Kitimat’s “Hospital Beach” on March 17, 2012, with the construction at the Rio Tinto Alcan plant in the background, before the area was closed to the public. (Robin Rowland)
The hottest issue in Kitimat this summer is water, not oil. For us, this summer can be summed up by saying: “Water, water everywhere, but you can’t get there from here.”
Even with David Black’s proposal for an oil refinery on a hill 25 kilometres north of Kitimat, residents here know that the Enbridge Northern Gateway debate has gone on for years and will go on for many years to come.
As environmentalists worldwide celebrate the beauty of Douglas Channel, and decry the dangers that tanker traffic could pose to the channel, many people in Kitimat are cut off from the waterfront.
At the District of Kitimat Council meeting on August 7, Coun. Mario Feldhoff introduced a motion calling for a study in an effort to find ways to launch kayaks into the ocean. Yes that’s right, according to members of council, you can’t even drop a kayak into the waters of Douglas Channel unless you pay the kind marina a launch fee usually charged for larger fishing boats. Kitimat is down to only one expensive boat launch.
In 2010, there were three marinas in Kitimat: one privately operated at a place called Moon Bay, a large marina owned by the Kitimat Stikine Regional District at MK Bay and a small marina at Minette Bay, also the site of a log export operation. There was also a boat launch on land known as “Alcan beach” or “Hospital Beach” on property owned by Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) near the aluminum smelter. Hospital Beach is the only beach in Kitimat (named because it is on the site of the town’s original hospital in the 1950s). Moon Bay was located on land owned by RTA, and in April 2010, it ordered the marina shut down.
Some people who moored their boats at Moon Bay moved to MK Bay (if there was room). Others hauled their boats out of the water and parked them in their driveways. In the ensuing two years, there have been increasing stories about mismanagement at MK Bay and complaints about moorageand launching fees that are much higher than elsewhere in the province.
This spring, citing construction at the smelter, RTA closed public access to Hospital Beach for picnics, kids’ play and just looking at the water. That meant the boat launch was also off-limits. RTA spokesperson Nyce said:
The Rio Tinto Alcan site is now a full fledged construction zone with constant vehicular and heavy duty construction traffic. To that end, and as Rio Tinto Alcan representatives have always said, during construction we will take necessary steps to eliminate potential hazards to the general public on our road including access to Hospital Beach. Therefore, Hospital Beach will be closed to the public until construction is complete or until we believe it is more safe for public access.
Before access was closed, if a Kitimat resident was driving to Hospital Beach, they pass what was once a rough logging road that snaked its way along the shores of Douglas Channel toward Bish Cove. Now Bish Cove is the site of the Kitimat LNG project terminal. As part of the construction process, KM LNG upgraded the road. However, as the pace of construction increases KM LNG is now limiting access to the road and its views of the channel.
Why is there no access to the waterfront, or for that matter to the magnificent Kitimat River estuary?
It goes back to 1950 when the province of B.C., in a loosely worded agreement with what was then Alcan and in an equally non-specific Industrial Development Act, handed over the land where Kitimat is now to the company.
That included almost all the waterfront and the estuary. On the estuary, there is one small area of land that is a reserve for the Haisla Nation and one small area not in RTA domain owned by the District of Kitimat — but there is no right of way through a potential private development. Over the years, and especially since Rio Tinto took over Alcan, there have been more and more restrictions placed on access to Kitimat’s waterfront.
The fact that you can’t get to the waterfront and the estuary are a problem not only for community recreation; the inability for a resident or visitor to launch a kayak or small boat into the channel, much less larger fishing or recreational vessels, has put the brake on expansion of Kitimat’s already lucrative fishing, guiding and boating services.
There is already a lot of skepticism in Kitimat — due to the boom and bust of the industrial cycle — about all those promises of jobs and prosperity from industrial development. Restricted access to the ocean means that despite the growing number of jobs in Kitimat, corporate policy makes it hard to enjoy the benefits of living on the Douglas Channel.
It is the kind of externality that is always ignored by economists and is totally irrelevant to those business writers who claim to be experts in Kitimat but who have never been within 1,000 kilometres of the town.
You look out your window at the mountains and ocean of Douglas Channel and ask why can’t the residents and tourists go to the beach? That could be a key issue in the Enbridge Northern Gateway debate.
The Haisla Nation have asked the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel to force Enbridge to reveal more information about the pipeline rupture and oil spill near Kalamazoo, Michigan, in July 2010. The Haisla are also asking for more and better information about the $500 million project upgrades that Enbridge announced last month.
In a notice of motion filed July 30, with the JRP, lawyers representing the Haisla Nation note that they had previously asked Enbridge “a number of questions relating to Enbridge’s spill of 3,785,000 litres of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River at Marshall, Michigan (the ‘Kalamazoo Spill’).”
The notice then notes that “Northern Gateway refused to reply as the matter was under investigation by the United States National Transportation Safety Board… The NTSB’s Accident Report was adopted on July 10, 2012 and has now been released to the public. The basis for Northern Gateway’s refusal to answer the Haisla Nation’s information requests is, therefore, no longer present.”
