Technology | Northwest Coast Energy News

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

Enbridge to spend $1.6 billion to upgrade Michigan pipeline, old line will be “abandoned in place”

Enbridge announced Thursday, May 10, 2012, it plans to spend $1.6 billion to upgrade and replace its pipeline through Michigan and Indiana, including the site of the leak in to the Kalamazoo River in July 2010. What Enbridge calls the “6B pipeline” broke open near Marshall, Michigan and spilled more than 840,000 gallons of bitumen sands oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the broken and now disused pipeline will be demolished. Enbridge says that pipeline will be “abandoned in place,” meaning it will be deactivated, purged of any remaining oil and then filled with an “inert gas,” a move that is permitted under United States pipeline safety regulations.

In a fact sheet, Enbridge says it plans to replace approximately 75 miles of its 30-inch diameter “Line 6B pipeline.” The 75 miles to be replaced with new pipe consists of about 10 miles in Indiana and 65 in Michigan, with replacement pipe to be either 30 or 36-inch diameter pipe in Indiana and southwestern Michigan and 30-inch pipe in the eastern Michigan segment.

Enbridge map of pipeline 6B — A map, released by Enbridge, showing its plans for upgrading and replacing the 6B pipeline in Michigan and Indiana.

Enbridge says the new pipeline will closely follow the route of the old one.

Completion of this project, scheduled for late 2012, should result in fewer integrity digs and repairs along the replacement segments in the future, resulting in fewer disturbances to landowners and local communities.

For this project, we plan to remove the oil from the pipe segments being replaced and fill them with nitrogen before abandoning in place, as prescribed in regulations. In most cases, the new pipe segments will be installed adjacent to those segments being replaced.

Enbride says the “The Line 6B Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project” is part of the company’s “pipeline integrity maintenance program” that includes:

Using high-quality steel and anti-corrosion coatings when constructing our pipelines.
Installing cathodic protection (a low-level electrical charge) to inhibit corrosion of underground pipelines. Pressure testing of new and existing pipelines with
water.
Periodically inspecting the inside of the pipeline with sophisticated tools called “smart pigs” to locate
pipe abnormalities so they can be corrected.
Conducting preventive maintenance programs.
Continually monitoring pipeline operations from Enbridge’s control center, which has remote shut-down capabilities and can monitor pressures and conditions when the pipeline is flowing.
Completing regular ground and aerial inspections of the right-of-way.
Providing public awareness safety information to emergency responders, local public officials, excavators and those who live and work along our pipelines.

Enbridge says the aim of the project is to restore the capacity of the pipeline to meet increasing
demand driven by current and planned refinery upgrades and expansions in Michigan, Ohio
and eastern Canada.

Enbridge plans to complete the Indiana segment of the replacement pipeline by 2012. As for the Michigan pipeline, the company says four segments will be completed in 2012 and the last 160 miles will be completed in late 2012 or early 2013.

All of Enbridge’s plans are subject to U.S. Federal and state approvals.

As for the spill in the Kalamazoo River, the Kalamazoo Gazette, in covering the Enbridge announcement reported today

Although one section of small section of the Kalamazoo River that had been closed following the Enbridge spill in 2010 reopened last month – just three of the 40 miles affected – environmental officials have said significant amounts of oil still remain submerged in the river bed, although they say it is not dangerous to human health. State and federal agencies are slated to open more parts of the river in coming months pending investigation.

NPR Michigan Radio Enbridge wants to replace 200 miles of aging pipeline in Michigan

Documents

Enbridge Handout Line 6B Phase 2 (pdf)

Enbridge Handout Line 6B Replacement Project (pdf)

Enbridgemapcanadaus — A map released by Enbridge showing its central Canada and US pipelines

Bechtel, RTA want to bring in Foreign Temporary Workers for Kitimat Modernization Project

Updated with Rio Tinto Alcan statement and CAW negotiations bulletin

Rio Tinto Alcan and Bechtel are proposing to bring in temporary foreign workers for the Kitimat Modernization Project, because, according to a letter from Bechtel obtained by Northwest Coast Energy News, a “labour shortage” is “a possible risk to the project schedule.”

The letter was sent by Dawn Perry, Field Contracts Manager, to Bechtel/RTA contractors on April 30.

