Kitimat | Northwest Coast Energy News

DFO report to JRP says Northern Gateway pipeline will cross “high-risk” streams but releases only two examples on Kitimat watershed

A Department of Fisheries and Oceans report filed Wednesday, June 6, 2012, with Joint Review Panel says the department has identified streams on the Northern Gateway Pipeline route that Enbridge identified as “low risk” but which DFO considers “high risk.” However, in the filing, DFO says it can’t release a comprehensive list of the high risk streams, preferring instead to give two examples on the Kitimat River watershed.

The DFO report comes at a time when the Conservative government is about to pass Bill C-38, which will severely cut back DFO’s monitoring of the majority of streams. It appears that the anonymous DFO officials who wrote the report acknowledge that they may soon have much less monitoring power because the report says:

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

Note the phrase “under the current regulatory regime.”

The report also identifies possible threats to humpback whales from tanker traffic.

In the report, DFO notes that Northern Gateway’s “risk management framework” is based on DFO’s own Habitat Risk Management Framework, and DFO, notes “the approach appears to be suitable for most pipeline crossings.”

However, DFO further remarks that it has identified

some examples where crossings of important anadromous fish habitat have received a lower risk rating using Northern Gateway’s framework than DFO would have assigned. In addition, DFO has identified some instances where the proposed crossing method could be reconsidered to better reflect the risk rating.

In bureaucratic language, the Department says “DFO reviews impacts to fish and fish habitat and proposed mitigation measures through the lens of its legislative and policy framework” again a strong hint that the legislative and policy framework is about to change.

It goes on to say:

The appropriate approach to managing risks to fish and fish habitat is based on the risk categorization. For example, where high risks are anticipated DFO may prefer that the Proponent use a method that avoids or reduces the risk such as directional drilling beneath a watercourse to install the pipeline. If low risks are anticipated other methods such as open-cut trenching across the watercourse may be appropriate.

While DFO is “generally satisfied” with Northern Gateway’s proposed approach, it says “DFO has identified some crossings where we may categorize the risk higher than Northern Gateway’s assessment.”

DFO then gives Enbridge the benefit of the doubt because:

Northern Gateway continues to refine the pipeline route and we anticipate that assessment of risk will be an iterative process and, if the project is approved and moves to the regulatory permitting phase, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate method and mitigation for each watercourse crossing. In DFO’s view, Northern Gateway’s approach is flexible enough to be updated if new information becomes available.

DFO then says it

has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase. While there may be differences in opinion regarding the risk categorization for some proposed watercourse crossings, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate risk rating and level of mitigation required.

Here is where DFO points to current, not future policy, when it says:

DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures. Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.

The report then gives two examples of high risk streams both in the Kitimat River watershed

Example 1) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1158.4 (Rev R), Site 1269

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: This is a coastal coho salmon spawning stream that is quite short in length. It has several historic culverts in poor repair which are already impacting the reported run of approximately 100 spawning salmon. Works can be completed in the dry as this stream dries up during the summer. DFO is of the opinion that the risk rating is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway due to the sensitivity of incubating eggs and juveniles of coho salmon to sediment and the importance of riparian vegetation for this type of habitat.

Example 2) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1111.795 (Rev R), Site 1207

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Medium Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: In DFO’s view the risk rating for this watercourse is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway because this stream is high value off-river rearing habitat for juvenile salmon such as coho salmon. This type of fish habitat is vulnerable to effects of sedimentation and loss of riparian vegetation.

Humpback Whales

The Joint Review Panel also asked DFO for a comment on the status of the humpback whale, especially in the shipping area in the Confined Channel Assessment Area Between Wright Sound and Caamaño Sound.

DFO responds

Four areas of critical habitat were proposed for humpback whales in coastal British Columbia in the Draft Recovery Strategy released in 2010, including the Confined Channel Assessment Area from Wright Sound to Caamaño Sound. However, humpback whales have recently been re-assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and were redesignated ‘Special Concern’ but remain ‘Threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). A draft recovery strategy for the humpback whale has been prepared.
It is unclear if humpback whales are still protected as a Schedule 1 status species under the SARA and whether a recovery strategy has been finalized.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Response to the JRPs IR Request (pdf)

Enbridge claims support from 60 % of First Nations on pipeline route; company also sticks to repudiated Gitxsan deal.

Enbridge Northern Gateway says that 60 per cent of the aboriginal communities on the route of the $5.5 billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline have agreed to accept an equity stake in the project.

In releases to the media today, June 5, 2012, Enbridge says that half of the communities that signed up for a piece of the 10 per cent equity stake on offer are in British Columbia and the other half in Alberta.

There was immediate controversy because Enbridge is refusing to release the names of the communities that have signed up for the deal for “privacy reasons.”

The controversy was heightened late Tuesday when Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway told The Terrace Standard the company’s deal with the Gitxsan First Nation still stands, despite the fact both a majority of the heriditary leadership of the Gitxsan and the elected council have rejected the agreement signed by one chief Elmer Derrick.

A blockade of the Gitxsan treaty office is continuing despite a court injunction ordering an end to the blockade.

“We feel we certainly have an agreement,” said Enbridge official Paul Stanway told the Standard in describing discussions it has subsequently had with Gitxsan officials. Stanway said the deal followed a protocol arrangement signed with Gitxsan chiefs several years ago.

“We are confident we were negotiating with the right people,” he said of discussions with treaty society chief land claims negotiator Elmer Derrick and other society officials.

In addition, Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations issued a news release that called Enbridge’s claims about aboriginal equity partners a “complete sham”.

“We’ve checked with all First Nations on the pipeline route west of Prince George and only two First Nations have signed equity agreements,” Sterritt says in the release. “Enbridge expanded its pipeline corridor by 80 kilometres to increase its numbers. Many of those communities that have signed on are located outside of the areas that will be impacted by a spill.”

Sterritt also challenged Enbridge’s contentions on the Gitxsan deal, saying that the Gitxsan people have made it clear they don’t support the project. “They have strongly rejected the agreement.”

Sterritt concluded. “We intend to stop this project.”