The Haisla are asking the JRP
that Northern Gateway is required to file evidence relating to the Kalamazoo Spill
which identifies the cause of the pipeline rupture and the extent to which
Enbridge’s pipeline maintenance, monitoring and response approach caused and
contributed to the volume of the spill by a date to be fixed by the Panel;
As for the upgrades, the Haisla notice of motion notes
Northern Gateway has identified additional design features, which it states will “enhance the safety and reliability of the pipelines over and above standard industry practice”. The design features identified in the Reply Evidence include increased wall thickness of the pipeline, additional increases in pipe thickness for crossings at major tributaries to the Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat River, the placement of remotely operated isolation valves on each side of major tributaries of the Fraser,Skeena and Kitimat Rivers, and dual remote monitoring systems ….
Northern Gateway has not provided any details relating to these proposed design
features. Their relevance and suitability to enhancing safety and reliability of the
pipelines cannot, therefore, be assessed.
The motion asks
that Northern Gateway is required to provide details of its proposed additional
design features for thicker pipes for the pipeline generally and at identified
watercourse crossings, for additional valve placements, and for additional remote
monitoring, as well as all studies and reports that support how these additional
design features enhance pipeline safety, by a date to be fixed by the Panel.
The Haisla motion also asks for more details on various environmental and other questions.
The Joint Review Panel has not yet ruled on the Haisla motion.
The District of Kitimat has asked the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel to reconsider its decision to bypass the town for the final questioning and final argument hearings “given the significant impact the project will have on Kitimat.”
On July 16, 2012, Mayor Joanne Monaghan sent a letter to the JRP asking for the reconsideration. That letter was posted recently on the JRP website.
Monaghan’s letter says:
The District of Kitimat occupies a key location in the Northern Gateway project. Enbridge’s pipeline will terminate in Kitimat and the new terminal for shipping bitumen will be located here. Our community will not only be subjected to the risks posed by two pipelines, but also is the only community along the pipeline route that will be assuming the risks associated with tanker traffic on Douglas Channel.
We understand that the Joint Review Panel chooses appropriate hearing facilities that are safe, of adequate size and can logistically and technologically accommodate a hearing with many participants. Kitimat can comfortably provide all of those components, therefore we request clarification on the decision to exclude Kitimat from the hearings.
On July 5, the JRP decided to hold the the questioning hearings will begin on September 4, 2012 in Edmonton followed by hearings in Prince George and Prince Rupert.
The Joint Review Panel was able to hold a successful preliminary hearing at a packed Riverlodge Recreation Centre, in Kitimat, in August, 2010 and the National Energy Board held hearings on the KM LNG project at Riverlodge in June, 2011. The current JRP hearings were held at the Haisla Recreation Centre at Kitamaat Village at the request of the Haisla Nation to accommodate the needs of the Elders.
World-leading marine spill preparedness and response systems for British Columbia
Protecting the province’s environment is a priority for its citizens and the B.C. government. While B.C. is not the government lead in terms of responding to a marine spill, advocating for world-class protection measures and procedures is a B.C. priority. Guided by an analysis of international marine response plans and procedures, the B.C. government is moving forward with 11 recommendations to the federal government aimed at improving Ottawa’s marine spill management. Chief among those recommendations are:
Encourage the federal government to strengthen requirements for certified marine spill response organizations.
Current response times and planning capacity are less stringent than other jurisdictions like Alaska and Norway. For example, for the types of tankers being proposed for Canada’s west coast, Alaska requires planning for 300,000 barrels. In Canada, response organizations are only required to maintain response plans for spills up to approximately 70,000 barrels (10,000 tonnes).
Further, Alaska allows responders 72 hours to reach the spill site, while Canada allows 72 hours plus travel time, which can sometimes add days to the response.
Encourage the federal government to enhance tanker requirements and available response capacity.
In shared bodies of water, the United States’ requirements exceed Canada’s. For example, the United States requires escort tugs for laden tankers and mandates industry pay for designated and strategically placed emergency response tugs. Canada does not have any similar requirements.
Ensure the Canadian Coast Guard adopts a unified command/incident command structure.
The Canadian Coast Guard has a unique response system which is only used in B.C. The United States, companies and governments worldwide use a unified command/incident command response structure for a range of emergency responses, including marine spills. By bringing the Coast Guard under this system, an effective, co-ordinated response is better ensured while reducing layers of approvals that can delay critical, prompt decision-making.
Current limits of liability rules strengthened to reduce government and public exposure to financial risk.
The federal government should review its rules and requirements to ensure industry-funded response funds are sustainable and adequate to fully cover a major response without requiring public money. Currently, the total amount of ship owner insurance and industry funding available for spill response is $1.3 billion. By comparison, the U.S. federal government maintains a spill fund that is forecast to grow to nearly $4 billion by 2016.
BACKGROUNDER 2
World-Leading on-land spill preparedness and response system for British Columbia
Land-based spill response is an area where the province has significant management responsibilities. The safe transportation and use of hazardous materials – including oil and natural gas – is critical to British Columbia’s economy and way of life. While land-based spills can be mitigated, they cannot be completely avoided; they are a consequence of a modern economy.