The key paragraph in the letter says

Over the past several months, Bechtel and RTA have been working with government agencies to understand and establish a process to bring Temporary Foreign Workers to the project in the event there is a shortage of qualified craft workers in British Columbia and Canada. The process will benefit Contractors on the KMP that may experience labour shortages.

The Bechtel letter does say the company is consulting with trades unions involved

It is imperative that we all work together to identify labour needs in advance to provide the Building Trades Unions sufficient time to provide qualified labour.

Bringing in temporary foreign workers, whether by RTA, Bechtel or a contractor, must be approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

In past news conferences, RTA managers have said there are problems in getting skilled workers or contractors for the $3.3 billion project, due to high demand locally from the proposed liquified natural gas projects and labour shortage as far away as the bitumen sands at Fort McMurray. On the other hand, there are continuing complaints from contractors who say that even trying to bid on a KMP project is a bureaucratic nightmare. There are also complaints that people from the Kitimat region that they are still are on waiting lists for jobs at KMP.

Colleen Nyce, a spokesperson for Rio Tinto Alcan in Kitimat said, “We actually hope to not have to hire temporary foreign workers. We prefer to hire from the local area and BC. This will, among other things, keep our costs down to hire from this jurisdiction.

“As of the present time, we have 54 per cent local workforce on the Kitimat Modernization Project. We are very proud of this. However, we are now entering the stage where, within the next four months we will be seriously ramping up the construction schedule and will need to hire qualified craft on a quick turn around basis.

“Since Notice to Proceed was given to KMP on December 1st, 2011, our Project burn rate is $3.1 million/day. We therefore cannot risk the project with workforce shortage issues and delays.

“As a precautionary measure, and given the length of time to receive government approvals, we made application for Temporary Foreign Workers, from the United States only, back in January. Our application for this has been supported by the unions affiliated with our project. We routinely have labour studies and labour surveys completed, as do the unions, and all intelligence is advising us that we will most likely be facing a skilled labour shortage.

Nyce says RTA is looking at: “All craft – electricians, carpenters, pipefitters; operators to name a few. We must search across Canada first. We are partnered with 16 different building trades unions. All of these unions have connections and members across the province, country and some into the United States.”

The date of the letter is already causing concern in Kitimat, coming as it does at almost the same time as Rio Tinto Alcan presented Canadian Auto Workers Local 2301 with a series of tough initial contract proposals that would see all but the most core jobs at the aluminum smelter contracted out.

Nyce, however, says, “This has absolutely nothing to do with BC Operations negotiations with CAW Local 2301.”

RTA locked out 780 United Steelworker members at the Alma, Quebec, smelter on December 31. The USW says talks with RTA broke down over the use of subcontractors and contracting out. RTA says its over all aluminum production dropped 12 per cent to 520,000 tonnes in the first quarter of 2012, mainly due to the lockout in Quebec, where smelter production dropped by about two-thirds.

There are already rumours in Kitimat that the temporary foreign workers would be used to keep the Kitimat Modernization Project on schedule in the case of a lockout or strike at the smelter itself.

UPDATE: CAW Local 2301 has issued its latest negotiation bulletin.In the bulletin, the local expresses its feelings of betrayal after negotiating a transition agreement with the company in 2007.The number of jobs at the new smelter will drop from a miniumum of 850 (although 1,000 jobs was the figure used most often) to 699.

The company’s position on the modernized smelter was an insult to the Union, tore away any sense of credibility that may have existed and has set the stage for a collision at this set of negotiations.

Rio Tinto Alcan has presented the union with a long list of jobs that would be contracted out but where those contractors would be working alongside union members in the new smelter and nearby locations.

CAW 2301 is now considering its response to RTA. There are membership meeting this week.

The letter also comes at time when the national level of the Canadian Auto Workers is expressing doubts about the Conservative government’s push to increase the number of Temporary Foreign Workers.

In an phone interview, Ken Lewenza, president of the CAW, said Tuesday, “I am not totally convinced that there is a shortage of worker problem with a little under 10 per cent unemployment. The real problem is where is the work and how do we fit the skills of our Canadian work force to meet those particular requirements and if for any reason we can’t do that based on knowledge, based on recognizing the kind of skills that are needed and how you prepare workers who are working in precarious situations who are unemployed, how we can better prepare for these kind of work opportunities, I think what government is doing, employers contractors, are seeing foreign workers as the first priority when it should be that absolute last.”

