Enbridge | Northwest Coast Energy News

Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District votes to oppose Gateway

The Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District has voted to formally oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The vote on Saturday followed a similar vote by Terrace on Feb. 13.

While Terrace chose to adopt the same resolution against the pipeline and coastal tanker traffic adopted last summer by the Union of BC Municipalities, the SQCRD was more careful, because the resolution had to be seen as not affected the other business for the port of Prince Rupert, especially the lucrative container traffic.

The resolution read.

Therefore, be it resolved that the SQCRD be opposed to any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic as well as bitumen export in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound in British Columbia.

In the preamble to the resolution the regional district says it believes that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will “result in increased crude oil tanker traffic and risk of accidental oil spills in northern coastal waters in British Columbia.

So far, Kitimat, the proposed port, has voted not to take a decision until after the report of the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel.

“This is another powerful statement that elected local governments in Northern British Columbia are opposed to the Enbridge Gateway oil tanker and pipeline project,” said city councillor, Jennifer Rice to the Northern View.

“Any effort to ram this project through will be a direct attack on our First Nations, the fishing industry and other coastal economies. We encourage development, but the risks are too great with this particular proposal.”

JRP rejects Enbridge request on time limit for non-aboriginal intervenors in Gateway hearings

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has rejected a request from Enbridge to limit non-aboriginal intervenors to 10 minutes before the panel.

Northern Gateway had asked that oral evidence during from non-Aboriginal intervnors be limited to “10 minutes of presentation time each, unless the intervenor is able to justify additional time.” Enbridge Northern Gateway argued in a letter filed earlier this week that such a schedule would still enable intervenors to provide oral evidence, and would allow the hearing in Prince Rupert to conclude on Friday.

Enbridge said that, in its opinion, the majority of oral evidence provided by non-Aboriginal participants during the community hearings to date has not met the criteria set out in a procedural ruling released by the panel on January 4. Enbridge argued, correctly, that many of the submissions have included argument or have addressed matters that are properly written evidence.

The panel rejected Enbridge’s motion, saying

The Panel has addressed proper oral evidence in Procedural Direction #4 and will continue to deal with the appropriateness of oral evidence on a case by case basis. Parties who are of the opinion that oral evidence does not comply with Procedural Direction #4 may raise an objection with the Panel during the presentation and the Panel will rule on the objection. At this time the Panel will not set the time limit for oral evidence as requested by Northern Gateway.

The panel went on to repeat (and perhaps clarify) the rules set out in the January procedural directive,which has caused a great deal of confusion in the hearings.

It saysoral evidence should not include:

technical or scientific information;
opinions, views, information or perspectives of others
detailed information on the presenter’s views on the decisions the Panel should make or detailed opinions about the Project;
recommendations whether to approve or not approve the Project and the terms or
conditions that should be applied if the Project were to proceed; or
questions that the presenter wants answered.

The JRP ruling says that “If an oral evidence presentation or any part thereof does not qualify as oral evidence, the Panel will determine whether it is proper for the presentation to continue.”

Prairie municipalities campaign in favour of Northern Gateway pipeline project

It appears that there is a campaign to get rural municipalities on the prairies to campaign with the Joint Review Panel to support the Northern Gateway pipeline.

In the past couple of days, after Terrace voted against the pipeline project , four prairie municipalities have filed letters of comment with the Joint Review Panel supporting both Enbridge and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The communities are Loreburn, Dundurn and Dufferin, all in Saskatchewan and Lac La Biche county in Alberta.

The longest letter comes from Nona Stronski, administrator of Rural Municipality of Loreburn No. 254, a region, according to the letter that has seen a lot of pipeline construction, saying the benefits of having Enbridge pipelines in our municipality has been beneficial in so many areas.

We presently have four pipeline companies who have pipeline running pretty much
from corner to corner through our municipality. They cross the South Saskatchewan River on our west boundary and continue through to the south east corner. The river crossings are always amazing to watch and participate in. ALL efforts are taken to cross the river in such an environmentally safe manner that it has become a zero concern for our council. Enbridge pipeline first came through our municipality in the early 1950’s and their consciousness of river crossing and laying of the pipe through other high risk areas has always been remarkable.

During construction of new pipe installations we have always found that Enbridge goes over the top with regards to road safety issues and restoring road crossings. As we also have a station in our municipality we seem to always have certain upgrades going on and/or integrity digs occurring.