Major resource developments in the province’s northeast, coupled with proposals to open new, and expand existing, transportation corridors for petrochemicals, makes it timely for the province to consider its spill management capacity.
B.C. government’s proposed policy:
A provincial policy review has confirmed support for the “polluter pays” principle. In other words, those sectors (i.e. the oil and gas industry) that pose the risk must be responsible for all related mitigation and response costs.
Ministry of Environment staff are in the process of reviewing options to implement industry-funded and enhanced spill-management for land-based operations. It has three central elements:
An industry-funded terrestrial spill response organization.
An enhanced provincial Environment Emergency Program.
Natural resources damages assessment.
These changes would address some key issues facing B.C.’s land-based spill response practice, including new requirements for:
industry to have tested and government-approved geographic response plans; and
provincial response capacity that matches the known risk, including staff and resources to address spills.
The proposed policy would strengthen the province’s oversight role and facilitate the verification of industry capacity. Further, it would ensure that a stable source of funding is available to ensure the program continues to have a strong presence on-scene when a spill occurs. This role for government is critical to protecting the provincial economic, social and environmental interests that can be impacted when a spill takes place.
Next steps:
Immediately strike a terrestrial spill response working group.
Engagement with key industry associations and federal agencies.
Complete in-depth technical analysis of policy and options.
Public consultation on policy intentions paper.
Draft legislation based on the chosen policy direction.
Media Contact:
BACKGROUNDER 3
Consultation and partnerships with First Nations
In British Columbia, case law requires the B.C. government to consult with First Nations on any decision that may infringe on their treaty or Aboriginal rights. Where government makes a decision that will infringe on rights, there is a legal duty called “accommodation,” which can include mitigation measures, or even economic compensation. These legal requirements impact resource development and government decision-making.
Consultation is not only a legal obligation, it is part of good governance, and the B.C. government takes consultation and the courts’ direction on consultation very seriously.
B.C.’s approach is to work in partnership to give First Nations a meaningful role in land and resource management. B.C. is also the first province to share resource development revenue with First Nations, creating opportunities that flow benefits directly back into Aboriginal communities. B.C. has reached a suite of strategic agreements that create certainty for First Nations and industry by making it easier for business and First Nations to work together.
B.C. has achieved nine Reconciliation and Strategic Engagement Agreements with First Nations. These agreements provide First Nations with a defined role in the management of lands and resources and often include tools to allow for increased First Nation participation in local economies.
B.C. has 189 active forestry revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations. Since 2003, B.C. has provided approximately $323 million and access to 63.9 million cubic metres of timber to First Nations.
B.C. signed mine revenue-sharing agreements with Nak’azdli First Nation and McLeod Lake Indian Band for the Mount Milligan Mine and the Tk’emlúps and Skeetchestn Indian bands for the New Afton Mine. Further agreements are being negotiated.
Economic Benefit Agreements with five Treaty 8 First Nations have provided $52 million to date in First Nation benefits from gas and other development in northeast B.C.
The First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund provides capacity, equity and revenue-sharing funding for First Nation participation in this sector. Since 2010, the fund has provided nearly $2.5 million to 53 First Nations.
The B.C. government has collaborated with the Business Council of British Columbia to develop the best practices to increase general understanding of industry’s role. Increasingly, companies recognize that building relationships with First Nations makes good business sense, and are taking steps to form effective relationships that result in mutual benefits.
B.C. expects proponents to build strong, enduring relationships with First Nations potentially affected by development projects. Through those relationships, there should be discussion of possible impacts on Aboriginal interests, measures in place that would mitigate those impacts and a development of impact management and benefit agreements.
The Northern Gateway Pipeline is forecast to provide significant benefits to governments, communities and individuals through taxation and royalty revenues, employment and indirect and induced jobs.
According to a research report by Wright Mansell Research Ltd., the pipeline is likely to generate an incremental $81 billion in provincial and federal government taxation over a 30 year period between 2016 and 2046. Of the $81 billion, a full $36 billion is accrued by the federal government.
The remaining $45 billion in provincial revenues are split with $32 billion to Alberta, $6.7 billion to British Columbia and the remaining $6 billion split among the remaining provinces, with Saskatchewan appearing to benefit by nearly $4 billion. Thus, of the $81 billion in incremental taxation revenue, British Columbia stands to receive approximately only 8.2 per cent.
The $36 billion to the federal government is anticipated to be distributed across the country on a per capita basis as these revenues would be considered to be general and not dedicated revenues. There is no guarantee these revenues would be distributed in this manner.
In addition, with the creation of a new market for Alberta oil in Asia, prices are forecast to rise such that over the same 2016-46 period, there would be a price lift of $107 billion, split $103 billion to Alberta and $4 billion to Saskatchewan, which has begun to exploit its heavy oil and bitumen resources. This lift arises from an all increased value of all oil products that are being exported out of Canada with the elimination of the discount paid for Canadian oil.
Given the risk to British Columbia from land-based and coastal bitumen spills, British Columbia does not believe an equitable distribution exists for fiscal benefits. This imbalance must be addressed prior to British Columbia considering provincial support.