Sterrit says his coastal alliance is “absolutely mystified” about the inclusion of the Metis — who don’t have aboriginal rights and title within the corridor — in Enbridge’s 60 per cent. (Representatives of the Metis have taken part in the Joint Review hearings from the opening days of hearings in Kitimat last January).

Enbridge has announced before that First Nations support the pipeline project but, with the exception of Derrick, has never publicly discussed which nations support the project.

The near simultaneous announcement by Enbridge of First Nation’s support for the pipeline and the statement that the company is sticking with its agreement with Elmer Derrick could raise more controversy by causing more splits within First Nations if a few individuals sign and then the agreement is repudiated by other leaders, as happened with the Gitxsan Nation.

The pipeline which would run more than 1770 kilometres from the Alberta bitumen sands to Kitimat, carrying 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen in the first train and as much as 825,000 barrels in the second train. If everything is approved, Enbridge hopes to ship the bitumen by 2017.

“It’s a good place for us to start in demonstrating that there is aboriginal support for Northern Gateway,” Stanway said. “It’s not 100 per cent, but neither is it the wall of opposition that our opponents sometimes claim.”

The 10 per cent equity ownership for the First Nations who signed the deal will give them about $280 million over 30 years. They would see cash flow starting in the first year of the pipeline’s operation.

There are 45 First Nations along the pipeline, but Stanway wouldn’t give a final figure on how many signed on.

“Some of those are willing to partner with us. That’s not to say they still don’t have some concerns. They want to make sure that we build and operate the pipeline as safety as possible.”

Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine First Nation in Burns Lake, B.C., the Canadian Press (as reported on the Global BC site) he refused to sign the equity agreement because Enbridge was unwilling to release more details in the contract.

“I’d been asking for the financial figures and I’d been asking about the employment. They said there would be a lot of employment.”

Adam told CP it appeared to him that there would be few jobs available for his people. Hesaid there was a flurry of emails and phone calls from Enbridge officials after the company moved the deadline for signing the equity agreement up to May 31.
Related links

Reuters: Enbridge Northern Gateway wins some native support

Globe and Mail: Some first nations want equity in Northern Gateway, but opposition remains

Common Sense Canadian Tough Questions for Enbridge on its Alleged Support from First Nations

CBC Majority of aboriginal communities sign on to Northern Gateway

TransCanada to build Shell’s “Coastal Gaslink” natural gas pipeline to Kitimat

Shell Canada and its Asian partners have chosen TransCanada Corporation to design, build, own and operate the proposed natural gas pipline to Kitimat, now called the Coastal GasLink project.

The estimated $4-billion pipeline will transport natural gas from the Montney gas-producing region near Dawson Creek, in northeastern British Columbia to the proposed natural gas export facility at Kitimat, BC.

The LNG Canada project is a joint venture led by Shell, with partners Korea Gas Corporation, Mitsubishi Corporation and PetroChina Company Limited.

A news release from TransCanada says “Shell and TransCanada are working toward the execution of definitive agreements on the Coastal GasLink project.”

In the release, Russ Girling, TransCanada president and CEO says:

Our team has the expertise to design, build and safely operate pipeline systems. We look forward to having open and meaningful discussions with Aboriginal communities and key stakeholder groups, including local residents, elected officials and the Government of British Columbia, where we will listen to feedback, build on the positive and seek to address any potential concerns. Coastal GasLink will add value to British Columbians, particularly Aboriginals and communities along the conceptual route, by creating real jobs, making direct investments in communities during construction and providing economic value for years to come.

TransCanada says the company has approximately 24,000 kilometres of pipelines in operation in western Canada including 240 kilometres of pipelines in service in northeast BC. Another 125 kilometres of proposed additions either already having received regulatory approval or currently undergoing regulatory review. These pipelines form an integral and growing part of TransCanada’s NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) System, which brings natural gas from Alberta to British Columbia to a hub near Vanderhoof.

Girling said in the release:

TransCanada is a leading energy infrastructure company in North America, with a 60-year history of safe, efficient and reliable operation of our assets and a respect for the communities and environments where we operate. We appreciate the confidence that Shell and its partners have placed in us to build, own and operate this natural gas pipeline in British Columbia. We will work collaboratively with them, Aboriginals and other stakeholders as we launch into the initial phases of consultation and regulatory review.

Project parameters

In it’s release TransCanada describes the potential Coastal GasLink pipeline project this way:

Receipt point: Near Dawson Creek, BC
Delivery point: Proposed LNG Canada facility near Kitimat, BC
Product: Natural gas from BC’s abundant Montney, Horn River and Cordova basins and elsewhere from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
Length of route: Approximately 700 kilometres of large diameter pipe
Initial pipeline capacity: In excess of 1.7 billion cubic feet of gas per day
Anticipated jobs: Estimated 2000-2500 direct construction jobs over a 2- during construction 3 year construction period
Estimated cost: Detailed cost information will be developed following completion of project scoping and planning. The current estimate is approximately $4 billion
Regulatory process: Applications for required regulatory approvals are expected to be made through applicable BC provincial and Canadian federal processes
Estimated in-service date: Toward the end of the decade, subject to regulatory and corporate approvals

Pipeline route

TransCanada says: “The final pipeline route will take into consideration Aboriginal and stakeholder input, the environment, archaeological and cultural values, land use compatibility, safety, constructability and economics.:

The Pacific Trails Pipeline would go cross country to Kitimat. (PTP)

At this point there are two possible routes for the pipeline west of Vanderhoof. One route would be to follow the existing Pacific Northern Gas route that roughly parallels Highway 16. The second possibility is a cross-country route, which may lead to controversy. The Pacific Trails Pipeline, which would feed the KM LNG partners (Apache, Encana and EOG) goes across the mountains from Smithers. While the PTP project has the approval of most First Nations in the regions, Apache and PTP are still in negotiations with some Wet’suwet’en houses over portions where the pipeline would cross the traditional territory of the houses. The much more controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline follows a similar cross-country route and faces much stiffer opposition than the Pacific Trails Pipeline, due to the content of that pipeline, mainly diluted bitumen and because, critics say, Pacific Trails managed to secure the most geologically stable cross country route earlier in this decade when the pipeline was originally planned to import, not export, natural gas.

