-plus day trek with his pal Todd McGowan along the entire proposed Northern Gateway route and first portion of the associated supertanker route from Kitimat – the pipeline’s terminus. The rugged wilderness of Wolf’s film is a starkly different landscape than the one Enbridge portrays in its idyllic promotional video depicting the pipeline right-of-way (see video below).

Wolf and McGowan travelled by bicycle, raft, kayak and on foot, using the company’s own GPS mapping data to plot their course. While the pipeline would stretch 1,177 km from Bruderheim, Alberta, to BC’s Central Coast, the pair journeyed 2,400 km in total. The disparity in distances gives you a sense of the steep mountain terrain the pipeline must traverse, over two major alpine ranges – the Rockies and Coast Mountains. So treacherous is the path through the latter peaks that the company proposes to drill two 6 km tunnels through the Clore River and Hoult Creek valleys near Kitimat.

One scene in particular from Wolf’s film illustrates how difficult it would be to reach – let alone clean up – a spill along the pipeline route, as he and McGowan are trapped atop a mountain for several days due to extreme weather. This after hacking their way through the thick bush of the Rockies.

With these images of BC’s dense, raw, unforgiving wilderness fresh in my mind after seeing On the Line, a colleague recently forwarded me Enbridge’s take on the same pipeline corridor. The company’s “route animation” depicts an innocuous pipe running through a handful of architectural model shrubberies scattered atop a flat, perfectly manicured putting green.

Whereas the real pipeline would cross 1,000 rivers and streams, there are but a handful of water bodies in this cartoon. And, apparently, Alberta oilmen don’t realize that in BC we have these things called “trees” – some of them pretty darned big at that.

In Enbridge’s animation, the mighty Rockies and Coast Mountains have been reduced to mere molehills. The treacherous 150-plus km wind tunnel that is the Douglas Channel is but a wide, calm canal, ideal for a riverboat cruise.

Clearly, in Enbridge’s eyes, we have nothing to worry about from their Tar Sands pipelines or supertankers on one of the world’s most treacherous coastlines. Never mind the rugged wilderness of Frank Wolf’s film or the very real geological concerns recently raised in these pages by eminent fish scientist Dr. Gordon Hartman – the Enbridge twin pipelines are but a walk in the park. See for yourself below…

Frank Wolf’s On the Line trailer:

Share

Kinder Morgan Receives Support from Tar Sands Players to Double its Pipeline to Vancouver

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on pipeline giant Kinder Morgan’s recent step closer to expanding its existing Trans-Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver – which would result in up to 300 loaded supertankers a year passing through Burrard Inlet. (Feb. 21, 2012)

CALGARY – Kinder Morgan Energy Partners said on Tuesday it has received enough binding commitments from shippers for a proposed $3.8 US billion project doubling the size of its 300,000 barrel per day Trans Mountain oil pipeline to begin initial design work for the expansion.

The company said a recent open season held to gauge shipper interest in expanding the Alberta to Vancouver pipeline had received support from a diverse group of customers. It will make a final decision on moving the line’s capacity up to 600,000 bpd by the end of March.

“The response to our open season was very encouraging,” Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan’s Canadian unit, said in a statement. “The strong support received through this process will now allow us to complete initial project design and planning.”

Canadian oil producers, supported by the government, have been urging development of a line that would let them tap high-paying Asian markets and U.S. West Coast refineries. The majority of Canada’s oil exports currently flow to the U.S. Midwest, where a glut of crude at the Cushing, Oklahoma, storage hub has depressed prices.

Production from Alberta’s oil sands, the world’s third largest crude oil reserve, is set to nearly double to 3 million barrels per day by 2020.

Trans Mountain, which takes oil to the port of Vancouver and refineries in British Columbia and Washington state, is the only pipeline carrying oil sands crude to the Pacific. Space on the line has been rationed for months as customers look to ship more oil than the line can handle.

Share

Son of Oil Executive’s Powerful Testimony at Enbridge Hearing in Prince Rupert

Share

Read this excerpt published by the Vancouver Observer from the powerful testimony delivered at the recent Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing in Prince Rupert by Lee Brain, the son of an oil executive. (Feb 20, 2012)

The major thing I witnessed in my time on the refinery that I feel constitutes as evidence was my observations of the relationship dynamics between corporate headquarters and the managers on the refinery. What I witnessed time and time again, was the technical experts knowing the damage, risk and adverse effects of the project, versus what corporate would portray to the general public after reading their materials.

There was a clear and present dual world operating simultaneously — completely undeniable if you are on site. So what I saw, first hand, was this dynamic between ‘what is really happening’ and what the corporate headquarters will have people believe is happening. And as we have seen in our planet, this situation is not an isolated event.