While we see increased traffic during these times we always find the compensation far exceeds the interruption. The one on one contact during the construction is also very much appreciated. We know what is going on, how it will be happening, when and for how long, long before anything
actually occurs. Any special requests we make are always accommodated.

Periods of construction are also hugely beneficial to all the businesses in the surrounding area. The hotels/motels/campgrounds are full to over flowing. The restaurants and services stations are booming. We have even seen new businesses begun specifically to coincide with these times of construction. It has been a win-win situation for the area.

The pipeline companies in our municipality pay 2/3 of the total tax levy of which Enbridge pays the largest portion. I think that speaks volumes as to what that means to our ratepayers. We have the resources available to be able to provide extra services to our ratepayers that many of the municipalities in our surrounding area without pipelines cannot do. We are in the envious position of being able to offer a mill rate considerably lower, in some case half of what our neighbouring municipalities are able to. It has enabled us to keep our equipment up to date and given us the resources to purchase our own road building equipment which in turn has been an added benefit to our ratepayers.

The partnerships that Enbridge has formed within our municipal boundaries are also over and above “any” of the other companies we deal with. They are always called upon to donate to many community projects and always come through. They have assisted in purchasing fire equipment, upgraded the local arena, donated to the local hospital and first responders, assisted financially in a recycling program, etc. They are very community minded and this goes on in other communities surrounding the pipeline.

From the perspective of our municipality we can not say enough good things about having Enbridge pipeline as a ratepayer and corporate partner. If anyone has any concerns regarding seeing a new pipeline come through their area we can only say positive things from our experiences. If anyone has questions we would be open to sharing our experiences with them and invite them to call the office at any time.

Per Vinding, the mayor of Dundurn, Sk, supports the project saying:

We understand that this project would bring substantial employment opportunities for fellow Canadians and with that many dollars would be raised in labour income.

During this time of unease in world regarding financial stability a project such as this is a welcome relief for many people.

The Town of Dundurn is in full support of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. We hope that this project will be the beginning of a turnaround for our current economic status in the world.

In a fax to the panel, the rural municipality of Dufferin says :

The Council would like to forward their full support of this project. The economic impact this project will have, not just regionally, but nationally, is substantial. There is a need for respective levels of government to provide for their support and subsequent approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project

Again, the Council fully supports and respectfully requests all levels of government support and allow this project to proceed.

Peter Kirylchuk, mayor of Lac La Biche County writes that the town has already benefited from oil field activity, adding the project will provide economic benefit to the province [Alberta] by leading to further growth and diversification of markets.

RM of Dufferin (pdf)

Town of Dundurn Letter of Comment (pdf)

Rural Municipality of Loreburn (pdf)

Lac La Biche County Letter of Comment (pdf)

Cullen files objection to Enbridge request for time limit on JRP speakers

Nathan Cullen, MP for Skeena Bulkley Valley, and a candidate for the leadership of the New Democratic Party, has filed a formal objection with the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel to Enbridge’s request that non-aboriginal speakers be limited to just ten minutes, saying he is “shocked at such attempts to change the rules mid-hearings.”

If granted, the time limit would apply beginning at the hearings in Prince Rupert this weekend.

The village of Old Massett on Haida Gwaii also filed a letter of comment objecting to Enbridge’s stance, calling Enbridge’s request “a mockery of the whole [JRP] process.” A number of people who also filed letters of comment on their own behalf objecting to the Enbridge motion.

In his letter, Cullen says:

It is my duty, and right, as Member of Parliament for Skeena-Bulkley Valley to express and defend the views and interests of my constituents. I have spoken with constituents across Northwest British Columbia and most residents in the riding have expressed concerns regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. It is for this reason that I decided to participate in the review process.

When assessing how best to participate, I chose to act as an intervenor, in part, because it offered more than 10 minutes to address the Panel. I am sure the Panel can appreciate that Skeena-Bulkley Valley is one of the largest federal ridings in Canada with diverse communities. Sharing my personal knowledge and breadth of experiences from over seven years representing and working with these communities cannot be done in 10 minutes or in writing. I therefore requested, and was granted, 45 minutes for oral evidence.

