Kitimat | Northwest Coast Energy News

BC issues list of conditions for Enbridge Northern Gateway, action plan for pipeline projects

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.”

Later Monday afternoon, Enbridge released a statement saying:

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.

The premier of Alberta, Alison Redford, Monday evening released a stinging news release on the conditions outlined by British Columbia for pipelines crossing the province and tanker traffic on the coast.

A key phrase in the release says:

Leadership is not about dividing Canadians and pitting one province against another—leadership is about working together.

In Ottawa, the pro-pipeline Minister of Natural Resource, Joe Oliver, issued an unremarkable statement promoting responsible resource development that managed to avoid mentioning the BC announcement; a statement that could be regarded as a classical press release that says absolutely nothing.

Details of the BC provincial approach are outlined in a “heavy oil policy paper.”

The government also released background information on the conditions.

The five conditions are

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.”

BC government graphic on environmental risk — 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.”

BC government graphic on economic benefits — 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.

RTA issues lockout notice, CAW responds with strike notice as Alcan smelter contract deadline looms

Negotiations between Rio Tinto Alcan and Canadian Auto Workers Local 2301 are going down to the wire. The current contact expires Monday, July 23.

The CAW says 96 per cent of members voted in favour of strike action during voting Thursday and Friday. The Local represents 1150 workers at the Alcan smelter. One of the main issues in the negotiations is a reduction in the workforce to 699.

CAW Local 2301 president Rick Belmont said the union received a 72 hour lockout notice this afternoon and the union responded with a strike notice.

RTA spokeperson Colleen Nyce says issuing lockout and strike notice is standard practice during negotiations.

Both sides say negotiations will continue through the weekend.

If there are picket lines it could be a confusing and possibly volatile situation because the Kitimat Modernization Project is on the same site with a work camp full of construction workers on RTA property.

Most construction workers are employed or contracted by Bechtel, the construction contractor and are not members of CAW 2301.

Enbridge files thousands of pages in document dump reply evidence to Northern Gateway JRP

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.

Enbridge also used the filing to issue a news release saying it is adding $500 million in new safety features for its pipeline plans.

Northern Gateway Pipelines Reply_Evidence_ (summary of filings PDF)

Link to 43 item reply filing on JRP website.

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.

The reply covers a multitude of topics including

Economic Need and the Public Interest
Engineering
Avalanche Risk and Groundwater Concerns
Corrosivity of Diluted Bitumen
Improvements Since the Marshall Incident
Geotechnical Concerns
Geohazards Issues
Seismic Design Concerns
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.

Enbridge files upgraded pipeline and marine safety plans with Northern Gateway Joint Review

Enbridge Northern Gateway today issued a news release saying that it has filed “Reply Evidence” to the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel that contains details of further enhancements in pipeline design and operations. Enbridge says the upgrades will add $500 million to the cost of the $5.5 billion project.

Enbridge has also filed updated plans for marine mammal protection.

The Enbridge news release is a summary of a 43-item filing of the reply evidence with the Joint Review Panel covering a vast number of topics from the pipeline projection to the possibility of earthquakes.

Northern Gateway Pipelines Reply_Evidence (summary of filings PDF)

Link to 43 item reply filing on JRP website

Framework for Marine Mammal Protection Plan (pdf)

According to the filing, the Marine Mammal Protection plan includes plans by Enbridge to fund research:

Northern Gateway has committed to funding a Marine Research Chair at a university in British Columbia.

Where it is agreed upon by the Marine Research Chair and Northern Gateway, programs and information from the MMPP will be integrated into research undertaken by the Marine Research Chair. Information from the Marine Research Chair may also be of value to the MMPP.

A spokesman for the University of British Columbia told Northwest Coast Energy News that no one from Enbridge has, so far, approached UBC about a Marine Research Chair. A spokesperson at the University of Victoria also said there had been no contact from Enbridge.

On the pipeline plan, Enbridge says “These extra measures build on the plan in the application presently before federal regulators that already far surpasses industry codes and standards.”

“We recognize that there are concerns among Aboriginal groups and the public around pipeline safety and integrity. We had already planned to build a state-of-the-art project, using the most advanced technology, safety measures and procedures in the industry today,” said Janet Holder, Executive Vice President, Western Access, Enbridge Inc. “With these enhanced measures, we will make what is already a very safe project even safer in order to provide further comfort to people who are concerned about the safety of sensitive habitats in remote areas.”