TransCanada says the Coast Gaslink pipeline will also have an interconnection with the existing Nova Gas (NGTL System and the liquid NIT) trading hub operated by TransCanada. The company says:

A proposed contractual extension of TransCanada’s NGTL System using capacity on the Coastal GasLink pipeline, to a point near the community of Vanderhoof, BC, will allow NGTL to offer delivery service to its shippers interested in gas transmission service to interconnecting natural gas pipelines serving the West Coast. NGTL expects to elicit interest in and commitments for such service through an open season process in late 2012.

That means that the Asian customers will not be just dependent on natural gas from northeast British Columbia. Instead the “molecules” of natural gas from Alberta will join the stream heading to Kitimat. “Open season” in the energy industry is an auction where potential customers or transporters bid for use the pipeline.

In the release Girling says:

The potential Coastal GasLink pipeline project will allow British Columbians, and all Canadians, to benefit from the responsible development of valuable natural gas resources and will provide access to new markets for that gas. The project will also create substantial employment opportunities for local, skilled labourers and businesses as part of our construction team,” concluded Girling. “We know the value and benefits that strong relationships in British Columbia can bring to this project and we look forward to deepening those ties as our extensive pipeline network grows to meet market and customer needs.

TransCanada Corp. is no stranger to controversy, the company is the main proponent of the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the US Gulf Coast. Portions of that pipeline were put on hold by President Barack Obama pending further review and Keystone has become a hot issue in the current American presidential election.

BC refuses to answer questions from Douglas Channel Watch, because province hasn’t filed Gateway evidence

Updated with comment from Douglas Channel Watch and DCW questions to province.

The province of British Columbia is refusing to answer questions from the Kitimat group Douglas Channel Watch about the Northern Gateway pipeline project because, the province’s lawyer says, BC hasn’t filed any evidence and so doesn’t have answer questions through the Joint Review Process.

In a filing on May 28, Christopher Jones, counsel for BC before the JRP says:

the province of British Columbia wishes to advise that it will not be responding to this information request as the Province has not filed evidence in this proceeding.

In the letter Jones invites Douglas Channel Watch to contact him so the group can ask questions from the “appropriate offiicial.”

The fact that the province is brushing off Douglas Channel Watch raises an even larger question, why hasn’t the province filed any evidence in one of the biggest environmental, economic and political stories in provincial history?

The filing from Douglas Channel Watch was an attempt to find out who would be financially responsible for any oil spill resulting from a pipeline breach near Kitimat that could threaten the District’s water supply, a major issue with the Kitimat based environmental group.

In an early filing with the Joint Review Panel Enbridge said.

Regardless of whether or not insurance covers losses and liabilities of Northern Gateway and/or third parties, Northern Gateway would make good the damages which it has caused. Recovery ofthese costs under Northern Gateway’s procured insurance programs would be governed by the general laws of insurance, the terms and conditions of the insurance policies and Northern Gateway’s obligations to its insurers regarding the reporting, investigation and adjustment of its incurred costs in making good the damages.

Enbridge then goes on to list the standard exclusions from insurance policies.

Criminal intent

Wilful misconduct or intent

Deliberate destruction

Intentional violation of any statute, rule, ordinance or regulation

Non-compliance with reporting and notification requirements

Breach of contract

Unfair trade, competition or deceptive acts

Nuclear liability

War, terrorism, rebellions, civil war or civil strife

In their questions to the province, Douglas Channel Watch emphasized the phrase that Enbridge would “make good the damages which it has caused.” Douglas Channel Watch then emphasized the insurance exclusion for war, terrorism or civil strife.

The group was then asking the province what its responsibility would be, especially when a pipeline goes through forested areas, which come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Lands and Forests.

Douglas Channel Watch is specifically concerned that

In the upper Kitimat River and Hoult Creek valleys there are very large logging clear cuts on steep slopes. The proponent intends to locate its pipelines near the bottom of these clear cuts

The main question to the province from Douglas Channel Watch is that if a landslide results from a clear cut in a geologically unstable area, and that landslide breaches the pipeline, who is responsible for the cleanup, asking these questions, which the province refused to answer:

Could this allow the proponent to avoid paying for third party damages and clean up costs if an avalanche and/or debris slide which initiates in a logging clear cut… for example, a 2,000,000 litre full bore diluted bitumen pipeline rupture into Hoult Creek or the Kitimat River?

Would not those damages to third parties and clean up costs then be paid by the party responsible ?

Would the responsible party be the Government of BC for allowing the pipelines to be located in areas which violate safe logging practices where linear infrastructure may be impacted?

If the Government of Canada imposes a decision to allow the proponents project over the objections of the Government of BC or the recommendation of the Joint Review Panel, would the Government of Canada then be the responsible party?

Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch responded by noting. “It may be true the Prov of BC hasn’t submitted evidence, but they have been involved in the JRP process” by filing questions to Enbridge.

Meanwhile, Douglas Channel Watch is organizing a public forum called North Coast Reality Check at the Kitimat Riverlodge Recreation Centre on June 8 from 7 pm to 9 pm.

In a news release, Minchin, says presentations will be given by DCW members highlighting many serious issues Enbridge prefers not to talk about, such as geological and marine hazards, corrosion in double hull tankers, and socio-economic impacts of the Northern Gateway proposal.

Response from BC to IR from Douglas Channel Watch (PDF)

Douglas Channel Watch Information Request to Government of BC (PDF)

BC Government questions to Enbridge

Province of BC Information question No 1 Northern Gateway project (PDF)

Province of BC Information Request 2 (PDF)

Kitimat to “fully participate” in Northern Gateway Joint Review procedural planning meeting: Council

The District of Kitimat will “fully participate” in the Northern Gateway Joint Review procedural planning meeting conference call on May 30, Councillor Rob Goffinet told Northwest Coast Energy News Wednesday, May 23.

Goffinet said the District had been aware of the problem of the JRP bypassing Kitimat for the questioning and final argument phases of the hearings and took steps to register for the planning meeting to be held in Calgary on May 30.