As for the rumours that temporary foreign workers could be used to keep the KMP going or even become possible replacement workers, Lewenza said, “If foreign workers were to replace our members at 2301 at a time we’re in labour negotiations, as replacement workers, then that would lead to a huge confrontation, at a time when quite frankly it’s not necessary. The whole idea of bringing in foreign workers is if there is a shortage of labour, a labour disruption isn’t a shortage of labor, it’s a shortage of getting a collective bargaining agreement.”

The RTA contract proposals were also on the table at Monday’s District of Kitimat Council meeting, where Councillor Phil Germuth led off the discussion by saying that he was disappointed by the RTA proposals, saying that over the past several years council has granted RTA every variance and development proposal it wanted and has agreed to forgo $7 million in tax revenue for the Kitimat Modernization Project, and, “We were promised there was going to be about 1000 jobs, now they are down to 700. I find it hard to believe that they would propose 300 job losses and not expect any problems at all, This council and previous councils have been working with them and now to have another 300 jobs cut that’s a big disappointment.”

Sources have told Northwest Coast Energy News that some members of middle and upper management at the Kitimat smelter are also not happy with the contract proposals, which together with the Alma lockout, are bringing back a corporate culture clash between the former Alcan management and the different attitudes brought to Canada by Rio Tinto, a London based multinational.

Olympic medals

A group calling itself Off the Podium, led by former Olympian Bruce Kidd, is asking the London 2012 Olympic committee (LOCOG) to drop RTA as the official supplier of gold, silver and bronze for athletes’ medals.

Signed by Steelworkers National Director Ken Neumann, the complaint asserts that Rio Tinto’s actions in Alma violate the Games’ ethical procurement standards because they consist of an illegally-declared lockout, serious and significant violations of the workers’ health and safety, shirking its obligations by sub-contracting out work to low paid workers, and paying wages and benefits below industry benchmark standards.
Neumann’s complaint letter goes on to request that LOCOG follow its ethical guidelines to reject Rio Tinto as a supplier.

: Bechtel’s April 30 letter to contractors about bringing in Foreign Temporary Workers

Apache posts job for Kitimat LNG construction manager

The Apache Corporation website has a posting for a construction manager for the Kitimat LNG project.

The posting says the job will initially based in Houston, Texas, with the manager coming to Kitimat sometime in the future.

The posting calls for the manager to provide an overall construction plan, co-ordinate and control the construction project from inception to completion aimed at meeting the Project’s requirements in order to produce a functionally and financially viable safe project that will be completed on time within the authorized budget and to the required quality standards.

Some of the job requirements give hints of the project to come:

Previous LNG Project experience including construction
Experience of modular and stick built construction
Working knowledge of safety system and management to maintain world class safety performance
Working knowledge environment system and management to maintain world class environmental performance
Knowledge of logistics in remote sites
Knowledge of heavy haul and lift works
Proven ability with advanced project management principles
Proven ability with people management
Experience in Canadian labor law and have deep experience working with unionized labor
Experience in working through cold weather climates

The site also has a posting for a Contracts and Procurement Manager.

Both postings expire on May 2, 2012.

Although Apache and its partners, Encana and EOG Resources now say that they have postponed the final go-ahead decision on the KM LNG project until the fourth quarter of 2012, as negotiations continue with Asian natural gas customers, the postings are indication that the project is progressing.

Kinder Morgan announces plans to increase capacity of Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver

Trans Mountain pipelne — The Trans Mountain Pipeline (Kinder Morgan)

Kinder Morgan, of Houston, Texas, said Thursday, April 12, 2012, it plans to proceed with expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Alberta to the BC Lower Mainland. The company made the announcement after what the energy industry calls an “open season,” a search for customers where it received “strong binding commitments” from existing and new shippers. They pledged commercial support to an additional 660,000 barrels per day of bitumen sands crude from the pipeline. Demand has been high and reports say Kinder Morgan has had to ration petroleum products for its existing customers.

The 20 year commitment from the customers means the pipeline capacity would increase to 850,000 barrels per day from 550,000 barrels. That would make the eventual capacity of the Kinder Morgan pipeline much larger than Enbridge Northern Gateway’s proposed 525,000 barrels per day.

In a release, Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan Canada said, “We are extremely pleased with the strong commercial support that we received through the open season, which reinforces the appeal of our project and our approach. This strong commercial support shows the market’s enthusiasm for expanding market access for Canadian crude by expanding an existing system.”