It was with grave concern that I read the letter submitted February 13, 2012 – a mere five days before I will speak to the Panel – requesting that non-Aboriginal participants giving oral evidence have their time limited to 10 minutes. I am shocked at such attempts to change the rules mid-hearings.

Cullen says the letter from Ken MacDonald, Vice President Law and Regulatory for Enbridge Northern Gateway covers two seperate issues. The first is that non-Aboriginal participants presenting oral evidence not stray from the guidelines to speak about traditional or personal knowledge. Cullen says “this directive is a fair request.”

He then adds, “limiting speaking time neither guarantees nor is necessary to ensure
that presenters follow the guidelines. I can therefore only read this request as an effort to silence, among others, elected officials.”

Although Cullen says “presenters must diligently ensure that their oral evidence is within the realms established by all Procedural Directions” and adds “ The Panel has its set of tools that it can use to ensure that speakers do not stray from those directives and it should remain
in the hands of the Panel to make such judgments,” experience at the hearings shows that whether the witness is aboriginal or non-aboriginal, there is usually a grey line between recounting traditional or personal knowledge and expressing fears based on that knowledge. The panel permits the former but tries to cut off “arguments” when the witness crosses that grey line.

Cullen concludes, “I can assure you I have prepared my evidence with this in mind.”

John Disney, Economic Development Officer for Old Massett, filed a comment on behalf of the village council:

This office on behalf of the community of Old Massett wish to strongly object to the above quoted letter submitted by Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (ENGP) to the JRP pertaining to the Prince Rupert hearing schedule. It is preposterous that the proponent of this entire project is now trying to influence the process that is purported to be separate and at arms length from themselves.

ENGP should not and must not have any influence on the process. They have made their application and should now be patient and await the outcome of the process. Anything less is a flagrant violation of the democratic process and for them to think they can now step in and ‘change the rules’ is arrogant at the least and violates all democratic principles at the worst.

This office therefore strongly recommends that this request be denied and the process be allowed to continue. The non-aboriginal interveners and their representatives have a strong and very relevant message to present to the JRP. To curtail this message would make a mockery of the entire process.

Nathan Cullen’s response to Northern Gateway Pipelines request to limit time (pdf)

Old Massett Village Council Letter of Comment pdf

Terrace Council votes to oppose Northern Gateway, tanker traffic

The Terrace, BC, town council voted 5-2 Monday night to oppose both the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project and the associated tanker traffic along the British Columbia coast.

Sentiment among councillors and mayor showed all were opposed or wary in one way or another about the pipeline project that would carry bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat and send it via tanker from Kitimat. The vote split on whether the council should take a position now, or wait until there is a final report from the Joint Review Panel which is now holding hearings.

Councillor James Cordeiro introduced a motion that the council first rescind a motion from last March that it remain neutral on the issue and second adopt the position taken at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities that council should 1) oppose the shipping of tar sands oil in pipelines across northern BC for loading crude oil onto tankers and 2) oppose any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound.

Cordeiro told council that during the election campaign last fall he found there was “overwhelming” opposition to both the bitumen pipeline and to the tanker traffic. He found there were a small number of people either in favour or waiting for more information, to which he responded, that if there is enough information for supporters to formulate their opinion, there is also enough information for those opposed.

The promise of jobs and new oil export opportunities “are weak at least and do not meet the threshold of the wishes of the electorate,” Cordeiro told council. He went over the current economic situation where Alberta oil is sold to the United States at a discount but can be sold to Asia at world market prices. “Alberta will reap billions of dollars in the short term. BC will not get a fair share of Alberta’s windfall. This is not acceptable to the citizens of Terrace.” He said the best approach was to support Terrace’s First Nations neighbours in their opposition to the pipeline and look for projects that would bring long term benefits to British Columbia.

Councillor Marilyn Davies said she too found little support for the pipeline during the recent election campaign. “I really can’t see what’s in it for us,” she said. “I am a free enterpriser, but this does not deserve free enterprise support. We get some benefits but at what cost? The environmental risk is way too high.” She also said there is not enough information about who is funding the pipeline project and not much information about who is funding the tar sands. Davies said the bitumen should be upgraded in this country, not in a country known for its human rights abuses. “Why should we gamble? We get very little, and that’s in the short term, whereas we could lose something that can never be replaced.”