Update 3 Joe Oliver statement
Update 2 Statement from Alison Redford
Update 1 Enbridge statement
The government of British Columbia has outlined five what it calls “minimum requirements that must be met for the province to consider the construction and operation of heavy oil pipelines within its borders.”
But at a news conference announcing the conditions, Environment Minister Terry Lake says the province will still not take an official position on the pipeline project itself.
In news release, Premier Christy Clark said, “Our government is committed to economic development that is balanced with environmental protection. In light of the ongoing environmental review by the Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge pipeline project proposal, our government has identified and developed minimum requirements that must be met before we will consider support for any heavy oil pipeline projects in our province. We need to combine environmental safety with our fair share of fiscal and economic benefits.”
We wish to reiterate our commitment to working with governments, including BC, in determining what we can do to further address concerns and to engaging in a dialogue to ensure full understanding of the assessments of risk, the many safety and environmental protection measures in the plan as well as the benefits that would come with the project.
Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed
World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments
World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines
Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project
British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.
The release says that “any project proposal must be approved through appropriate environmental assessment (EA) processes.”
Pie chart of the “environmental risk” from pipeline projects as released by the government of British Columbia
However, trust for the environmental processes has been falling since Stephen Harper’s government passed Bill C-38 which is designed to fast track approvals and is seen by may in the environmental movement as gutting the review process.
Action plan
The province is also proposing a joint plan of action with the federal government that would include the following elements:
Limits to liability that ensure sufficient financial resources to properly address any spills;
increased federal response capacity;
Full adoption of the Unified Command model;
Strengthened federal requirements on industry for the provision and placement of marine response equipment and infrastructure;
Industry-funded terrestrial (land-based) spill co-operative with sufficient human and technical capacity to manage spill risk from pipelines and other land-based sources;
Increased capacity within the provincial emergency response program to ensure adequate oversight of industry;
A Natural Resources Damage Assessment process to provide certainty that a responsible party will address all costs associated with a spill.
In the release, BC Environment Minister Terry Lake said: “When we consider the prospect of a heavy oil pipeline, and of the increased oil tanker traffic that would result, it is clear that our spill prevention and response plans will require significant improvements. Our government has already initiated discussions with the federal government on improving our response plans and resources,” said Environment Minister Terry Lake. “This represents an opportunity for British Columbia and Canada to develop world-leading environmental protection regimes.”
First Nations
The government release says
The fourth requirement for the B.C. government to consider support for heavy oil pipeline proposals is First Nations participation. Governments in Canada have a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations, and British Columbia is committed to meeting this test. British Columbia has developed a set of tools to help First Nations to partner with industry and participate in economic development. These agreements help to create certainty for development that benefits all British Columbians. British Columbia remains committed to this approach.
“We believe the benefits to First Nations from major pipeline proposals must be clearly identified, along with the measures that will help protect against environmental impacts,” said Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister Mary Polak. “As recently as last week, such an approach was endorsed by the Canadian Council of CEOs in their report on Aboriginal participation.”
Show me the money
The government is also emphasizing that the province benefit from any heavy oil project:
Lastly, British Columbia must receive a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of any proposed heavy oil project. B.C. will shoulder 100 per cent of the risk in the marine environment and a significant proportion of the risk on the land should a spill event ever occur. Current heavy oil project proposals do not balance the risks and benefits for British Columbia.
“We have identified aggressive environmental requirements and principles for First Nations engagement, and we have clearly stated we expect a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits for our province,” said Premier Clark. “British Columbians are fair and reasonable. We know we need resource and economic development, but we also expect that risks are managed, environmental protection is uncompromised and that generations will benefit from the decisions we make today.”
A pie chart, released by the BC government, showing the economic benefits of pipeline projects
In its release, Enbridge repeated its earlier statements that the company will continue
to reach out and encourage conversation with British Columbians about the project through our website and blogs, community meetings and conversations. We have devoted much effort and resources into consultations with communities, First Nations, and Métis…”
The company went on to say:
Enbridge and the Northern Gateway project team have worked hard to ensure this unique project would be built and operated to the highest standards and has committed to further enhancements to make what is already a safe project even safer.
This project will bring real and tangible benefits to the communities and Aboriginal groups along the proposed route, and to the province of British Columbia as a whole.
Enbridge Northern Gateway has filed thousands of pages of “reply evidence” to the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel, responding to questions from the panel, from government participants like DFO, and intervenors.
In the introduction to the summary of the evidence the JRP asks
Should the fact that Northern Gateway does not respond to all points in a particular intervenor’s evidence or to all intervenor evidence be taken as acceptance by
Northern Gateway of any of the positions of intervenors?
To which Enbridge replies:
No. Northern Gateway does not accept any of the intervenor positions that are contrary tothe Application or additional material filed by Northern Gateway. Some of those positions will be dealt with by Northern Gateway in cross examination and argument rather than reply evidence, and others will simply be left to the JRP to determine on the basis of the filed evidence alone.
Recovery of Biophysical and Human Environment from Oil Spills
Corrosion, Inspection and Maintenance of Oil Tankers
Design and Construction of Oil Tankers
Pilotage
In response to numerous questions about the Marshall, Michigan, oil spill, Enbridge repeats what it said in an e-mail to “community leaders” earlier this week and in this morning’s news release, saying: “Enbridge has made a number of improvements since the Marshall incident.”