Based on my experience, what I learned was that the global system of infinite growth attracts men and woman of a certain… level of understanding, a certain type of person who will be attracted to the ideals of the current economic measurement that coordinates the global psychology of things, and a type of person who externalizes themselves and detaches from connection, and so whole-heartedly believes in their reality, their perception of things, that they project their fears out onto everyone else — and their ego becomes the driver, blindly leading them down a path of self-destruction. And they are people of high intellectual prowess, but unfortunately have yet to develop the deep wisdom that we all possess within us as human beings.

And we call these people CEO, and Prime Minister.

Read more: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/2012/02/20/oil-executive-sons-testimony-prince-rupert-northern-gateway-pipeline?page=0,0

Share

Vancouver Green Councillor Adriane Carr Speaks Out on Tar Sands Tanker Expansion Plans for Vancouver

Share

Read this story from the Georgia Straight on Vancouver city councillor Adriane Carr’s concerns about Kinder-Morgan’s plans to double the existing Tar Sands pipeline to Vancouver and associated tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet. (Feb 23, 2012)

Vancouver councillor Adriane Carr says she wants the National Energy Board to hold public hearings in Vancouver when it reviews an application by Kinder Morgan Canada to twin an oil pipeline connecting the Alberta tar sands and its Burnaby terminal. Carr, a member of the Green party, filed a notice of motion for the February 28 council meeting asking the mayor and council to send a letter to the company. It would request that Kinder Morgan Canada consult with the city concerning any application it makes to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline.

“The purpose is to be proactive in ensuring we get public hearings in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland area regarding any plans that Kinder Morgan might have to expand its pipeline and crude-oil tanker shipments out of Vancouver harbour,” Carr told the Georgia Straight by phone. “Through those public hearings, we can mobilize the citizens and hear from the citizens. We can see that other hearings, such as those up north, have done that.”

Read more: http://www.straight.com/article-615051/vancouver/carr-sounds-alarm-over-pipeline-expansion

Share

Terry Glavin on the Dangers of Becoming too Close with China

Share

Read this editorial by Terry Glavin in the National Post on the risks posed to Canadian sovereignty, security and control over our resources inherent in our budding new relationship with Beijing and its companies like Sinopec. (Feb 13, 2012)

This brings us to the Beijing money behind the proposed $6.5 billion Enbridge pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to awaiting supertankers at Kitimat. That money brings us to Sinopec, also known as the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation, and if there are suspicions Ottawa would like to clear up a good place to start would be to let everybody in on where all of Enbridge’s up-front pipeline cash is coming from. We’re not allowed to know. Seriously. Try asking Enbridge some time.

Another thing that has never been clearly explained is why Ottawa thinks Sinopec is suddenly Canada’s lifeline to economic prosperity in China. I can’t find anyone who knows anything about the oilsands who thinks so. Inconveniently, Sinopec is also the Khomenist regime’s lifeline to a nuclear bomb. I can’t find anyone in the oil industry or anywhere else who doesn’t think so.

Sinopec is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, directly and through its subsidiary Unipec, and also via its main Iranian oil buyer, Zhuhai Zhenrong. Only last month the State Department busted Zhuhai Zhenrong under the 2010 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions law. Zhuhai Zhenrong immediately went looking for greener pastures. One of the first places it started looking was Alberta’s oilpatch. Howdy, neighbour.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/terry-glavin-lets-be-honest-about-or-new-best-buddies-in-beijing/

Share

Energy Minister Coleman Scolds Terrace Council for Opposing Enbridge

Share

Read this report from CTV.ca on BC Liberal Energy Minister Rich Coleman’s recent comments scolding Terrace city council for coming out officially in opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. (Feb 15, 2012)

Coleman said Wednesday he can’t tell municipal politicians what to do, but he prefers local politicians to follow the B.C. government and hold off on taking a stand on the controversial project until the completion of federal environmental review hearings in 2013.

“We’ve said all along, the premier’s said all along, we’re going to wait for that (joint review panel) process. I think some of these other jurisdictions should do the same,” he said.

Coleman said he believes it’s important to let the federal review process play itself out before deciding whether or not to support the Enbridge Inc., Northern Gateway project.

More than 60 B.C. First Nations and aboriginal organizations have signed a declaration opposing the plan to build a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline from Alberta to the northwest B.C. port of Kitimat, where huge oil tankers will ship oil to Asia and the United States.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities also voted against the oil pipeline at their meeting last fall. Terrace announced its opposition at a council meeting earlier this week.