Now Kinder Morgan has to get approval from the National Energy Board and acceptance from the local communities along the pipeline route from the Alberta bitumen sands to the terminals and refineries in Vancouver and in Washington state and for tanker export.

“This support from the market better defines the project and enables Kinder Morgan Canada to fully engage the local communities. We are still early in the engagement process of the project,” Anderson said in the release. “We share respectful, open relationships with many communities and organizations interested in our business. We are committed to an 18 to 24 month inclusive, extensive and thorough engagement on all aspects of the project with local communities along the proposed route and marine corridor, including First Nations and Aboriginal groups, environmental organizations and all other interested parties. We will also consider providing financial support to local communities for environmental initiatives. We have been planning for this day for many years and we are keen to start in depth engagement this summer.”

Kinder Morgan says the preliminary scope of the proposed project includes:

Projected capital cost of approximately $5 billion.
Twinning the existing pipeline within the existing right-of-way, where possible.
Adding new pump stations along the route.
Increasing the number of storage tanks at existing facilities.
Expanding the Westridge Marine Terminal.

Anderson added, “We anticipate filing a facilities application initiating a regulatory review with the National Energy Board in 2014. If our application is approved, construction is currently forecast to commence in 2016 with the proposed project operating by 2017.”

In addition to extensive engagement, the company will conduct traditional land use and environmental and socio-economic studies, and undertake detailed engineering and design studies, the release says.

The Trans Mountain proposal, like the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is a “facilities application,” and one uncertainty facing the company will be the highly controversial decision by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government to speed up all future project applications of that type. Environmental groups have already expressed strong opposition to the speed up, while the energy industry has said faster application approval is long over due.

As well as the facilities application, Kinder Morgan says it will file “a commercial tolling application to review the company’s proposed commercial structure for the expansion. This filing, which is anticipated in summer 2012, will seek National Energy Board approval on how the company will charge its customers for transporting their product through the proposed expanded pipeline.”

Kinder Morgan says that for almost 60 years, the 1,150-km Trans Mountain pipeline system has been safely and efficiently providing the only west coast access for Canadian oil products, including about 90 percent of the gasoline supplied to the interior and south coast of British Columbia.

However, the continuing controversy over the Enbridge Northern Gateway and other pipeline projects, together with some accidents including the spill of 100,000 barrels of light crude near Abbotsford, has raised the profile of the Kinder Morgan line and therefore will likely bring more public scrutiny. Any increase in the capacity of the pipeline will also mean more tanker traffic in the already crowded waterways of the Vancouver harbour system and along the west coast.

Last June, Kinder Morgan also proposed the building of second pipeline from the bitumen sands to the west coast, roughly following the route of the Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat. There was no mention of that project in today’s announcement.

Alberta Oil magazine describes Kitimat LNG projects as high stakes poker

It looks like the Chinese curse (and journalist’s blessing) “May you live in interesting times,” has come to Kitimat, especially when it comes to selling LNG to Asia.

In the past months the world liquified natural gas market has become more volatile with increased competition across the globe and, in some cases, political factors adding to the molecule mix.

In the past few days, Alberta Oil magazine has published a series of articles on the Kitimat LNG projects, describing the projects as a high stakes poker game.

The point is that the potential Asian buyers for BC (and US) liquified natural gas want a secure supply and they’re not sure what is going on on this side of the Pacific.

That’s apparently why the first project, KM LNG, has put off the final go ahead project from the first quarter of 2012, as originally expected, to the now likely the fourth quarter of 2012.

That has left a lot of uncertainty in town, despite assurances from two of the KM LNG partners, Apache Corporation and EOG Resources that they are optimistic that there will be a deal with Asian gas buyers, even if it means Asian equity in the KM LNG project.

That uncertainty in Kitimat has led to widespread rumours, none substantiated, that the three proposed projects, by KM LNG, by the Houston-Haisla BC LNG partnership and Shell, may be consolidated in one way or another.

At Kitimat council on Monday, April 2, Mayor Joanne Monaghan said “There has been a rumour around recently that Apache is stopping their working for a year and I talked to the CEO, Tim Wall, yesterday and he assured me that that was not true.”

Work is continuing on the KM LNG site at Bish Cove.