As part of the filing Enbridge has also filed an update on its aboriginal engagement program.
There are also detailed and updated reports on the company’s plans for the Kitimat valley region.
A Google Earth satellite map of the Kitimat River used as part of Enbridge Northern Gateway’s oil spill modelling study.
Enbridge Northern Gateway today filed a massive 11-volume study with the Joint Review Panel outlining possible scenarios for oil spills along the route including the Kitimat and Morice Rivers in British Columbia.
The study, carried out by three consulting firms, Stantec Consuting and AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure both of Calgary and RPS ASA of Rhode Island, is called “Ecological and Human Health Assessment for Pipeline spills.”
Overall the models created by study appear to be extremely optimistic, especially in light of recent events, such as the damning report on by the US
National Transportation Safety Board and the finding of violations by the US Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration with Enbridge operations during the 2010 Marshall, Michigan, spill and subsequent cleanup difficulties encountered by Enbridge.
The executive summary of the report begins by saying
This document presents conservatively developed assessments of the acute and chronic risk to ecological and human receptors in the unlikely event of a full bore pipeline break on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project. Three representative hydrocarbon types (condensate, synthetic oil
and diluted bitumen) were evaluated with releases occurring to four different rivers representing a range of hydrological and geographic characteristics, under both low-flow and high-flow conditions. The analysis indicates that that the potential environmental effects on ecological and human health from each hydrocarbon release scenario could be adverse and may be significant. However, the probability of the releases as considered in the assessment (i.e., full bore rupture, with no containment or oil recovery) is low, with return periods for high consequence watercourses ranging from 2,200 to 24,000 years. Therefore, the significant adverse environmental effects as described in this report are not likely to occur.
So the study says that it is “conservative” that means optimistic, that a full bore pipelink break with no containment or recovery is “an unlikely event” and would probably occur every 2,200 and 24,000 years. Not bad for a pipeline project that is supposed to be operational for just 50 years.
The summary does caution:
The analysis has also shown that the outcomes are highly variable and are subject to a great many factors including the location of the spill, whether the hydrocarbons are released to land or directly to a watercourse, the size of the watercourse, slope and flow volumes, river bed substrate, the amount of suspended particulate in the water, environmental conditions (such as the time of year, temperature and wind speeds, precipitation, etc.), the types of shoreline soils and vegetative cover and most significantly, the type and volume of hydrocarbon released.
The highly technical study is Enbridge’s official response to those intervenors who have “requested additional ecological and human health risk assessment studies pertaining to pipeline spills” and a request from the Joint Review Panle for more information about “the long term effects of pipeline oil spills on aquatic organisms (including the sensitivity of the early life stages of the various salmon species), wildlife, and human health.”
The report presents modelling on the release of three hydrocarbons, diluted bitumen, synthetic oil and condensate at four river locations along the pipeline route for their potential ecological and human health effects, under two flow regimes (i.e., high and low flow), broadly representing summer and winter conditions.
Modelling was done for four areas:
• Chickadee Creek: a low gradient interior river tributary discharging to a large river system
located up-gradient from a populated centre within the Southern Alberta Uplands region
• Crooked River: a low gradient interior river with wetlands, entering a lake system within
the Interior Plateau Region of British Columbia
• Morice River: a high gradient river system along the western boundary of the Interior
Plateau Region of British Columbia
• Kitimat River near Hunter Creek: a high gradient coastal tributary discharging to a large
watercourse with sensitive fisheries resources, downstream human occupation, and discharging to the Kitimat River estuary
In one way, the study also appears to be a partial victory for the Kitimat group Douglas Channel Watch because the model for the Kitimat River is based on a spill at Hunter Creek, which has been the subject of extensive work by the environmental group, but the consulting study is markedly optimistic compared to the scenario painted by Douglas Channel Watch in its presentations to District of Kitimat council.
The study describes the Kitimat River:
The hypothetical release location near Hunter Creek is southwest of Mount Nimbus, in the upper Kitimat River watershed, and flows into Kitimat River, then Kitimat Arm, approximately 65 km downstream. The area is in a remote location and maintains high wildlife and fisheries values. The pipeline crossing near Hunter Creek is expected to be a horizontal direction drilling (HDD) crossing. The release scenario
assumes a discharge directly into Kitimat River…
The streambed and banks are composed of coarse gravel, cobbles and boulders. Shoreline vegetation (scattered grasses and shrubs) occurs in the channel along the tops of bars. Vegetation is scattered on the channel banks below the seasonal high water mark and more developed (i.e., grasses, shrubs and trees) bove the seasonal high water mark.
Wildlife and fish values for the Kitimat River are high: it is important for salmon stocks, which also provide important forage for grizzly bears, bald eagles and osprey on the central coast. The Kitimat River estuary, at the north end of Kitimat Arm, also provides year-round habitat for some waterbirds and seasonal habitat for staging waterfowl.
There is considerable recreational fishing, both by local people and through fishing guides, on Kitimat River, its estuary and in Kitimat Arm. There is also likely to be a high amount of non-consumptive recreational activity in the area, including wildlife viewing, hiking and camping. The Kitimat River estuary, for example, is well known for waterbird viewing.