Brian Downie, who voted against the motion, took the view that voting at this time did not serve Terrace’s best interests. He pointed to “a dozen years of recession” in Terrace that is “just starting to turn around in a fragile recovery.” Downie said he was worried about how the vote would affect Terrace’s economic reputation, pointing to the recent vote by Kitimat council to put off any decision until after the Joint Review reports.

Downie said wasn’t logical to rush the process and to take a position in advance of the JRP report. He then concluded by saying: “I have heard the arguments for and against. I have participated in the Community Advisory Board and I am not convinced there are substantial direct benefits for Terrace and I have concerns with the geotechnical issues.” Downie also said he had reservations about how well Enbridge can manage the project, but, in the end, he said, it is best to defer to the Joint Review Panel for now.

Councillor Stacey Tyers was clear in her position, that the JRP process can’t be trusted. It went from environmental to economic, she said. As for the pipeline: “It is good for Alberta and good for Ottawa, while we get few benefits. It is important to take a stand, to stop sitting on the fence. It is imperative to take a decision, to get off the fence. We must join the coastal First Nations in taking a stand, opposing what isn’t good for our community.”

She concluded by adding, “If it’s good for Kitimat, let them vote on it.”

Mayor David Pernarowksi said that he understands the majority of people in Terrace are opposed to the pipeline. He then added that some people in the economic development community believe that remaining neutral made more sense, because taking a position now could put Terrace in a “precarious position.”

While Pernaroswki said he is personally opposed to the pipeline project, but he felt it was the duty of council to listen to the 4,000 people who have signed up for the Joint Review, to listen through the presentations by both the intervenors and those making oral comments: “I would like to hear from these people, I don’t want to deny my thoughts. We don’t think this project makes sense but Council has a responsibility to listen to the panel. We shouldn’t make a decision until we hear from those people.

“It’s tough one. We see the risk, I am currently opposed to the project, because a majority of the First Nations oppose it. I am going to have a hard time to stand in difference to our First Nations community. November would be more appropriate to bring this before council.”

He concluded by saying the economic position may be different by November, there could be community benefits as a result of on-going meetings between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta that could bring financial contributions that Terrace badly needs. “I am not saying it’s all about the money. I’d like to show that we’re open to listening and then coming to a good solid, reasoned, knowledgeable conclusion to what this community really wants.”

The veteran politician then said, “I have done the numbers.” knowing the vote would be to oppose the pipeline. He voted against the motion.

Cordeiro told council. “We don’t have to wait until Alberta sweetens the deal.”

The final speaker was Councillor Bruce Bidgood, who said that he had voted in March to remain neutral, but that Prime Minister’s Stephen Harper’s attacks on opponents of the pipeline as “enemies of Canada” had led him to change his vote to oppose the pipeline.

“I believe Terrace is open for business,” he said. “It’s just not for sale at any price.”

Coons says Enbridge is trying to “silence voices of the north coast”

Gary Coons, the NDP member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly for North Coast, has told the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel that Enbridge is “attempting to silence voices from the North Coast” by asking to limit the time of non-aboriginal intervenors before the panel.

Earlier Monday, Enbridge filed a motion with the Joint Review Panel asking that it limit non-aboriginal intervenors appearing before the panel in Prince Rupert this weekend to just 10 minutes. As well as Coons, Enbridge singled out the Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, also a candidate for the NDP leadership, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation and the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

Enbridge says that the presentations will be a violation of a panel ruling that in this phase presentations must limited to personal knowledge.

Monday afternoon, Coons responded by filing a letter with the JRP that says:

I am disappointed and concerned that Enbridge is attempting to silence voices from the North Coast riding by limiting the time for oral evidence that is allocated to non-aboriginal participants to 10 minutes.

I can assure those concerned with my oral evidence that I have done my due diligence, I’ve studied the Procedural Direction for giving evidence (Procedural Direction #4), and will fall within the parameters of such. I believe I have a responsibility, and a right, as a resident of Prince Rupert for 35 years, to share my “personal knowledge, my experiences and the potential effects of the project on me and my community” and I will, as requested, “briefly share my point of view regarding the decision the Panel should make on the Project.”

More importantly, I have an obligation as MLA to submit oral evidence on behalf my constituents and of all communities that I have been entrusted to represent. As MLA, my “community” covers the North Coast riding. I have spent the last 6 months preparing for my presentation, knowing that there is criteria set out by the panel.