Goffinet, saying he was speaking on behalf of Mayor Joanne Monaghan and the entire council, said as many members as possible will attend, along with District staff, listening in to the conference call from a board room in the District offices in City Centre.

Both the Haisla Nation and the province of British Columbia have filed formal objections to the JRP’s plans to bypass Kitimat for the final sets of hearings.

District of Kitimat Participation at Procedural Conference of 30 May (pdf)

BC, Haisla, file objections to JRP bypassing of Kitimat; Enbridge likes venues, avoids the tanker problem

Both the province of British Columbia and the Haisla Nation have filed strong objections with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel about the panel’s plans to bypass Kitimat for the questioning and final argument phases of its examination of the controversial pipeline project.

At present, the Joint Review Panel plans to hold questioning hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and either Calgary or Edmonton and final arguments in Prince Rupert and Calgary/Edmonton.

And if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wanted to speed up the hearings and therefore approval of the Northern Gateway project, filings from all sides indicate more time is needed than the two months allocated by the JRP.

The JRP secreteriat plan a meeting in Calgary on May 30 to consider the procedures. The three panel members will not attend. A large number of intervenors or government participants will be represented in person or take part in a conference call.

The lawyer for the Haisla Nation, Jennifer Griffiths, points out in her filing with the JPR, “Prince Rupert is not a logical location for any of the hearings.”

Updated: The District of Kitimat, which is registered as a “government intervenor” will participate in the conference call.

The law firm representing the Enbridge Northern Gateway, agrees with the JRP preliminary decision to hold the hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and Calgary or Edmonton. However, Enbridge’s lawyer Richard Neufeld, of Fraser, Milner, Casgrain, makes it clear that for those hearings they are not involved in the operation of tankers carrying the bitumen they sell to customers.

This includes a marine terminal at Kitimat. Northern Gateway recognizes the interest of the public, government, and First Nations in respect of the potential effects of ships calling on the proposed marine terminal, but it is important to bear in mind that Northern Gateway will not own or operate any marine vessels. No approvals are sought, or required, for such operations, as they are subject only to laws of general application which apply to all shipping into or out of Canadian ports.

The Ecojustice group, also known as the Sustainability Coalition, an alliance of the Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation and ForestEthicsAdvocacy wants hearings in Vancouver. The Coastal First Nations also want the hearings in Vancouver.

The Wet’suwet’en want more hearing locations especially in the areas of the proposed route to address those most affected, telling the JRP:

The Office of the Wet’suwet’en (OW) is localized in Smithers, BC, our territory is 22,000 square kilometres and 170 kilometres is proposed to be crossed by NGP prior to crossing the coastal mountain range. The OW requests that hearings be held in Smithers or Burns Lake for full days rather than half days to reduce travel and accommodation costs for intervenors.

In the provincial filing, Christopher Jones, counsel for British Columbia says:

the Province submits that it is essential for a portion of the final hearings to take place in Kitimat. Kitimat is the proposed location of one terminus of the proposed pipeline, and of the proposed marine terminal. As a result, that locality has a particular interest in these proceedings. There are sufficient facilities and transport access to Kitimat to allow the hearings to take place there…..

The letter from Jones goes on to stay that BC believes “the Province would again submit that certain issues should be dealt with at Kitimat” rather than Prince Rupert.

Griffith, of the Vancouver law firm, Donavan and Company, filing on behalf of the Haisla Nation says:

The Haisla Nation questions why no final hearings are proposed for Kitimat. Given the significant new infrastructure associated with the project that is proposed to be located in the Kitimat area, Kitimat is a logical location for hearings. Kitimat is serviced by the Terrace airport, which is only 56 km away. Kitimat also has dock facilities for parties who may be travelling to the hearings by boat. Finally, there is ample accommodation in the Kitimat I Terrace area. Prince Rupert is not a logical location for any of the hearings. The proposed pipeline does not go near Prince Rupert, the terminal is far from Prince Rupert, the tankers would go through Douglas Channel, not past Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert is not accessible to the Haisla Nation by way of a direct flight.

Griffith also says the final arguments should be held either in Kitimat or Vancouver.

The Haisla Nation will have to participate in every aspect of the hearings. Yet the Panel is currently not proposing to hold any of the questioning phase or final hearings in Kitimat. As set out in the comments below, the Haisla Nation is of the view that the questioning and final hearing locations slated for the western terminus of the project should be held in Kitimat, not in Prince Rupert.

Enbridge, on the other hand, through its lawyer, Richard Neufeld, says:

Northern Gateway agrees with the Panel’s observations regarding the need to select hearing venues that are centrally located, have adequate facilities and reasonable transportation access for the large numbers of witnesses and back-up support personal required. Northern Gateway also agrees that Prince Rupert, Prince George and Calgary/Edmonton meet these criteria. Northern Gateway also agrees that if economic issues are to be dealt with in a single venue, it would be appropriate to do so in Calgary or Edmonton. Of the two, Calgary would be a more logical location given its convenience for those participating in that aspect of the proceeding.

Enbridge also has reservations about the process, while it wants the hearings “streamlined,” the company is concerned about the plan to split the hearings into various issues could be “prejudicial” to the project.

Northern Gateway expects that the Panel is considering an issues-based hearing in an effort to streamline the hearing process, and to make the process more accessible to those who want to participate only when specific issues or topics are under discussion. Both objectives are laudable.

However, an issues-based hearing format has the effect of forcing the Applicant to split its case into multiple parts. This is potentially prejudicial to the Applicant – especially if the issues identified for litigation do not correspond to the manner in which the Application has been structured.

The EcoJustice group wants hearings in Vancouver, largely because many of its members are there, with staff lawyer Barry Robinson, saying to the JRP:

The Coalition recommends that the Panel consider adding a fourth hearing location in Vancouver. The Coalition notes that, logistically, many of the witnesses and counsel that would appear in Prince Rupert would travel through Vancouver. If the vast majority of the witnesses and counsel to appear on any given issue will be required to travel from or through Vancouver, the Coalition recommends that the issue be heard in Vancouver to reduce travel costs and related greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the Coalition is sensitive to the needs of local intervenors in the Prince Rupert area and would ask that the Panel use its discretion in allocating topics to be heard in Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

And later:

The Coalition recommends that the Panel consider hearing final argument in Vancouver as a third location. The Coalition is supportive of the Panel providing an option for remote participation.