This morning, April 5, 2012, Alberta Oil reported that EOG Resources boss still bullish on Kitimat LNG, quoting a company called Bernstein Research that met with EOG’s top executive, CEO Mark Papa, who told Bernstein that EOG considers its 30 per cent holding in KM LNG as a “core holding.”

In a Thursday research note, Bernstein’s Bob Brackett says EOG is willing to sell some of its stake in the Kitimat project to a buyer (likely of the Asian persuasion) looking for equity in the upstream portion of project. “EOG expects to dilute a portion of its stake for that purpose,” Brackett writes.

A day earlier, Alberta Oil reported in Global LNG players jockey for space on a crowded field noting that Australia’s LNG megaprojects are facing competition from North America and cost inflation as the number of projects increase. At the same, US LNG projects are trapped in the current mire of US politics, with many politicians wary of the energy-starved US exporting natural gas.

In Apache Canada makes global push amid fierce competition, the article that uses the poker analogy, the magazine quotes Asish Mohanty, senior research analyst, global LNG, with Wood Mackenzie

Kitimat is due to start pumping out five million tonnes of LNG by 2015, widely viewed as a market “sweet spot” because it beats a number of major Australian projects – among them Shell’s massive Prelude endeavor – into production. “It’s a bit of a race,” Mohanty at Wood Mackenzie says. “The general impression in the industry is that before these Australasian projects start up it’s going to be a sellers’ market.”

Mohanty also looks at the problem of cost inflation and limited resources, a problem Kitimat already faces with not only the three proposed LNG projects but RTA’s Kitimat Modernization Project.

Companies that specialize in engineering, procurement and construction of liquefaction facilities number fewer than 10 internationally, Mohanty says. He expects many of them will be kept busy by construction of several LNG projects underway in northwest Australia, including ongoing work at the massive Gorgon plant at Barrow Island. The Chevron-led venture is due to begin pumping out 15 million tonnes of LNG annually by 2014-15. “All of these are massive projects,” the analyst says. “What that means is order books are pretty full. There is a scarcity of resources in places like Australia right now.”

The shortfall could potentially squeeze Canadian LNG forays. “The fact that most of the B.C. facilities are going to be ‘green-field’ will not make it easy for them to meet a timeline compared to a lot of others.”

Related CBC News Mackenzie Valley pipeline funding reduced

Kitimat council calls on Joint Review Panel, Enbridge to ensure viability of town water supply

District of Kitimat council votes on JRP motion — District of Kitimat Council votes unanimously Apr. 2 to inform the Joint Review Panel about concerns about the town's water supply. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

District of Kitimat council voted on Monday, April 2, to ask the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel to ensure that the town’s water supply is protected if the controversial pipeline is built. A second motion called on Enbridge to give the district a detailed and public presentation on its provisions to protect the water supply in the case of a pipeline breach along the Kitimat River.

That second motion was passed after a motion from Councillor Phil Germuth holding Enbridge responsible for any disruption to the water supply was defeated by a vote of 4-3. However, council’s new motion did not preclude Germuth asking Enbridge his original questions about liability.

Germuth had presented council with the two original motions, after a presentation in March
by Douglas Channel Watch about the dangers avalanches could present to the Enbridge twin pipelines along the Kitimat River watershed.

The first motion called on the District of Kitimat to present a written position to the Joint Review Panel based on the district’s status as a government participant emphasizing the potential dangers to the water supply and noting that the mayor and council are “legally responsible to make every effort to ensure the city of Kitimat’s water supply is uninterrupted and of the highest quality.”

Councillor Phil Germuth (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

After introducing the motion, Germuth said he believed the motion went along with council’s position to remain neutral because nothing in the motion took a position for or against the project.
Councillor Mario Feldhoff said he supported the motion without supporting all the details of Germuth’s full statement, a indication of the more intense debate to come over the second motion.

Mary Murphy also supported the motion, pointing to the potential problems of “transporting hydrocarbons” by both tanker and pipeline.

Mayor Joanne Monaghan said she had a problem with the motion because had earlier passed a motion saying it would wait to take a position until after the Joint Review Panel had reported.

Councillor Corinne Scott said she would speak for the motion, agreeing that this was a request for information and not saying council was for or against the project, adding “we are all concerned about the potential of what could happen to our water supply.”