It does a great disservice to me and many others for Enbridge to attempt to change the rules at this point in the process and seek to limit the participation of those of us who are non-aboriginal to ten minutes. On July 30, 2011, I applied for and received from the panel 60 minutes to present oral evidence. Is Enbridge suggesting that the panel is not experienced enough to determine who may give oral evidence and how much time should be allocated to each participant? Surely these are decisions that should be made by the independent members of the panel, rather than lobbied for by those who stand to benefit by silencing the voices of those who would be most affected by this project.

The Joint Review Panel has done their due diligence by informing all interveners through written directions and in their opening remarks at each community hearing about the nature of their role as participants in the oral hearing and the directions they need to follow. The Panel is more than able to ensure that participants abide by these directions, and have been freely doing so throughout the process thus far. There are mechanisms in place which would allow Enbridge to object to testimony that they don’t believe meets the requirements of the Panel, and the Panel themselves should be responsible for ruling on objections as they arise.

Please take this response as a request to refuse the proposal put forward by Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited.

Enbridge asks JRP to limit Cullen, Suzuki Foundation, other non-aboriginals speaking at Prince Rupert hearings

Enbridge today filed a motion with the Northern Gateway Joint Review hearings asking that the Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, also a candidate for the NDP leadership, local MLA Gary Coons and others, including the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, be barred from speaking more than 10 minutes before the hearings in Prince Rupert scheduled for Friday and Saturday of this week.
Related: Coons says Enbridge is trying to “silence voices of the north coast”

It also appears from the motion filed by Enbridge that it seeks to limit the time before the panel both at Prince Rupert and in the future by any intervenor who is not aboriginal to just 10 minutes.

Enbridge’s letter to the JRP says:

The Joint Review Panel (“Panel”) has Community Hearings scheduled in Prince Rupert, British Columbia on Friday, February 17 and Saturday, February 18, 2012. Northern Gateway anticipates that several individuals and organizations will appear, including: Mr. Gary Coons (MLA North Coast), Mr. Nathan Cullen (MP Skeena-Bulkley Valley), the Métis Nation of British Columbia, Metlakatla First Nation, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, and the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union.

In the Community Hearings to date, in Northern Gateway’s opinion, the majority of the oral evidence from non-Aboriginal participants has not met the criteria set out by the Panel in Procedural Direction #4. Many of the submissions have been in the nature of argument, or have addressed matters that were properly the subject of written evidence. There will be an opportunity to provide argument to the Panel in due course.

In addition to the written directions the Panel has already issued, Northern Gateway appreciates that the Panel continues to provide directions to intervenors regarding the nature of evidence that will assist the Panel in its opening remarks at each Community Hearing.

To further assist the parties and the efficiency of the process, Northern Gateway requests that the Panel consider limiting the time for oral evidence that is allocated to non-Aboriginal participants to 10 minutes each, unless the intervenor is able to justify additional time in accordance with Procedural Direction #4. Northern Gateway believes that this would allow the hearing in Prince Rupert to conclude on Friday, February 17th, while still enabling intervenors to provide oral evidence.

The January ruling that in the first round that panel would hold “Community Hearings” has caused anger and confusion ever since the hearings began in Kitimat on January 10. The panel concentrates hearing “traditional knowledge” from aboriginal participants and “local knowledge” from non-aboriginal, but cut off all witnesses whenever they stray into what the panel considers arguments, saying they will have an opportunity to make those arguments at some unspecified time in the future set aside for final arguments.

(more to come)

Northern Gateway Pipelines Letter to_the JRP Prince Ruper Hearing

A84 Panel Commission Letter to all Parties_-Clarification of Oral Evidence and Questioning at the Community Hearings

Enbridge won’t offer better deal to First Nations, may be considering alternate Gateway routes: Reuters

David Ljungren of Reuters, with the Canadian delegation now in Beijing, reports in Enbridge CEO says company won’t offer natives better terms on pipeline (as published in the Globe and Mail) that:

Enbridge Inc. will not offer better financial terms to aboriginal bands standing in the way of a major oil pipeline from energy-rich Alberta to the Pacific Coast, the firm’s chief executive officer said on Thursday.