While no fish were captured at this location during the habitat survey, salmonoid fry and coho salmon were observed downstream. Previously recorded fish species in the area include chinook, coho and chum salmon, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and steelhead trout.
However, the next paragraph appears to show that a full bore rupture on the Kitimat River would have widespread consequences because it would cover a vast area of First Nations traditional territory, saying
Aboriginal groups with traditional territories within the vicinity of the Kitimat River hypothetical spill scenario site include the Haisla Nation, Kitselas First Nation, Kitsumkalum First Nation, Lax-Kw’alaams First Nation and Metlakatla First Nation.
It also acknowledges:
Oral testimony provided by Gitga’at First Nation and Gitxaala Nation was also reviewed in relation to this hypothetical spill scenario, although the traditional territories of these nations are well-removed from the hypothetical spill site.
The report then goes on to list “the continued importance of traditional resources” for the aboriginal people of northwestern BC.
especially marine resources. People hunt, fish, trap and gather foods and plants throughout the area and traditional foods are central to feasting and ceremonial systems. Food is often distributed to Elders or others in the community. Written evidence and oral testimony reported that Coho, sockeye, pink, and spring salmon remain staples for community members. Halibut, eulachon, herring and herring roe,
various species of cod, shellfish, seaweed, and other marine life are also regularly harvested and consumed, as are terrestrial resources, including moose, deer, beaver, muskrat and marten. Eulachon remains an important trade item. Written evidence provides some information on seasonality of use and modes of preparation. Seaweed is dried, packed and bundled and preserved for later use. Each species of
salmon has its own season and salmon and other fish are prepared by drying, smoking, freezing or canning. Salmon are highly valued and often distributed throughout the community…
Some areas used traditionally are not depicted geographically. Upper Kitimat River from the Wedeene River to the headwaters has long been used for trapping, hunting, fishing and gathering of various foods. Fishing, hunting and gathering activities take place along the lower Kitimat River and its tributaries. Marine resources are collected in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel, and Gardner Canal. Old village and
harvesting sites are located along the rivers and ocean channels in this vicinity.
Intertidal areas are important and highly sensitive harvesting sites that support a diversity of species. Many intertidal sites are already over harvested and are therefore vulnerable. Conservation of abalone has been undertaken to help the species recover. Some concern was expressed in oral testimony regarding the
potential for archaeological sites and the lack of site inventory in the area. Oral testimony made reference to the Queen of the North sinking and the potential for a similar accident to result in human health and environmental effects.
A spill at Hunter Creek
The model says that all three types of floating oil in Kitimat River under high-flow conditions would reach approximately 40 kilometres downstream from Hunter Creek while low-flow conditions showed variation.
Under what the study calls low flow conditions, most condensate would evaporate. The bitumen would cause “heavy shore-oiling” for the first 10 kilometres, with some oiling up to 40 kilometres downstream.
The most sedimentation would occur for synthetic oil, and the least for condensate. Synthetic oil under both flow conditions would have the largest amounts deposited to the sediments. This is because of the low viscosity of synthetic oil, which allows it to be readily entrained into the water where it may combine with suspended sediments and subsequently settle. Synthetic oil under high-flow conditions would result in the most entrained oil and so the most extensive deposition to the sediment. Diluted bitumen, for both flow conditions, would result in the most deposited on shorelines, with the remainder (except that which evaporated or degraded) depositing to the sediments.
The condensate also would also have significant entrainment, but higher winds prevailing in under low flow conditions would enhance evaporation and rapidly lower concentrations in the water as compared to high-flow conditions. In all scenarios, a large amount of entrained oil and high concentrations of dissolved aromatics would move down the entire stretch of Kitimat River and into Kitimat River estuary.
Long term scenario
The modelling appears to be extremely optimistic when it reaches four to six weeks after the pipeline breach, especially in light of the continued cleanup efforts in Michigan, estimating that the “fast-flowing” nature of the Kitimat River would disipate all the different forms of hydrocarbon in the study saying
a fast-flowing coastal river like Kitimat River, with gravel or cobble bottom would be affected by a large volume of crude oil released in a short period of time.
Oiling of shoreline soils is heavy in the reaches between the release point and 10 km downstream, becoming lighter to negligible beyond 10 km. Deposition of hydrocarbons to river sediment is greatest for the synthetic oil and diluted bitumen (high flow) scenarios extending up to 40 kilometres downriver, with predicted hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment approaching 1,000 mg/kg dry weight. Deposition of hydrocarbons to river sediment is considerably lighter for the diluted bitumen (low flow) and condensate scenarios. In these scenarios, oiling of river sediment is negligible….
It says that within four weeks of the end of the acute phase of the spill scenarios, concentrations in river sediments and river water would decline becoming quite low at the end of two years.