Read Councillor Phil Germuth’s motions (pdf)

Feldhoff agreed that a letter to the JRP was not taking a position, adding, that on receipt of a letter the Joint Review Panel should take a very serious look at the issue of the water supply of Kitimat. Monaghan agreed but said if the council was to write the letter that it be accurate.

Feldhoff then proposed a friendly amendment calling on District staff to write a draft letter to the Joint Review Panel that council could then examine and agree to.

With the amendment, the motion passed unanimously.

Germuth’s second motion was more contentious, calling on Enbridge to provide detailed plans for ensuring the quality of water for the District of Kitimat and accepting “full liability” for the restoration of the Kitimat’s “entire water system” in case of a pipeline breach. Although some councilors had reservations about Germuth’s list of items, they agreed that Enbridge be called to meet council “face to face,” as Monaghan put it, by responding in person rather than by letter.

Enbridge had already responded to the motion from the previous meeting, calling on it to respond to the concerns raised by Douglas Channel Watch about the possibility of avalanche danger in the Nimbus Mountain area.

In an e-mail to council, Michele Perrett of Enbridge maintained that most of the issue had been addressed by Enbridge in either its original filing with the Joint Review Panel or by subsequent responses to information requests to the JRP, adding

Specifically we have filed geotechnical studies and responded to information requests that include information on avalanches, rock fall, glaciomarine clay slides, debris flows and avulsion in the Kitimat area and have reviewed information filed on this subject by intervenors.

The e-mail said that Drum Cavers, a geotechnical specialist would be making a presentation to council on Monday, April 16.

Enbridge e-mail to District of Kitimat Council (pdf)

Monaghan noted that Douglas Channel Watch and other groups are limited by council policy to 10 minutes and that Murray Minchin had told council that to be fair, Enbridge’s response should also be limited to 10 minutes. Council agreed that the 10 minute limit is needed to make sure that council meetings finish on time and there was some discussion of allowing Enbridge to make a more lengthy presentation outside of a regular council meeting. That would allow Enbridge to not only respond to the earlier concerns about the Nimbus Mountain avalanche danger but also to the concerns about the town’s water supply.

Some members of council, led by Feldhoff, also expressed reservations about the seven points raised by Germuth; others wanted to possibly add their own concerns to any questions for Enbridge. Feldhoff was not prepared to vote for the original motion without more information.

Feldhoff then asked that the district administration prepare a report on the water supply, saying “I think the concerns may be somewhat overstated at the moment.” Councillor Rob Goffinet also called for a report from district staff on the “ramifications for our water supply,” adding that council should not “engage with Enbridge” until that report was ready.

Germuth’s motion, with all of the original questions, along with the invitation for Enbridge to make a public presentation, was then defeated by a vote of 4-3.

Councillor Scott then moved as part of the presentation that Enbridge was earlier invited to present that water issues be added to the list and that council draft a list of questions for the company, that could include Germuth’s original questions.

Germuth asked if the council could put a time limit on Enbridge’s response because the federal budget calls for limiting to the Joint Review Panel. Feldhoff responded that the new motion concerned council’s concerns just with Enbridge and that council should be respectful of Enbridge and hopefully the company could integrate those questions as well.

Goffinet said he wanted Enbridge to know all of the district’s concerns and so, in effect, this motion would get what Councillor Germuth wanted but by a different route, adding that if Cavers, Enbridge’s geotechnical expert, was unable to answer the question, Enbridge would be asked to return and answer the questions at a later date at a public meeting.

That motion passed unanimously.

Update:

Mary Murphy clarified her remarks in an e-mail by saying

I stated I had concerns with all hydro carbons transported along the river coastline…like CN Rail and transporting hydro carbons and the likelihood of a derailment etc, andhow that would also effect our waters. CN Rail is and has been transporting hydro carbons, etc for some time, and have had severe derailments.

Enbridge presents strong case for marine safety planning

Enbridge made its strongest public case yet Tuesday, March 13, that improvements in marine safety worldwide since the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, make the chances of an accident involving ships carrying bitumen and condensate in Douglas Channel and the BC Coast highly unlikely.

But one of Enbridge’s own invited experts somewhat undermined the case by pointing out that in the event of a major tanker incident (as unlikely as Enbridge believes it may be) the resources of the federal and provincial governments are spread far too thin to deal with a major disaster.