“You’ve got to wait until you hear it all,” said Coleman. “This is an important project for Canada, everybody knows that, and through this process there could be tweaks and changes that would actually allay people’s concerns that may be out there.”

Terrace councillors voted 5-2 Monday to oppose the pipeline, saying the project may be good for Ottawa and Alberta, but leaves Terrace, Kitimat and the surrounding communities with few benefits and most of the environmental risk.

Read more: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120215/bc_energy_minister_slams_pipeline_opposition_120215/20120215/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Share

Veteran Fish Scientist Highlights Key Risks from Enbridge Pipelines

Share

Dr. Gordon Hartman is a retired senior biologist and manager for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with a deep knowledge of the region affected by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Here he provides an essential summary of the threats from the pipeline to fish populations as well as the very real geological concerns surrounding the project.

Introduction

There are very serious and reasonable concerns about the risk of tanker traffic accidents as the ‘oil’ starts its 150+ km tanker journey from near Kitimat, through the narrow Douglas Channel to the open ocean. A report by Anthony Swift and four other authors presents a ‘must read’ review, “Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impact to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and Pacific Coastline from Tar sands Oil Transport”.

The following short article examines three of the specific risks that exist in the 1,170 km double pipeline before the oil ever gets to the tankers. In the report by Anthony Swift and others, 11 ‘special places at risk’ are listed.  

In the proposed ‘double line’ system up to 525,000 barrels/day, of bitumen and a diluting condensate, are to be pumped ‘westward’ in a 91 cm pile line. Diluting condensate, from off shore, is to be pumped ‘eastward’ at a rate of up to 193,000 barrels/day (Bustard and Miles 2011). A major failure, caused by an event such as a landslide, would release materials from both lines.

The following article is based, to a large degree, on the articles that are listed at the end. Such a list is clearly not comprehensive. Regardless of that, because they are based on work done by people with decades of competent professional experience, it is clear that there are serious risks along the line before the oil ever reaches the tankers. Pipeline spills into rivers in Northwest B.C. mountains: ‘not if, but when’.

Geological  Concerns

The proposed corridor crosses three different physiographic units, each of which presents different hazards to a pipeline. “The geology and geomorphology of west central B.C is complex and destructive landslides are common.  Various landslide types have occurred along the proposed pipeline corridor within the defined physiographic units:” (Schwab 2011). The types of landslide and the risks are discussed in this paper.

There are three things that are important to note:                                                                            

  1. There are several kinds of slope failures that may affect land uses below them
  2. Some of these landslides originate far upslope, travel several km, and become large and destructive. Remedial measures are not easy to plan for
  3. Most of the dated and large landslides are associated with wet, warm, weather. Climate change patterns suggest conditions will become warmer and wetter.                                                                                                                                 

These points barely touch on the details of Schwab’s report. However, they should indicate, even for starters, that much of the approximately 220 km western end of this proposed corridor is a risky and problematic route in which to build large, double, high volume oil pipelines.

Risks to a Population of Large, Biologically Distinct, Rainbow Trout

A paper by Hagen (2011) presents special concern about risks to the habitat of a race of large and unique Rainbow trout. The proposed route crosses the upper reaches of the Sutherland River, at the eastern end of Babine Lake. This river supports a population of large, biologically distinct Rainbow trout.These fish are similar to the world famous Gerrard Rainbow trout from Kootenay Lake.

The proposed pipeline route ‘traverses through the upper portion of the core spawning and rearing habitats’ of the Sutherland River trout. About 95% of the area below the pipeline crossing of the Sutherland River has been rated by the Provincial Protected Areas Team as having ‘very high conservation values’.       

The remoteness, complex habitat, and very limited access of the drainage make the Sutherland River a very difficult area to reach if a pipeline break and spill were to occur at its upper end.

This population of fish contributes, in a major way, to the economically and socially valuable trout fishery of Babine Lake. Furthermore, no other population of large, piscivorous, Rainbow trout has been identified in Babine Lake.

Risks to a High Production Section of the Morice River

Some of the most serious risks to fish habitat and populations, along the route, occur in a 71 km section of the pipeline traversing areas adjacent to the upper reaches of the Morice River and Gosnell Creek. In  a 34 km section of the river (Reach 2 in the report), the pipeline is located in, or adjacent to, the floodplain with its “numerous active secondary channels, log jams and wetlands that comprise the core spawning and rearing habitat for Morice River fish populations.” (Bustard and Miles 2011).       

In a near hundred page report Bustard and Miles provide in-depth information on the biology and numbers of summer run Steelhead and Chinook, Coho, Sockeye and Pink salmon that use this critical section of the river.  Their report examines the impacts of an oil spill within this section of river.  It considers downstream impacts in the Morice and Bulkley rivers.