Coastal First Nations have a similar proposal. Art Sterritt, Executive Director says:

the JRP should consider holding hearings on marine issues in Vancouver with video links to Prince Rupert and Kitimat as a way of reducing the costs to Intervenors (many experts and legal and technical representatives live in the lower mainland) and in recognition that Kitimat is the proposed site of the Marine Terminal and that there are many people in the lower mainland who use the area for recreational, commercial fishing and other uses.

It appears that there will soon be controversy over the time allotted both for questioning and final arguments. The Haisla, other First Nations and Ecojustice and even Northern Gateway appear to want more time for questioning and cross-examination, while, for example, the Canadian Association of Petroluem Producers, the industry representative says it:

is still considering the scope and extent of its participation in questioning during the final hearings. CAPP will work with other intervenors in order to minimize the overall time required for cross examination.

It is clear that Enbridge Northern Gateway is planning tough cross-examination of the intervenors and their evidence:

Northern Gateway intends to cross-examine each of the authors of reports prepared for Interveners opposing the Project, and filed as written evidence. In some cases, the evidence filed with the Panel does not identify authorship, which makes it impossible to specify who will be cross-examined. Materials filed by certain interveners also include information collected through means such as access to information requests, which also makes it impossible to identify who might speak to such evidence if it is allowed to remain on the record.

Northern Gateway’s review of the written evidence filed by interveners has identified approximately forty five detailed reports that have been prepared for this proceeding. Reports of a more basic variety, those that provide general information on traditional use matters and reports of marginal relevance need not be subject to extensive cross-examination by Northern Gateway (if at all). Although no final decision has been made, for planning purposes the Panel should allot approximately twenty hearing days for cross-examination by Northern Gateway. Once a decision has been made on hearing venues and format, we will provide a more definitive estimate to Panel counsel and to counsel for the interveners involved. Where Northern Gateway does not consider it necessary to cross-examine a particular author, we will advise others of that so as to avoid unnecessary expense and inconvenience.

The Coastal First Nations are also planning tough cross-examination:

Coastal First Nations intends to cross-examine NGP, Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, CEAA (as crown consultation coordinator and expert on environmental assessment methodology) and possibly the Government of B.C. These cross examinations will focus on risk assessment, spill response, measures to prevent incidents, and reduce risk of spills, consequences of spills, and Aboriginal consultation. Naturally, until the JRP approves the government participants we wish to cross-examine, and NGP identifies the witnesses they will present, it is difficult to determine the amount of time needed for cross-examination. It would likely take several hours of cross-examination for each party.

The Hasila say:

The Haisla Nation does not have any input into the proposed general schedule as set out above, but does question the two-month period provisionally allotted for the questioning phase in accordance with the revised Hearing Order. The Haisla Nation anticipates that the questioning phase will require substantially more than two months.

The Wet’suwet’en also object to the short notice given for the May 30 procedural meeting:

The estab!ishment of this regulatory process is insufficient to afford meaningful consultation to the Wet’suwet’en. We are hard pressed to try and prepare our hereditary leaders and clan speakers in such short notice, especially with a long weekend within the timeframe, some of our leaders and speakers are out on the territories preparing themselves for their summer traditional food gathering, and cultural activities. There is insufficient time given to the Wet’suwet’en for this process.

The Wet’suwet’en say (and this likely applies to other BC First Nations) that hearings as proposed could make it difficult to consult with elders saying “discussions with hereditary leaders and elders must take place, as per our custom…”

All of this comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resoures minister Joe Oliver and many in the right-wing media want the hearings sped up, which means the May 30 meeting may be heated and any decision politically charged.

JRP filings from

Province of British Columbia (pdf)

Haisla Nation (pdf)

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (pdf)

EcoJustice (Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, ForestEthics Advocacy Sustainability Coalition) (pdf)

CAPP (pdf)

Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative (pdf)

Office of the Wet’suwet’en (pdf)

Government of Canada (pdf)

Apache expects first LNG cargo from Kitimat in 2016

Map of Apache Corp LNG projects in the Pacific Region — A map of Apache Corp's liquified natural gas projects, including Ktimat, as presented to the UBS conference on May 22, 2012 (Apache)

Apache said Tuesday, May 22, 2012, that it expects the first LNG cargo leave the Kitimat terminal for Asia sometime in 2016, with possible further expansion in the future.

Patrick Cassidy, director of Apache’s Investor relations division, was making a presentation to the UBS Global Oil and Gas Conference in Houston, Texas, on the company’s future plans.

One slide in the Power Point presentation summed up Apache’s Pacific strategy, both at Kitimat and its chief rival, the Wheatstone project in Western Australia.

Apache said the final investment decision for the first train or phase the Kitimat LNG is still expected later this year. Previous reports have indicated the decision will likely come in the fourth quarter as Apache and its partners line up customers in Asia.

Originally the KM LNG partners said the project would start up in 2015, but delays, including the unusually harsh winter in Kitimat, which slowed construction at the Bish Cove site, and the search for customers for the natural gas, has pushed the date back to 2016.

Apache Corp. owns 40 per cent the KM LNG partnership, Canada’sEncana Corp. and EOG Resources each own 30 per cent each.

Two other projects are planned for Kitimat, the smaller BC LNG co-owned by Houston-based investors and the Haisla Nation and a larger project announced last week by Royal Dutch Shell.

LINK: Apache presentation to UBS Conference

Editorial: It’s time for the District of Kitimat to play hardball on Gateway

EDITORIAL

Who speaks for Kitimat?

Someone has to speak for Kitimat on the Northern Gateway project.

The District of Kitimat Council no longer has a choice. It’s time to play hardball with Ottawa and Enbridge on the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

You can’t negotiate from a position of weakness.

The game of pipelines changed forever in recent weeks, when the Conservative government introduced Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act.

