The District of Kitimat has asked the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel to reconsider its decision to bypass the town for the final questioning and final argument hearings “given the significant impact the project will have on Kitimat.”
On July 16, 2012, Mayor Joanne Monaghan sent a letter to the JRP asking for the reconsideration. That letter was posted recently on the JRP website.
Monaghan’s letter says:
The District of Kitimat occupies a key location in the Northern Gateway project. Enbridge’s pipeline will terminate in Kitimat and the new terminal for shipping bitumen will be located here. Our community will not only be subjected to the risks posed by two pipelines, but also is the only community along the pipeline route that will be assuming the risks associated with tanker traffic on Douglas Channel.
We understand that the Joint Review Panel chooses appropriate hearing facilities that are safe, of adequate size and can logistically and technologically accommodate a hearing with many participants. Kitimat can comfortably provide all of those components, therefore we request clarification on the decision to exclude Kitimat from the hearings.
On July 5, the JRP decided to hold the the questioning hearings will begin on September 4, 2012 in Edmonton followed by hearings in Prince George and Prince Rupert.
The Joint Review Panel was able to hold a successful preliminary hearing at a packed Riverlodge Recreation Centre, in Kitimat, in August, 2010 and the National Energy Board held hearings on the KM LNG project at Riverlodge in June, 2011. The current JRP hearings were held at the Haisla Recreation Centre at Kitamaat Village at the request of the Haisla Nation to accommodate the needs of the Elders.
Enbridge Northern Gateway has filed thousands of pages of “reply evidence” to the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel, responding to questions from the panel, from government participants like DFO, and intervenors.
In the introduction to the summary of the evidence the JRP asks
Should the fact that Northern Gateway does not respond to all points in a particular intervenor’s evidence or to all intervenor evidence be taken as acceptance by
Northern Gateway of any of the positions of intervenors?
To which Enbridge replies:
No. Northern Gateway does not accept any of the intervenor positions that are contrary tothe Application or additional material filed by Northern Gateway. Some of those positions will be dealt with by Northern Gateway in cross examination and argument rather than reply evidence, and others will simply be left to the JRP to determine on the basis of the filed evidence alone.
Recovery of Biophysical and Human Environment from Oil Spills
Corrosion, Inspection and Maintenance of Oil Tankers
Design and Construction of Oil Tankers
Pilotage
In response to numerous questions about the Marshall, Michigan, oil spill, Enbridge repeats what it said in an e-mail to “community leaders” earlier this week and in this morning’s news release, saying: “Enbridge has made a number of improvements since the Marshall incident.”
As part of the filing Enbridge has also filed an update on its aboriginal engagement program.
There are also detailed and updated reports on the company’s plans for the Kitimat valley region.
A Google Earth satellite map of the Kitimat River used as part of Enbridge Northern Gateway’s oil spill modelling study.
Enbridge Northern Gateway today filed a massive 11-volume study with the Joint Review Panel outlining possible scenarios for oil spills along the route including the Kitimat and Morice Rivers in British Columbia.
The study, carried out by three consulting firms, Stantec Consuting and AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure both of Calgary and RPS ASA of Rhode Island, is called “Ecological and Human Health Assessment for Pipeline spills.”
Overall the models created by study appear to be extremely optimistic, especially in light of recent events, such as the damning report on by the US
National Transportation Safety Board and the finding of violations by the US Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration with Enbridge operations during the 2010 Marshall, Michigan, spill and subsequent cleanup difficulties encountered by Enbridge.
The executive summary of the report begins by saying
This document presents conservatively developed assessments of the acute and chronic risk to ecological and human receptors in the unlikely event of a full bore pipeline break on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project. Three representative hydrocarbon types (condensate, synthetic oil
and diluted bitumen) were evaluated with releases occurring to four different rivers representing a range of hydrological and geographic characteristics, under both low-flow and high-flow conditions. The analysis indicates that that the potential environmental effects on ecological and human health from each hydrocarbon release scenario could be adverse and may be significant. However, the probability of the releases as considered in the assessment (i.e., full bore rupture, with no containment or oil recovery) is low, with return periods for high consequence watercourses ranging from 2,200 to 24,000 years. Therefore, the significant adverse environmental effects as described in this report are not likely to occur.