As for the affects on plants and invertebrates:
Oiling of shorelines would be extensive, particularly at assessment locations within 10 kilometres of the pipeline break location, under both the high and low flow scenarios, for synthetic oil and condensate. High loadings occur as far as 25 kilometres downstream, again asusming that damage would begin to disipate after four weeks declining over the next one to two years. Predicted effects are generally less severe for the diluted bitumen spill scenarios, due to lower expected loading of oil onto shorelines. Low to negligible shoreline oiling would occur for Kitimat River under most of the scenarios at the 40 kilometres assessment location and points downstream. Based on this assessment, very little oiling of shorelines would extend to the estuary and the environmental effects would be minimal.
The study goes on to say that the “model suggests that there would be no significant risk to fish health based upon chronic exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons for the oil spill scenarios in Kitimat River or the potentially affected areas within the estuary, either at four weeks or one to two years following the hypothetical spill events. Risk to developing fish eggs in Kitimat River and estuary at four weeks and one to two years again indicate no significant risk to developing fish eggs in spawning gravels.”
It also claims that “chronic risks” to wildlife would be minimal, with some elevated risk for “muskrat, belted kingfisher, mallard duck, spotted sandpiper and tree swallow,” if they were exposed to synthetic oil. The muskrat, mallard duck and spotted sandpiper
could be vulnerable to bitumen and diluted bitumen.
It then claims that “no significant effects of chronic exposure (to all hydrocarbons) would occur for grizzly bear, mink, moose, river otter, bald eagle, Canada goose, herring gull or great blue heron for the Kitimat River hydrocarbon spill scenarios.”
Again, it appears from the sutdy that the spotted sandpiper would be most vulnerable to “bulk weathered crude oil exposure” includingcondensate, diluted bitumen and synthetic oil.
For the Kitimat section it concludes:
In the unlikely event of an oil spill, recovery and mitigation as well as the physical
disturbance of habitat along the watercourse would be likely to substantially reduce the exposure of wildlife receptors to hydrocarbons as compared to the scenarios evaluated here.
The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel has denied four out of the five requests from Coastal First Nations to question the province of British Columbia about its position on the controversial pipeline and tanker project. A decision on the fifth request is reserved pending a response from the province and other parties.
So far, the province has not participated in the Joint Review hearings nor has it filed any evidence.
A five part motion by the Coastal First Nations was an attempt to compel the government of Premier Christy Clark to participate.
The motion requested
a) compel the Province of British Columbia (Province) to file a technical report that was reported on in the Globe and Mail on 3 June 2012;
b) compel the Province to file any other reports or assessments it has;
c) allow intervenors to file information requests on any evidence filed by the Province;
d) compel the Province to indicate whether or not it will issue a Certificate for the
Project pursuant to the BC Environmental Assessment Act; and
e) compel the Province to indicate whether it intends to consult with First Nations on the
Project, and if so, how and when.
The JRP reserved its judgement on the request on item (a) to release the report mentioned in the Globe and Mail. A few days after Coastal First Nations made the request, lawyers representing the province requested an extension to respond to the CFN motion. The JRP gave both BC and Northern Gateway until July 16 to respond and then the CFN has until July 20 to reply.
On item (b) forcing the province to release other assessments, the JRP ruled that the information requested was “unclear and excessively broad” and so the request was denied.
On item (c) allowing intervenors to question on evidence from the province, the JRP ruled that Coastal First Nations had requested “a blanket right for parties to ask information
requests on evidence that is not yet filed.” The JRP said “ not persuaded that all parties ought to be given a blanket right to ask information requests on evidence that is not yet filed” and denied the request. The JRP added: “If a party believes it needs to ask a late information
request (as opposed to asking a hearing question) on specific evidence, the Panel will consider
that request.”
On items (d) and (e) the panel cited constitutional concerns, saying it related to authorizations in provincial jurisdiction and ruled “No justification is provided as to why this
information would be relevant to the federal review….” The JRP said it was “persuaded that it has any legal authority over these areas of provincial jurisdiction, or that it would be appropriate or relevant to the federal review, to obtain information about provincial affairs.”
Fog and low clouds shroud Kitimat harbour on the morning of June 27, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
If there is a major disconnect between the people who live in the Kitimat region and the rest of Canada, it is the question of vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel, with Enbridge spinning that there is already major tanker traffic on the Channel.
This section from the Northern Gateway website, is often quoted by Enbridge supporters, the vast majority of whom live in Alberta, thousands of kilometres away, have never been to Kitimat, but, somehow from Calgary or Fort McMurray, claim to know more about the Douglas Channel than people who live in Kitimat, including those who have sailed Douglas Channel for decades.
According to numbers from the Port of Kitimat, not only have vessels carrying industrial products been travelling the channels safely for some 35 years, but so too have ships carrying petroleum products—like the one featured arriving in the Port of Kitimat through the Douglas Channel in the picture above.
In fact, some 1,560 vessels carrying methanol and condensate called on Kitimat port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s over 3,100 transits of vessels dedicated to the transport of petroleum products.
When you add vessel traffic of all industrial activity into Kitimat port, the number jumps to 6,112.
To be clear…the number of ships servicing industry arriving at Kitimat port between 1978 and 2009 is 6,112. That’s 12,224 transits!