Enbridge and the Northern Gateway project team have worked hard to ensure this unique project would be built and operated to the highest standards. The measures contained in the Reply Evidence go above and beyond anything that has ever been done before in the industry.

The extra measures include:

Increasing pipeline wall thickness of the oil pipeline
Additional pipeline wall thickness for water crossings such as major tributaries to the Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat Rivers
Increasing the number of remotely-operated isolation valves. This would increase the number of isolation valves in BC by 50%
Increasing frequency of in-line inspection surveys across entire pipeline system by a minimum 50% over and above current standards
Installing dual leak detection systems
Staff pump stations in remote locations on a 24/7 basis for on-site monitoring, heightened security, and rapid response to abnormal conditions
Enbridge expects these extra measures will carry an additional cost of approximately $400 million – $500 million.

“After years of consultation with stakeholders and after personally attending many regulatory hearings for Northern Gateway, it has become clear – we have to do everything we can to ensure confidence in the project,” said Ms. Holder. “We’ve listened. We have often been asked if we could guarantee that we would never have a significant pipeline failure over the years on Northern Gateway. These initiatives will put the project closer than any pipeline system in the world to providing that guarantee.”

Marine Mammal Protection Plan

In the filing, created by Stantec Consulting, Enbridge says the plan will address all marine mammal species that could be directly or indirectly affected the Northern Gateway project, adding: “Attention will be given to species of cultural importance or heightened sensitivity to potential Project effects.”

The filing says Northern Gateway’s “commitment to a focused marine mammal monitoring and survey program is unprecedented for a marine project in Canada.”

It says that monitoring of marine mammals and “additional cooperative research initiatives” will also be of value to other organizations focused on supporting the recovery strategies for species of conservation concern.”

The report adds a caveat:

It is important to note ….it would be impractical to do a complete assessment of more than 30 different marine mammal species. Going forward, monitoring conducted in the CCAA will include additional marine mammal species For example, during marine mammal surveys, sightings of all marine mammal species would be recorded. In some cases, species-specific research initiatives (e.g., for northern resident (NR) killer whales) may also be implemented. Results from marine mammal monitoring surveys and research initiatives are expected to improve the regional understanding of all marine mammal species’ timing and distribution…

The report says the MMPP will include details on such measures as:

• low-noise propulsion systems on purpose built Project-related vessels (e.g., tug escorts and support
vessels for the marine terminal)
• reduced vessel speeds in the CCAA and in the “CCAA approaches”
• attempting to better understand the behavioural responses of NR killer whales to tankers and tugs
• identifying important habitat for NR killer whales and other cetaceans, as well as seasonal use of these habitats
• use of the results of a science-based quantitative vessel–marine mammal strike risk analysis
• to the extent practicable, allowing for tanker route adjustments (taking into account navigational andhuman safety) to avoid sensitive cetacean habitat during important seasonal periods
• undertaking a cooperative research initiative with other participating organizations to determine
potential effects on marine mammals and to develop industry protocols to limit these effects

Enbridge responds to NTSB criticism in e-mail to northwest BC “community leaders”

Enbridge Northern Gateway has issued a detailed reply to the criticism of its operations contained in a preliminary report from the US National Transportation Safety Board to the 2010 oil spill at Marshall, Michigan, which called the company’s response like the silent movie era “Keystone cops.”

The note from Michele Parrett, Senior Manager, Community and Municipal Relations for Northern Gateway was sent to members of the District of Kitimat Council and presumably other politicians and community leaders along the proposed pipeline route.

The document was among those routinely released to the public at the regular council meeting on Monday, July 16, 2012 and is a much more detailed defence of Enbridge’s position than the news release issued after the NTSB report.

In the e-mail, Enbridge says it has updated its safety and response procedures and its corporate culture since the Michigan incident.

Despite widespread criticism of Enbridge from all sides of the political spectrum, that NTSB report does not seem to have had any impact on federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who told The Canadian Press had had not yet read the NTSB report. Kent also said that unread report will not change the Conservative government’s mind about the Northern Gateway pipeline project, adding “Pipelines are still, by far, the safest way to transport petrochemicals in any form.”

Overview of NTSB Report into Line 6B incident at Marshall, Michigan

July 12, 2012

Dear Community Leader,

I’m writing you today to provide information regarding the United States’ National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) release of its conclusions and recommendations yesterday, with regard to the Enbridge pipeline leak in Marshall, Michigan in July 2010.

Enbridge has not been waiting for the NTSB’s report before furthering to improve our safety standards. Since the incident we have undertaken our own internal investigation and incorporated the findings of that investigation into new practices and processes to improve our safety and reliability.