The Enbridge Community Advisory Board held a public meeting Tuesday at Mt. Elizabeth Theatre, with three guests presenting a case that they also gave to the regular meeting of the advisory board earlier in the day.

The three guests were Capt. Stephen Brown, of the BC Chamber of Shipping, Capt. Fred Denning, of British Columbia Coast Pilots and Norm Fallows, an emergency response officer with the BC Ministry of the Environment, based in Smithers.

There were only a few dozen people in the theatre for the presentation, compared the full house for last year’s community forum that was sponsored by the District of Kitimat. One reason may be that many Kitimat residents preferred being in the stands for the Coy Cup hockey championships at Tamitik Arena rather than sitting through yet another presentation on the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Denning opened the presentations by explaining the role of the BC Coast Pilots. The BC Coast Pilots is a private firm that contracts with government’s Pacific Pilotage Authority to provide pilots to ships plying the coast of British Columbia. By law all vessels larger than 350 gross registered tonnes are required to use a marine pilot.

Both in his presentation and in the question and answer period, Denning stressed that pilots are traditionally independent from government and industry, with the responsibility to ensure the safety of shipping.

In the question and answer period, when an audience member pointed out that under the Transport Canada TERMPOL process, use of tugs in Douglas Channel and use of tethered tugs was “voluntary,” Denning replied that the pilots would be insisting on tethered escort tugs for tankers on Douglas Channel.

He explained that BC pilots are highly experienced mariners, usually with 25 years or more experience on the coast, the majority of that time as a ship’s officer. An applicant to become a pilot is put on a waiting list, and if accepted, then is trained both on ships and simulators and serves a six to 12 month apprenticeship.

He said that BC coastal pilots have a 99.89 per cent incident safety record.

BC pilots now carry a large laptop called a Portable Pilot Unit, which operates independent of the ship’s navigation and computer systems gathering navigation and other data, as a redundant safety system.

Denning expects that marine traffic on the BC coast will continue to increase because the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are the closest to Asia by the Great Circle routes. Both cargo and the energy projects, whether the Enbridge Northern Gateway or the the liquified natural gas terminals will mean more ships and more work for the pilots.

The pilots are always consulted in the development of any new traffic or terminal projects in BC. Including design, testing the ship’s courses in simulators, recommending new navigational aides and training for the pilots. Pilots were consulted during the development of Deltaport and Fairiew container terminals as well as the cruise ship terminals in Victoria, Nanaimo and Campbell River.

The pilots are being consulted on both the Enbridge and LNG projects at Kitimat as well as the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan facility in Vancouver. For the existing Kinder Morgan terminal, pilots were involved in creating navigation aides and tug procedures for the Second Narrows.

Stephen Brown is a member of the Community Advisory Board as well as representing the Bureau of Shipping. He began with a detailed timeline of how shipping regulations have been tightened over the years since what is now the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency, was founded in 1948. He said the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989 triggered even tighter regulations, including the 1990 US Oil Pollution Act passed by Congress which required all ships have containment capability and a spill clean up plan. The act also ordered US shippers to phase out single hulled tankers beginning in 1995. In 1992, the IMO adopted a similar measure.
Since the 1990s, there have been new regulations preventing the dumping of ballast and creating higher standards for crew and officer training, including hours of work, watch keeping standards and environmental awareness.

Brown then went on to discuss shipping in narrow waterways which he said were similar to Douglas Channel, including the Straits of Dover between Britain and France, the Straits of Malacca between Singapore and Malaysia and the island of Sumatra, the Dardanelles and Bosporus Strait in Turkey (which traditionally are said to join Europe with Asia) and the Panama Canal. All those areas, he said, see heavy shipping traffic, including tankers, each year.

The narrowest passage is in the Bosporus, which is 698 metres wide, a little less than one half nautical mile.

Comparing the Bosporus with Douglas Channel, Brown said Douglas Channel is much wider, about three kilometres, meaning that inbound and outbound ships can pass a half kilometre apart.
He went over how tanker management has improved with double hulls and better overall construction standards,vetting of ships and crews, and creating “a culture of safety and respect for the environment.”

The final speaker Norm Fallows, from the BC Ministry of the Environment Emergency Management, outlined the current emergency response system in the province. Central to any response to a oil spill or any other hazard materials problem is the “incident command system.” also used most often for fighting forest fires. The incident command system ensures that all public agencies and the private sector are cooperating and coordinating with one overall person in charge.