So in its questions to the Haisla, Enbridge asked:
c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is aware of existing and proposed
marine vessel activity within its Traditional Territory, including:
(i) fuel barges
(ii) cargo/container ships
(iii) commercial fishing vessels
(iv) condensate tankers
(v) liquefied natural gas tankers
Enbridge’s question was an obvious attempt to enhance their spin on vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel, by fishing for an admission that large vessels already ply the Channel, something the residents of the Kitimat, both First Nations and non-aboriginal already know well.
In its response, the Haisla Nation replies:
The Haisla Nation is aware of the existing and proposed marine vessel activity within its Territory, including fuel barges, cargo/container ships, commercial fishing vessels, condensate tankers, and liquefied natural gas tankers.
The Haisla Nation is also aware of the increased cumulative effect of additional marine vessel activity as projects are approved. The presence of this shipping increases the significance of the potential impacts of the project on Haisla Nation aboriginal title and rights, through cumulative impacts.
The Haisla Nation is responsible for some of the vessel traffic within its Territory, with modern forms of transportation having replaced canoes. Until legal developments in the early 2000s which have defined the content of the honour of the Crown with respect resource decisions and potential impacts on First Nations, the Haisla Nation had little say about the projects with associated vessel traffic in its Territory.
While standard petroleum product tankers, many carrying condensate, a natural gas product, have been visiting Kitimat for years, there have. so far, been no supertankers, much less Very Large Crude Carriers. No bitumen carrying tankers have visited Kitimat, a fact always ignored by the region’s critics in Alberta and by Enbridge on its website.
Not only the filing by the Haisla Nation but most of the testimony at the recent public comment hearings in at Kitamaat Village, were about the fear of the growing cumulative effect of greatly increased tanker traffic on the Channel.
The Haisla Nation, in its response to a series of questions about funding posed by Enbridge through the Joint Review process, has replied that it “ takes offence at the implication that its participation in the Joint Review Panel process is strictly to oppose the Northern Gateway Project.”
In its response to Enbridge, the Haisla Nation says it has received no funding from Tides Canada.
The Haisla Nation, however, does detail what funding it has received, including some from Enbridge, and then counters that with details of just how expensive it is to participate in the Joint Review Process.
The Haisla say that in December, 2009, the First Nation asked the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for $1,593,900 for participating in the Joint Review Panel process over the next two years.
According to the document filed with the JRP, the Haisla Nation says the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency offered $371,500, leaving a shortfall of $1,222,400.
The Haisla say that they have now reviewed that original application and the First Nation “notes that even the $1,593,900 sought in the original application for participant funding would not be enough to cover these costs.”
The Haisla acknowledge that they did receive funding from Enbridge Northern Gateway The Haisla Nation has received funding from the Northern Gateway “to prepare and provide a traditional use study in relation to the proposed project,” without stating the actual amount, adding that participating in the JRP has created a deficit “costing the Haisla Nation funds that will need to be diverted from other pressing projects and issues.”
Enbridge’s next question asked if the Haisla Nation was a member of the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative and therefore had received funding for “opposing the Northern Gateway Project?”
The Haisla reply that:
The Haisla Nation takes offence at the implication that its participation in the Joint Review Panel process is strictly to oppose the Northern Gateway Project. As set out above, the Haisla Nation is participating in the Joint Review Panel process as it is currently the only process for assessing the proposed project. This process has been imposed without meaningful consideration of Haisla Nation concerns, and the Haisla Nation is participating despite an unlevel playing field.
The Haisla Nation has not received funding from the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The Haisla then emphasize:
The Haisla Nation has not received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations, either directly or indirectly, to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The next question from Enbridge not only asked about the personal finances of members of the Haisla Nation council, but also showed that even after years of involvement with First Nations, Enbridge still hasn’t done its homework and can’t even spell “Kitamaat.”
Enbridge asked:
Have any members of the Kitimaat Village Council received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations to participate in this proceeding or to otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project, either directly or indirectly? If so, how much funding was received and by whom?
The Haisla reply by saying
This question is beyond the scope of matters currently before the Joint Review
Panel. Nevertheless, the Haisla Nation offers the following information:
“Kitimaat Village Council” is a misspelling of the former name of the Haisla
Nation Council. The Haisla Nation Council is the elected government of the
Haisla Nation.
The Haisla Nation Council is governed by rules and a code of ethics that require disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest. If any member of Haisla Nation Council had received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations in their personal capacity, they would have had to disclose this to Council.
None of these members have received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations, either directly or indirectly, to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The final question from Enbridge asked the Haisla, in the financial disclosure to
“include funding received by the Headwaters Initiative.”
The Haisla reply:
Headwaters Initiative has no affiliation with the Haisla Nation Council. The Haisla Nation Council has no information about funding received by Headwaters Initiative.
That question again shows again that despite years of involvement in northwestern British Columbia, Enbridge hasn’t done its homework, since the Headwaters Initiative is an environmental organization with members from not only the Haisla Nation but also non-aboriginal residents of both Kitimat and Terrace.
It appears that Enbridge was asking those questions as part of a preparation for a “follow the money” spin campaign building on the work of blogger Vivian Krause and her right-wing supporters in the business media. If so, so far, it hasn’t worked out very well for Enbridge. Haisla Nation Response to NGP Information Request (pdf)