Enbridge and Enbridge Energy Partners has been working with the NTSB and other regulators throughout the course of the investigation so that we can take the necessary steps to prevent such an accident from occurring again. We are now reviewing the NTSB reports in detail to determine whether any further changes are required.

Enbridge has already implemented, in 2010 and 2011, appropriate operational and procedural changes based on its own detailed internal investigation. Enbridge’s overarching objective and business priority is to ensure the safety and reliability of our delivery systems for the people who live and work near our pipeline systems across North America, our employees and our customers.

In direct response to the Marshall accident, or as part of our ongoing improvement initiatives and activities, Enbridge has taken the following steps:

Pipeline and Facility Integrity

· Further heightened the importance of our pipeline and facility integrity program.

· Re-organized the functional areas that are responsible for pipeline and facility integrity.

· Substantially increased capital and operating budgets associated with maintenance and integrity programs.

· Undertook hundreds of internal inspections and thousands of investigative digs.

· Placed a renewed emphasis on the safety of our overall system.

Leak Detection

· Established the Pipeline Control Systems and Leak Detection department, doubling the number of employees and contractors dedicated to leak detection and pipeline control.

· Enhanced procedures for leak detection analysis.

· Updated control room management procedures.

· Implemented a Leak Detection Instrumentation Improvement Program to add and upgrade instrumentation across our system.

Pipeline Control and Control Centre Operations (CCO)

· Developed a Control Room Management (CRM) plan based on the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and implemented a number of the sections, October 1, 2011, remaining sections implemented by August 1, 2012.

· Revised and enhanced all procedures pertaining to decision making, handling pipeline start-ups and shutdowns, leak detection system alarms, communication protocols, and suspected column separations.

· Changed organizational structures to better align, focus and manage employees’ span of control and workloads.

· Augmented CCO (Control Centre Operations) staff, adding training, engineering and operator positions.

· We also completed the design and construction of a new, world-class CCO in Edmonton, Alberta which was underway at the time of the accident.

Public Awareness

· Reviewed and strengthened Public Awareness Programs in the U.S. and Canada.

· Developing an industry-leading online and in-person training tool to provide Enbridge-specific information to emergency responders.

· In the U.S, we:

o Formalized the U.S. Public Awareness Committee.

o Improved the Program Effectiveness Evaluation process.

o Provided annual employee training for field employees across the company’s U.S. operations.

o Created a Public Awareness Hotline.

· In Canada, we:

o Formalized the Canadian Public Awareness Committee.

o Are creating a Canadian Public Awareness Database.

o Improved the landowner/tenant database.

o Developed a landowner newsletter.

o Established Community Relations positions in each region.

Emergency Response

· $50 million spent between 2012 and 2013 (projected) to improve our equipment, training and capabilities.

· Develop better tools for waterborne spills.

· In 2011, a cross-business unit response team was created for large-scale events requiring more resources that a single region could provide.

· In 2011, created a dedicated Emergency Response group in Operation Services for increased regional support.

· Conducting an Emergency Response preparedness assessment to enhance abilities to more rapidly respond and contain a significant release.

Safety Culture

· Reinforced a high level of safety and operational integrity across Enbridge in integrity management, third-party damage avoidance and detection, leak detection, incident response capacity, worker and contractor occupational safety, public safety and environmental protection.

· Implemented “Lifesaving Rules” and training for all Enbridge employees and contractors. The Lifesaving Rules are applicable to all employees and contractors, and are communicated, clarified and reinforced across all business units at Enbridge.

· Introduced new Safety Culture training sessions for all employees.

Over the past two years we have made significant improvements in the above areas. The NTSB’s findings will provide us with regulatory guidance and important information to help improve our performance and achieve our goal of zero spills.

We remain committed to a respectful, open and transparent review and discussion of the Northern Gateway Project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the Northern Gateway team at the information provided below.

Sincerely,

Michele Perret

Senior Manager, Community and Municipal Relations

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Enbridge files massive river oil spill study with the Joint Review Panel

Kitimat River map from Enbridge study — 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.

Link to Volume One of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Report Ecological and Human Health Assessment for Pipeline Spills

JRP excludes Kitimat from questioning round, hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and Edmonton

The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel will bypass Kitimat for the final questioning hearings on the controversial pipeline.

In a ruling issued late on July 4, 2012, the JRP said the questioning hearings will begin on September 4, 2012 in Edmonton followed by hearings in Prince George and Prince Rupert.