The province has a “polluter pay” policy, Fallows said, meaning that the “responsible party” must pay for all the cost involved. Sometimes, int he case of a meth lab, it is the unfortunate owner of a house that may have been rented by drug dealers.

Fallows said he is one of only 10 emergency response officers stationed across the province of British Columbia, In contrast, the State of Washington, with a much smaller land area than BC, has 79.

Any response to a spill has to do the best possible in the situation, Fallows said. He gave the example of burning off an oil spill in some circumstances because that was both the most cost effective solution that at the same time in those circumstances did the least harm to the environment.

In the early part of the first decade, Fallows said, some staff at the environment department were proposing what was called “Geographic Response Planning,” which involved surveying an area for both potential hazards and solutions, and bringing in local responders including fire, police and local industry. Planning for the GRP program had minimal funding, which was later dropped by the province.

In contrast, Fallows said, the state of Washington has spent millions of dollars creating a geographic response program for that state.

In response to questions from the audience, Fallows said that adequate emergency response in British Columbia needed “more resources” from both the provincial and federal governments.

Kitimat Modernization will create competitive contractors for future energy projects: RTA CEO

Jacynthe Côté, CEO Rio Tinto Alcan — Jacynthe Côté,the CEO of Rio Tinto Alcan, briefs reporters on the progress of the Kitimat Modernization Project,March 8, 2011(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

The Kitimat Modernization Project, the $3.3 billion upgrade of the Kitimat aluminum smelter will create capable and competitive contractors that can go on to work at the future energy developments in the region, Rio Tinto Alcan CEO Jacynthe Côté said Thursday, March 8.

Côté was in Kitimat to tour the region, a trip that was postponed in December, at the time of the “Notice to Proceed” on the modernization project, when her aircraft was diverted to Prince Rupert by a snow and sleet storm the day of the announcement.

During a dinner on Wednesday night, Côté met with leading contractors, the leaders of the Haisla First Nation, Mayor Joanne Monaghan and members of the District of Kitimat Council.

The prospect of future energy projects, three liquified natural gas terminals to be built by the KM LNG partners, by the BC LNG partnership and by Shell was one factor in Rio Tinto Alcan giving the go ahead for the modernization project, she told local reporters.

“We have seen the critical mass in other parts of the world, “she said. “One of the reason to do full speed in December was to aim that we will be ramping down as the others are ramping up. Of course, I cannot say for the other projects that will be their decision.” Given the current schedules, she said, “we should be out of the way when others pick up.” (Another key reason for the go ahead, according to RTA primary metal vice president Jean Simon, speaking at the launch last December was the growing market for aluminum in Asia)

Côté added that the contractors now have “great abilities that could be redeployed.”

Michel Lamarre, Director of KMP said that despite some delays due to the harsh winter, RTA is still aiming for first concrete at the new potlines on June 1. First new metal is scheduled for the second quarter of 2014. Peak employment, about 2,500 people, is expected to be in the first quarter of 2013.

“We have the ambition to make the project a real showcase, for us, for British Columbia, for Canada,” Côté said. “So we’re pretty proud that 62 per cent of the work done so far has been done by the community in the area., 95 per cent of them in British Columbia, which is absolutely spectacular for a project of that complexity and magnitude.

“It requires a lot of skills, a lot of organization.”

Côté said she stressed RTA’s safety priorities when she met with the local contractors (a point the company made both at the Notice to Proceed gathering in December and at a local meeting for contractors last month). The contractors are very enthusiastic, Côté said. “I’ve seen in other regions as contractor and employees moved to that level of safety performance, it becomes a competitive edge, there’s going to be other projects coming in the region, there’s a lot of discussion around LNG, and it will be an advantage for contractors who have demonstrated superior performance and safety. We’re here to support that. I think they’re going to be more compelling and competitive, I mean it’s good business.”

She says that RTA is spending $3.1 million each day on the modernization project.

Asked about both the prospective LNG projects and the fact that accommodation in Kitimat is now at a premium, she said that “crowding” was a significant part of her discussions with both the Haisla and the District of Kitimat.

Rio Tinto has worked on what she called “disproportionately big” projects at sites compared to local communities around the world. “So we adjust, my message was we adjust.[There are] Different formulas in different parts of the world, depending on the conditions. The model is to bring in as many people from the community as we can.”