In order to provide a context for comparisons they review three past oil spills; Exxon Valdez, Pine River, and Kalamazoo River. They describe cleanup effectiveness of these spills.

Fish Populations

The section of river upstream from Moricetown (near Smithers) supports an important part of the salmon populations of the Skeena River system. The mean annual escapements of Coho salmon, 1997 – 2010, upstream from Moricetown, are 35,000. From 30 to 40 % of these fish spawn within Reach 2 of the Morice River. The complex river habitat in Reach 2 is ideal for Coho salmon juvenile rearing.

The Morice-Nanika Sockeye stock, 8,000 to 10,000 fish, is the largest in the Bulkley system. Reach 2 is the migration corridor for these fish.

The Morice River is the most important Chinook salmon river in the Skeena watershed. Spawning populations have averages slightly over 10,000 during the last decade. Between 35 and 45% of the young Chinook salmon rearing  between Morice Lake and Smithers occur in Reach 2.

The Morice River, upstream from Moricetown,  supports the largest Steelhead run in the Skeena River system – average of 19,000 fish per year. Steelhead juveniles rear, preferably, in the log jam habitat of Reach 2.

Other fish species in the Morice River system include Bull trout, Mountain whitefish, Prickly sculpins and Pacific lamprey. These species may not be rated so highly for commercial or recreational use, however, they are important parts of the river system.

Oil Spill Impacts

A pipeline break along the Morice River would spread hydrocarbons through Reach 2 could contaminate a large number of log jams – the habitat of juvenile salmonids winter and summer. There are an estimated 1,000 log jams in this reach. Within this approximately 34 km of braided river habitat there is an estimated 370 km of river shoreline. The degree of ‘habitat oiling’ would depend on river level. However, it is evident that a spill above, or in upper Reach 2 would have an immediate toxic impact on fish spawning and rearing in this section.

As the oil and diluting component mix moved downstream, progressively more of the diluting component would evaporate. With this evaporation, the increasingly concentrated bitumen would sink and become incorporated in the streambed leading to long term impacts, especially for salmon egg development.

In Reach 2, eggs or alevins are present in the gravels year- around. Juvenile Chinook, Coho  and Steelhead are also in this reach every month of the year. The ‘oiling’ and cleanup of this section of the river would totally alter the channel structure and log jam habitat for such fish. It could not be re-built as it was before a spill.

Where the bitumen became ‘imbedded’ along the many km of river habitat, adequate removal would be nearly impossible. Below a spill in Reach 2, the oil “could very quickly reach downstream habitats in the lower Morice and Bulkley rivers, and potentially the Skeena River.” (Bustard and Miles 2011).  The average velocity of the Morice River between May and November is at least 1 m/sec. – too fast for containment booms.  A spill in Reach 2 of the Morice River would take 12 hours to reach a point near Smithers.

Bustard and Miles conclude by describing the array of difficulties in effectively capturing and cleaning up spilled oil in Reach 2. The location is remote, access is poor, the river is large and fast, the channel is large and complex, and the ‘enormous’ volume of woody debris would limit boat access to many reach sections. To the date of their writing, the proponent has not provided the information needed to show that an oil spill adjacent to Reach 2 could be effectively controlled or remediated.

There are other sections of the pipeline along which there are other concerns. The cumulative risks and impacts of pipeline breaks along with the potential for tanker accidents make the whole project one of folly, risk and ecological disaster. Surely, we can do better.

G.F. Hartman, February, 2012
         
References and reading

Bustard, D. and M. Miles. 2011. Potential effects of an oil pipeline rupture on Reach 2 of the Morice River. A submission to the Joint Review Panel: Enbridge Northern Gateway project. 100 p. http://northwestinstute.ca/

Hagen, J. 2011. Rainbow Trout of the Sutherland River in the Babine Lake Watershed, British Columbia, and Risks Associate with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. A Submission to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel. 15 p.

Levy, D. 2009. Pipelines and salmon in Northern British Columbia. Prepared for the Pembina Institute. 46 p. http://pembina.org/pub/1894

Schwab, J.  2011. Hillslope and Fluvial Processes Along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, Burns Lake to Kitimat, West  Central British Columbia. Prepared for Bulkley Valley Centre for Natural Resources Research and Management. 27p. http://www.bvcentre.ca/

Skeena Wild. Enbridge. 2011? Project Overview. http://skeenawild.org/conservation-issues/enbridge/

Swift, A., N. Lemphers and three co-authors. 2011.  Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impact to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and the Pacific Coastline from Tar sands Oil Transport.  30 p. http://www.pembina.org/pub2289

Share