Bill C-38, which passed Second Reading on May 14, 2012 is an affront to basic democratic principles, a 425 page omnibus monster that will not permit the kind of careful consideration of major changes in Canadian society that what was once normal in a free and democratic society. The omnibus bill not only concerns the federal budget but also repeals the environmental assessment process and guts fisheries protection for the smaller spawning streams where salmon are born. By giving the federal cabinet the power to overrule the National Energy Board, the decision on the pipeline rests with just one man, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has made no secret that he intends to push the project through no matter how fierce the opposition to the project.

This week has seen devastating cutbacks along the west coast, to environmental monitoring and pollution control, to Coast Guard protection. It is now clear that protection of the environment along the BC coast and the lives of the mariners who sail those waters are of little importance to Ottawa, and of no importance to the war room types counting votes in Alberta and suburban ridings outside Toronto and Vancouver.

The District of Kitimat Council has voted to wait to make a decision until after the report of the Joint Review Panel, when “all information” is available.

The news this week that the Joint Review Panel decided to bypass Kitimat, that the town that is to be the terminal of the proposed pipeline is irrelevant to the process, shows more than any other move what the JRP thinks of Kitimat. Not much.

The Joint Review Panel has lost all credibility. Even if the JRP does produce a fair and honest report with valid recommendations for conditions and restrictions, it is highly unlikely that those recommendations will be fully implemented, because the final decision will be made in the Prime Minster’s Office and that decision will be build, baby, build.

Media reports in recent months have shown that Enbridge has easy access to the senior levels of the Conservative government and Enbridge lobbying preceded the changes to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38. Enbridge walks the halls of power in Ottawa. Kitimat, on the other hand, counts for little, as the JRP schedule clearly shows.

So, for example, even if the Joint Review Panel recommends strict conditions on the pipeline to insure the safety of Kitimat’s water supply, and if Enbridge doesn’t like those conditions, there is no guarantee that Harper and the cabinet will implement those recommendations. That would leave the District of Kitimat holding the water barrel for several years.

(One of the many reasons, it seems, that the JRP wants to have all the northwest hearings is in Prince Rupert is so the high-priced energy lawyers from Calgary can have comfortable accommodation. So, if any protests from the District and the Haisla Nation are successful and there actually are final hearings in Kitimat, perhaps the District could arrange for the lawyers to camp in Radley Park, so they can actually grasp the realities of living in Kitimat by the Kitimat River.)

The District of Kitimat Council has a duty to make sure that this region is protected.

So what does this mean?

“Armed neutrality”

It is now too late for the District Council to take a position for or against the pipeline. It no longer matters whether Mayor and Councillors support the pipeline, are sitting on the fence or oppose the pipeline. Bill C-38 has made the decision for the Council.

Council must assume that Stephen Harper will impose the pipeline on Kitimat and will impose conditions that could be determinable to the District in favour of Alberta and Enbridge.

From now on Council must unify and work to protect the District from Stephen Harper. The Council must make sure that the District is an aggressive force at any negotiating table or court battle.

That means Council should retain its position of neutrality, leaving opposition to the pipeline to others like Douglas Channel Watch. Given the growing witch hunt against the environmental movement, an official position of neutrality is negotiating from a position of strength and protects the District from any accusation that “radicals” are distorting the District’s position.

In international affairs, countries like Switzerland and Sweden are neutral, robustly neutral. Both Switzerland and Sweden practice what is called “armed neutrality.”

“Armed neutrality” means that Kitimat Council can no longer continue its current wishy-washy neutrality, arguing over the nuances of words in letters to the Joint Review Panel and Enbridge. To protect Kitimat, Council must adopt its own policy of “armed neutrality,” an aggressive stance that represents the entire community, both opponents and supporters of the pipeline.

So what now?

Professional advice

The announcement this week that Shell is planning to build a liquified natural gas facility in Kitimat, in combination with the KMLNG and BC LNG projects plus Enbridge, means it is vital for the District to have independent, professional advice on energy issues.

The District must immediately start paying much closer attention to the all the relevant documents that are filed with the Joint Review Panel. The District Council and staff must have their own independent advisers rather than juggling the views of Douglas Channel Watch and Enbridge and hoping for the best. That means hiring more professionals to supplement current staff that will understand the technicalities of both the Enbridge pipeline and the LNG projects; staff who can advise the senior administration and Council about how to proceed where the issues of the pipeline construction, terminal construction and management of the terminal come under municipal jurisdiction or could adversely affect the municipality.

That takes money, even though money is tight, Council must budget for that staff. When it comes to negotiating factors within the responsibility of the municipality, Kitimat must be at the table at full strength.

All the way to the Supreme Court

It is now certain that after Stephen Harper orders the pipeline to go ahead, disputes over the Northern Gateway Pipeline will end up in the courts. Lawyers are already talking about the constitutional necessity to consult First Nations, that pushing the pipeline across aboriginal traditional territory will violate Rights and Title.

First Nations across British Columbia are already represented by some of the best lawyers in Canada.

Vancouver is already looking at what powers a municipality has to make sure that city is fully protected in case of a catastrophic tanker accident from the Kinder Morgan pipeline and project.

Yes, the District is wary because of the long and bitter fight over power allocation, but that is in the past. Again Bill C-38 gives the District no choice but to prepare for new legal battles, probably all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The District of Kitimat must immediately budget for, seek out, retain and instruct a law firm that can advise the District on its rights and responsibilities now and in the future once the Harper government imposes the pipeline on Kitimat. As we have seen from the Joint Review and other National Energy Board hearings, the energy industry hires the best lawyers money can buy.

If Kitimat has to face those lawyers, the District can’t act like a Junior B team facing the NHL All-Stars. That law firm should be able to advise Kitimat on the constitutional issues involved and what powers a municipality has to protect the community from unwanted and unwarranted aspects of pipeline and tanker development. That law firm must also be able to participate in hardball business negotiations.

Seeking Alliances

The District must build better bridges with the Haisla Nation and find where there is common ground in the Kitimat region as Stephen Harper imposes the pipeline on the northwest. They may be arguments before the courts or with Enbridge where both the Haisla and the District of Kitimat are allies in a fight.