The JRP says a more detailed schedule will be issued closer to the start of the final hearings.

It adds, that details on the location for the final hearings for final argument will be announced at a later date.

In its ruling the JRP said:

As noted previously, these locations are centrally located, have adequate facilities and reasonable transportation access. The Panel is of the view that these locations are appropriate as they are relatively close to the proposed Project and are readily accessible by all parties who are actively participating in the Northern Gateway hearing process and their witnesses. Further, these locations will allow for appropriate hearing facilities that are safe, of an adequate size and can logistically and technologically accommodate a hearing with many participants.

The Joint Review panel acknowledged that some “witnesses would be financially and logistically
unable to attend three different hearing locations for questioning in Alberta and British
Columbia.”

The JRP says it will “to the best of its ability and to the extent reasonable, accommodate
interested parties’ participation at the final hearings through remote participation.
Standard procedures for the final hearings.”

(i) Parties and members of the public may listen to all of the final hearings live,
through the webcast (available from the Panel’s website).
(ii) Parties may register their appearance on the first day of the final hearings
remotely by telephone, or other technology to the extent feasible such as
videoconference or webex. Details regarding potential audio-visual options will
be provided in advance of the final hearings.
(iii)Parties may ask questions of other party’s witnesses by telephone, or other
technology such as vidoconference or webex to the extent possible. Parties will be
asked to confirm their method of participation, in advance of the final hearings for
questioning.
(iv) Parties’ witnesses may be presented for questioning by technology such as
videoconference or webex that is capable of capturing audio and visual images of
the witnesses simultaneously.

The JRP says its staff is working to address issues that may arise from remote questioning and video conferences.

Some key questions such as the effects of the pipeline and tanker traffic on marine mammals will be handled by “concurrent panels,” that is groups of expert witnesses sitting together. That is a standard National Energy Board procedure and was used during the NEB hearings on the Kitimat LNG project in June, 2011.

A separate ruling from the Joint Review Panel requires all parties to provide a list of witnesses for questioning hears on or before Friday, July 13, 2012.

This list must include all experts that have submitted reports on the party’s behalf, as well as those individuals that are able to answer questions on the specific evidence filed. Where relevant, it would be helpful if parties would organize their list of witnesses into “witness panels” by topic.

JR Procedural Direction 8 Final Hearings – Questioning (pdf)

JRP Procedural Matters Final Hearings Witness Panels (pdf)

Enbridge question on “marine vessel activity” on Douglas Channel gets obvious answer from the Haisla

Fog shrouds Kitimat harbour — 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.

On its website Northern Gateway claims

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.

Haisla Nation, in JRP filing, “take offence” at implication of Enbridge’s funding questions

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.”

The funding questions by Enbridge were, in effect, a political fishing expedition by the energy company, because in one question Enbridge was asking about money that may have come from the charity Tides Canada, which is now subject a concerted attack by the Conservative government and right-wing columnists in the business media.

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 document then lists the names of the current members of the Haisla Nation Council (which are available to Enbridge and everyone else on the Haisla Nation website) and goes on to say:

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)

Haisla outline where they believe Enbridge Gateway plans are inadequate

In their filing with the Joint Review Panel, the Haisla Nation point to what they say is inadequate information provided by Enbridge on the Northern Gateway project, including:

To date the material provided by Northern Gateway does not adequately explain the known risks inherent to the proposed project and lacks significant detail with respect to the extent and degree of potential effects. The material provided by Northern Gateway does not provide sufficient information to determine how the risks inherent to the proposed project will be minimized, nor how the potential for significant adverse effects will be avoided.

There are a number of areas where the Haisla Nation has identified inadequateinformation, including but not limited to:

.
Design: there is a lack of information about detailed design considerations and monitoring procedures for pipeline integrity to avoid accidents and malfunctions due to corrosion, seismic events, and terrain instability. A notable example of this problem is in the Kitimat River Valley, where Northern Gateway has identified a high level of risk but has not offered any solutions. Another is the concern about the corrosive nature of the material to be transported. Northern Gateway denies that this is a problem, yet the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and
Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) has commissioned a major study to investigate the corrosive nature of diluted bitumen in pipelines.

Materials to be transported: there is a lack of information about the fate, behaviour and effects of diluted bitumen, synthetic crude and condensate in the cold water marine and freshwater environment. This concern has been identified by federal government participants as well as by numerous intervenors, and Northern Gateway has acknowledged the need for more research and information. Yet, Northern Gateway has not agreed to undertake this work so that it is available for review in this process.