Pat Daniel also told Reuters that while he was prepared to look at alternate routes for the Northern Gateway pipeline – which is crucial to Canadian plans to export oil to China – he felt the current routing plan [to Kitimat] was the best.

CIBC analyst speculates on one big natural gas pipeline to Kitimat as rumours persist that Apache decision on KM LNG will come next week

There is increasing speculation in the financial and energy markets that Apache Corporation, the lead investor in KM LNG partners, who propose to build the Kitimat LNG project will announce the investment decision next week. If the decision is positive, and it is expected to be positive, that means the work underway at the Bish Cove site will ramp up to full construction.

The speculation is heightened by the fact that the two other partners in KM LNG, Encana and EOG, report the following morning. Rumours on the Kitimat announcement began after Encana delayed its announcement by a week from its normal time in early February. (At that time one energy market analyst who follows NWCEN on Twitter contacted this site to ask if there were rumours here. At that time, there were none)

Apache has scheduled a fourth quarter report conference call and webcast from its headquarters in Houston, Texas, Feb. 16, 2012, at 1 pm Central Time.

Apache has always said that the go/no-go decision on the Kitimat project would come in the first quarter of 2012.

The market speculation, however, may not be entirely good news. That’s because this morning, Andrew Potter, of CIBC World Markets, told a conference call that the rush to export liquified natural gas from northeastern BC and Alberta to Kitimat would mean building one or two large natural gas pipelines, instead of several small ones, to reach the terminal projects.

Reuters quoted Potter as saying: “There is no logic at all to seeing three to five facilities built with three to five independent pipelines,” he said.

At the moment, the just approved BC LNG project, a cooperative of 13 energy companies, plans to utilize the existing Pacific Northern Gas facilities which already serve northwestern British Columbia. The PNG pipeline roughly follows the communities it serves along Highway 16. KM LNG is in partnership with the Pacific Trails Pipeline project, which would take that pipeline across country.

The third LNG project, by Shell, is still in the planning stages, but it, too, would need pipeline capacity.

Although there is general support for the LNG projects in northwestern BC, and less controversy over natural gas pipelines, last fall, members of one Wet’suwet’en First Nation house blocked a survey crew for Apache and Pacific Trail Pipelines who were working near Smithers on that house’s traditional territory. The survey project was then stood down for the winter.

The fear among some First Nations leaders and environmentalists is that the Pacific Trails Pipeline could, intentionally or unintentionally, open the door to much more controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline, since the PTP and Northern Gateway could follow the same cross country route.

Whether or not Potter intended to stir up a hornet’s nest, he likely has. What appears to be logical and economic for a CIBC analyst in a glass and steel tower, one or two giant natural gas pipelines, is now likely going to be fed in to, so to speak, and amplify the controversy over the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Potter also told the conference call that together the natural gas projects do not have enough gas in the ground to support the export plans. That means, Potter said, more acquisitions and joint venture deals in the natural gas export sector. Bob Brackett of Bernstein Research, quoted by Alberta Oil magazine, also says there will likely be consolidation of Kitimat LNG projects, since there was similar consolidation in Australia.

Apache Corp. Fourth quarter reporter webcast page.

PNG System map — The existing Pacific Northern Gas Pipeline follows Highway 16 (PNG)

The Pacific Trails Pipeline (yellow and black) would go cross country to Kitimat. The existing PNG pipeline, seen in the above map, is marked in red on this map. (PTP)

The Northern Gateway Pipeline also goes cross country, on a similar route to the proposed Pacific Trails Pipeline. (Enbridge)

Northern Gateway Joint Review moves major hearings to Kitkatla, other coastal towns

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has made major changes to the hearing schedule.

Originally the schedule called for ten days of hearings in Prince Rupert. There are now seven days of hearings at Kitkatla, but not on consecutive dates.

A new schedule released this morning shows new emphasis on the towns along the coast. Prince Rupert is now down to two days.

Second update Feb. 1, 2012 The hearings at Bella Bella Feb. 3 and on Feb. 4, have been rescheduled to April 2 and 3, 2012. The Heiltsuk say the request to reschedule the hearings was made because key individuals important to the oral evidence were out of town on other commitments on the original February dates.

The hearings at Hartley Bay will take place on March 3 and 4 at a location to be confirmed.

At Kitkala, the hearings will be held on March 9. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 at Lach Klan School William Shaw Memorial Gymnasium.