Stephen Harper and his government are prepared to impose the pipeline, terminals and tanker traffic on northwestern British Columbia, again no matter what local municipalities and regions say. All the environmental and Coast Guard safeguards that might have brought acceptance of the Enbridge project are being cut to the bone. That means Kitimat must also forge alliances with those municipalities and regions, again to make sure that local rights and responsibilities are fully protected once the government decides to impose the pipeline on the northwest.

It is highly likely that the constitutional consultation and Rights and Title cases on the pipeline will end up at the Supreme Court of Canada. If there are other cases, perhaps raised by Vancouver or other Lower Mainland or northern communities or even the Province of British Columbia, it may be that the Supreme Court, as it has with some cases in the past, could consolidate all the pipeline cases into one. That means Kitimat will need to be a participant in any case on the pipeline before the Supreme Court.

Unless District of Kitimat Council starts playing hardball, Stephen Harper will drive a bulldozer down bank of the Kitimat River to Douglas Channel, ignoring the council standing and watching from the hill looking over the pipeline trench.

Alterra acquires coastal island wind farms to supply LNG plants, but how will it get to Kitimat?

Updated with Alterra comments.
A Vancouver-based energy company, Alterra Power Corp, today, May 18, 2012, announced the acquisition of three wind farm sites off the northernwestern British Columbia coast.

A news release from Alterra notes that the three “early-stage wind farm” sites, on Banks Island, Porcher Island and McCauley Island are “all within 150 kilometres of several proposed power-intensive LNG plant sites at Kitimat.”

The three sites plus one on Vancouver island will have an estimated generation capacity of over 1,000 megawatts for the four sites.

Alterra acquired the sites from English Bay Energy Limited. Alterra says “the sellers will receive royalty payments during the operations phase of the projects, and under certain circumstances the sellers may receive additional compensation of up to 1.34 million Alterra shares.”

The release quotes John Carson, Alterra’s Chief Executive Officer, as saying, “This transaction further positions us to play a major role in B.C.’s clean energy future. We look forward to advancing and ultimately building these wind projects as a part of the continued growth of Alterra and British Columbia.”

Satellite map of BC showing Kitimat and wind farm locations — A satellite image of northwestern BC showing the location of Kitimat and the three islands that are the location of the proposed windfarms to supply to Kitimat’s LNG projects. (Satellite image NASA/MODIS)

When informed of the announcement, Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan asked, “How are they going to get it here?”

While the three islands are within 150 kilometres of Kitmat, any transmission lines would have to somehow cross the Inside Passage and its heavy ship traffic, including cruise ships, ferries, fishing vessels and bulk carriers (not to mention potentially tankers), and then also get over some of the most rugged mountain territory in Canada to reach any of the three liquified natural gas sites in Kitimat.

“I know that all of the LNG plants considering coming in here, including Shell, are talking about co-gen [co-generation of electricity using natural gas], because if they don’t do co-generation they’re going to have to bring all of this in from the Site C Dam and that is going to make it totally out of the range of their price,” Monaghan said. She also remarked that the cost of building transmission lines from the three off shore islands could also be prohibitive.

Alterra spokesman Anders Kruus said that supplying power from the islands to Kitimat a major consideration but added it “would not be an insurmountable problem.”

He said the company’s predecessor before a merger, Plutonic Power, had built “the province’s largest run-of-river hydro facility at Toba Inlet not far from Powell River (80 kilometres) and in the process of building that, beause the run-of-river facilty was quite far back, not accessible by roadway, you have to barge in, we built a 120 kilmetre long tranmission line out to Saltery Bay. So we’ve done it over the mountains.” Kruus said.

“It’s early days,” Kruus said and the company now plans to compile more wind data before proceeding. He acknowledged that the “intermittency of the wind” could be a problem with an LNG plant that requires a consistent, balanced power load and so the best “off-taker” (customer) for the wind energy electricity might likely be BC Hydro who could balance the power from the project within its own system before supplying it to customers.

On its website, Alterra Power Corp describes itself as

a leading global renewable energy company, formed in 2011 through the merger of Magma Energy Corp and Plutonic Power Corp. We operate six power plants totaling 570 MW of capacity, including two geothermal facilities in Iceland, a geothermal plant in Nevada, British Columbia’s largest run of river hydro facilities and the province’s largest wind farm. Our 300 MW share of production generates over 1,400 GWh of clean power annually. We have an extensive portfolio of exploration and development projects, a skilled international team of explorers, builders and operators as well as the strong financial capacity to support our aggressive growth plans.

Northern Gateway Joint Review questioning and final argument hearings skip Kitimat, most of the northwest BC pipeline route

The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel questioning hearings and final arguments will bypass Kitimat and most of the communities along the proposed pipeline route, according to a letter to all intervenors from the JRP prompted by questions from the Gitxaala Nation.

The Joint Review Panel has not yet issued an official and final procedural directive concerning the final hearings, and in response to the Gitxaala letter, the JRP secreteriat will convene a conference on May 30, in Calgary to set up that procedure. The three panel members will not be present at the conference.

In the letter to the intervenors, the JRP proposes:

Final hearings for questioning will take place in three locations. The Panel intends to hold these hearings in Prince Rupert, BC, Prince George, BC and either Edmonton or Calgary, AB. These locations are centrally located, have adequate facilities and reasonable transportation access. Would fewer than three locations be appropriate? What are your comments on the locations chosen by the Panel?

As for the final argument hearings, the Joint Review Panel says:

The Panel anticipates allowing parties to present final argument either: (i) orally;
or (ii) in writing. On an exception basis, parties may request permission of the
Panel to allow final argument on a specific topic both in writing and orally.
The Panel anticipates holding hearings for final argument in two locations;
namely Prince Rupert, BC and either Edmonton or Calgary, AB. Mechanisms will
be established to allow parties to participate remotely (i.e. via telephone or other
electronic means). Do you have any input on these locations?

For the questioning period, the Joint Review Panel says it anticipates that it will sit from Monday to Saturday for two week periods, followed by a one week break. Standard sitting hours would be from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Cheryl Brown, representing the Kitimat group Douglas Channel Watch, has already objected to the fact the Joint Review Panel has apparently decided to bypass Kitimat.