Volume of material to be transported: Northern Gateway’s application is for a pipeline that will transport 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day. Yet the pipeline will be built to have a capacity of up to 850,000 barrels per day, and Northern Gateway’s application materials identifies future phases with increased volumes up to this amount. The risk assessments conducted by Northern Gateway are premised on 525,000 barrels per day, and fail to contemplate higher volumes which would affect a number of matters, including but not limited to: pipeline risk; volume of potential spills; and tanker traffic volume. The risk assessment needs to be revised, to address the risks associated with the pipeline transporting 850,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day. Without this revision, Northern Gateway is asking the JRP to conduct its assessment on incomplete information that, by definition, understates the true potential risk of the proposed project.

.Baseline information: Northern Gateway has not undertaken the studies necessary to generate baseline ecosystem assessments for the Kitimat River drainage and Kitimat Arm, including seasonal habitat utilization by species and life stages throughout the watershed. This information is necessary to determine both stream crossing construction strategy and to assess the potential impacts of a spill, as well as to determine how to respond to a spill and when. A ‘one-size fits all’ approach to stream crossings during construction and spill response, when adequateinformation about seasonal habitat utilization by species and life stages throughout the watershed is lacking, is not adequate. This information is needed to determine when construction can proceed and what timeframe limitations there are for activities, to ensure that adverse effects to fish and wildlife are avoided. This information is also required, should a spill occur, to enable a proper assessment of the extent and degree of adverse effects as well as to provide a proper basis for restoration of affected habitat.

Past spills: there is a lack of information about the cause, effects, emerging information and lessons learned as a result of Enbridge’s large diluted bitumen spill into the Kalamazoo River. We know that 3,785,400 liters of diluted bitumen were pumped out of the pipeline, with a largeportion of that ending up in to the Kalamazoo River. We know the large volume of the spill was the result of numerous attempts to re-pressurize the pipeline despite repeated spill alarms being triggered. We know that government agencies stepped in to manage the spill because Enbridge’s response was not swift enough. We know that Enbridge’s clean-up costs to date exceed insurance coverage. We know that two years later Enbridge is still under a clean-up mandate from the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and that portions of the Kalamazoo River are still closed to recreational use. What we do not know, however, is what the cause of the pipeline rupture was, what Enbridge has learned about how diluted bitumen behaves once it is released into the environment, or how a local population that relies on the river for fishing, for traditional harvesting and gathering of foods and medicines would have been affected.

Oil spill response: there is a lack of information about oil spill response and planning, including best practices, best available technology and the local on-site equipment and personnel required full-time to respond properly to a spill. This is largely due to the lack of adequate baseline information on which to base response planning. Further, Northern Gateway has demonstrated an unwillingness to fully consider how spill response would be carried out until it receives a certificate for its project.

Yet Northern Gateway seeks to rely on spill response as a mitigation strategy. If Northern Gateway seeks to rely on spill response as a mitigation strategy, it should provide in detail, prior to project approval, what its oil spill response would include and demonstrate that it is logistically, technologically and economically feasible. Northern Gateway has not done this.

.Mitigation measures: there is a lack of information about existing proven mitigation measures and their effectiveness in cleaning up an oil spill, restoring habitat and regenerating the species dependent on the affected habitat. This should be evaluated as part of project review, prior to project approval. Where Northern Gateway seeks to rely on a mitigation measure as a basis for project approval, it must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will actually work.

Avoidance of any significant adverse effects must be the primary goal and dictate the design and location of the proposed project. Mitigation (e.g. complete resolution) of any potential environmental effects should be the preferred option, when all efforts to avoid such effects fail. Compensation for environmental effects must be a last resort and relied on only when best efforts have been made to avoid or mitigate effects. Unfortunately, the material submitted by Northern Gateway suggests that compensation is the primary option and lack of evidence on project design and procedures makes it impossible to evaluate how potential effects could be avoided or mitigated.

For example, Northern Gateway proposes to have spill interception points (river control points) along the Kitimat River Valley as part of its mitigation, but has no realistic plan in place that takes into consideration response delay times, rates of transportation, access issues or baseline ecosystem, fish and wildlife information for the receiving environment.

Main story Haisla Nation confirms it opposes Northern Gateway, demands Ottawa veto Enbridge pipeline; First Nation also outlines “minimum conditions” if Ottawa approves the project

Haisla Nation Response to NGP Information Request (pdf)