The location of the panel should include Kitimat as it is the community
experiencing the highest impact from the project -land and marine. The citizens
of Kitimat need to have the opportunity to hear the proceedings and how it will
potentially impact their future. Accommodations can be provided in Terrace with
bus transportation provided if needed and this is standard practice for other large
events. Air travel into Terrace/Kitimat is reasonable with good transportation to
Kitimat. Rupert has some exposure to the project but to justify that the hearings
take place there due to adequate facilities, that it is central and has reasonable
transportation access is not valid. Rupert is not central for the Northwest and the
issue of getting from the terminal to the city by ferry is hardly reasonable.

The proposed schedule seems adequate. For intervenors with limited financial
resources any length of stay outside their own area can be difficult.

Note that in its letter the JRP asks: “Would fewer than three locations be appropriate?” There is no suggestion that the number of locations be expanded.

This is despite the fact throughout the hearings, Sheila Leggett, the chair has repeatedly told intervenors in each location to hold back their comments until the final hearings. In addition, during the intervenor phase of the hearings, questioning was not permitted, only statements on local or traditional knowledge.

The JRP letter to intervenors goes on to say

The Panel intends to have questioning on oral evidence completed prior to
questioning based on written evidence pertaining to the List of Issues.
Questioning of witness panels will proceed at each location based on issues.
These issues largely mirror the List of Issues set out in the Hearing Order (dated
5 May 2011) and discussed in the Panel Session Results and Decision (dated
19 January 2011). The Panel intends to address each issue listed below in
relation to the entire Project at only one location. The location for each issue is
as follows:

Prince Rupert

(a) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on Aboriginal Interests
(socio-economic matters; asserted and proven Aboriginal and treaty
rights)
(b) Environmental Effects
(c) Socioeconomic Effects
(d) Consultation (with the public and Aboriginal groups)
(e) Safety, Accident Prevention and Response (related to the marine
terminal and marine transportation)

Prince George

(a) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on Landowners and Land
Use (pipeline crossings; depth of cover; impacts on agricultural soils)
(b) Routing (general route of the pipeline and route selection criteria).
General location of the facilities and siting of a marine terminal.
(c) Design, Construction and Operation
(d) Follow up and monitoring
(e) Safety, Accident Prevention and Response (related to the pipeline)

Edmonton or Calgary

(a) Need for the Proposed Project (supply and markets; commercial
support; economic feasibility)
(b) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on commercial interests
(c) Financial and Tolling Matters (tolling structure and methodology;
proposed financing; financial responsibility of the applicant)

The letter asks, “Do you have any additional issues for each hearing location or any input on the general format identified?”

It also asks intervenors questions like: “What parties’ witnesses do you anticipate questioning during the final hearings? What issues do you anticipate you will ask questions about? How much time do you anticipate you will require for questioning for each issue?

The panel says it is considering a process for expert witnesses which would entail having expert witnesses for parties with conflicting opinions seated together in a single witness panel and questioned at the same time, mainly about issues that “are highly technical in nature” so the panel can “assess complex expert evidence, understand differences, and focus on certain technical issues in an efficient manner.”

The letter goes on to say that the panel intends to permit “questioning of witnesses by telephone and is exploring other remote means.”

However, the letter to the Joint Review Panel from Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch clearly shows the kind of problems faced by those “directly affected” by the pipeline if they live in rural northwestern British Columbia.

Technology is limited as I am rural and do not have high speed internet. Could
the use of local video conferencing facilities be utilized. The panel needs to consider that there are many intervenors that are independent in the process and do not have resources to participate that others may have. It bears on the JRP
to ensure there is the ability of all to participate in the process in a reasonably fair and equitable way and the panel needs to consider other ways to configure the hearings

Telephone questioning during the NEB KMLNG (Kitimat LNG) hearings in Kitimat in June was awkward to say the least, and often plagued by technical problems in getting lines up and staying connected. Telephone questioning also meant that the energy industry lawyers actually in the hearing room at Riverlodge had a distinct advantage over the remote questioners.

The letter of the Joint Review Panel by Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch also outlines the issues the environmental group will be trying to bring before the panel:

Here are issues that need to be addressed within the communities highly affected
i.e. Kitimat
•Routing: through the tunnel and the difficult terrain of the Kitimat River,
•Siting of the marine terminal,
•Safety, accident prevention response related to the terminal and marine
transportation, environmental effects on the estuary, Douglas Channel
and marine route.
•Socioeconomic and environmental effects are different across the entire
pipeline. To address then in one place does not allow for adequate
participation by intervenors from other areas to address the areas that are
of concern. A significant number of intervenors are without funding and
are privately involved in the process. The hearings have to acknowledge
this.
•Aboriginal interests are unique to different areas and the costs for travel to
one place would be a burden.
•Consultation with the public needs to be represented in more locations.
The public that has been involved as intervenors do not have resources to
travel. The panel needs to consider this.

Brown goes on to say that the use of expert panels “sounds interesting” but she adds she is “not sure how one would interact with the panel. More details are required.”

The Joint Review Panel’s proposed schedule, which basically eliminates effective participation by those most affected by the pipeline, raises a key question at the national political level. Is the fact the panel is skipping most of the communities involved a return to the National Energy Board tradition that it is nothing more than a private club for Calgary energy lawyers or is it a result of pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver to speed things up?

The controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway twin pipelines, if approved, will transport bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and condensate from Kitimat to Alberta. Although there is significant opposition to the pipeline in British Columbia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made clear the pipeline is a national priority. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has repeatedly condemned people who oppose the pipeline as “radicals.”

Update: District of Kitimat, Haisla Nation to question JRP schedules bypassing Kitimat

In separate e-mails to Northwest Coast Energy News, Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan and Haisla Nation Chief Counselor Ellis Ross both say they will be file objections with the Joint Review Panel questioning the JRP’s position in bypassing Kitimat in both the questioning round and final arguments.

JRP Procedural Direction No 7 (pdf)

JRP letter to all parties Procedural Conference on Final Hearings (pdf)

Letter to JRP from Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch (pdf)