So the study says that it is “conservative” that means optimistic, that a full bore pipelink break with no containment or recovery is “an unlikely event” and would probably occur every 2,200 and 24,000 years. Not bad for a pipeline project that is supposed to be operational for just 50 years.
The summary does caution:
The analysis has also shown that the outcomes are highly variable and are subject to a great many factors including the location of the spill, whether the hydrocarbons are released to land or directly to a watercourse, the size of the watercourse, slope and flow volumes, river bed substrate, the amount of suspended particulate in the water, environmental conditions (such as the time of year, temperature and wind speeds, precipitation, etc.), the types of shoreline soils and vegetative cover and most significantly, the type and volume of hydrocarbon released.
The highly technical study is Enbridge’s official response to those intervenors who have “requested additional ecological and human health risk assessment studies pertaining to pipeline spills” and a request from the Joint Review Panle for more information about “the long term effects of pipeline oil spills on aquatic organisms (including the sensitivity of the early life stages of the various salmon species), wildlife, and human health.”
The report presents modelling on the release of three hydrocarbons, diluted bitumen, synthetic oil and condensate at four river locations along the pipeline route for their potential ecological and human health effects, under two flow regimes (i.e., high and low flow), broadly representing summer and winter conditions.
Modelling was done for four areas:
• Chickadee Creek: a low gradient interior river tributary discharging to a large river system
located up-gradient from a populated centre within the Southern Alberta Uplands region
• Crooked River: a low gradient interior river with wetlands, entering a lake system within
the Interior Plateau Region of British Columbia
• Morice River: a high gradient river system along the western boundary of the Interior
Plateau Region of British Columbia
• Kitimat River near Hunter Creek: a high gradient coastal tributary discharging to a large
watercourse with sensitive fisheries resources, downstream human occupation, and discharging to the Kitimat River estuary
In one way, the study also appears to be a partial victory for the Kitimat group Douglas Channel Watch because the model for the Kitimat River is based on a spill at Hunter Creek, which has been the subject of extensive work by the environmental group, but the consulting study is markedly optimistic compared to the scenario painted by Douglas Channel Watch in its presentations to District of Kitimat council.
The study describes the Kitimat River:
The hypothetical release location near Hunter Creek is southwest of Mount Nimbus, in the upper Kitimat River watershed, and flows into Kitimat River, then Kitimat Arm, approximately 65 km downstream. The area is in a remote location and maintains high wildlife and fisheries values. The pipeline crossing near Hunter Creek is expected to be a horizontal direction drilling (HDD) crossing. The release scenario
assumes a discharge directly into Kitimat River…
The streambed and banks are composed of coarse gravel, cobbles and boulders. Shoreline vegetation (scattered grasses and shrubs) occurs in the channel along the tops of bars. Vegetation is scattered on the channel banks below the seasonal high water mark and more developed (i.e., grasses, shrubs and trees) bove the seasonal high water mark.
Wildlife and fish values for the Kitimat River are high: it is important for salmon stocks, which also provide important forage for grizzly bears, bald eagles and osprey on the central coast. The Kitimat River estuary, at the north end of Kitimat Arm, also provides year-round habitat for some waterbirds and seasonal habitat for staging waterfowl.
There is considerable recreational fishing, both by local people and through fishing guides, on Kitimat River, its estuary and in Kitimat Arm. There is also likely to be a high amount of non-consumptive recreational activity in the area, including wildlife viewing, hiking and camping. The Kitimat River estuary, for example, is well known for waterbird viewing.
While no fish were captured at this location during the habitat survey, salmonoid fry and coho salmon were observed downstream. Previously recorded fish species in the area include chinook, coho and chum salmon, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and steelhead trout.
However, the next paragraph appears to show that a full bore rupture on the Kitimat River would have widespread consequences because it would cover a vast area of First Nations traditional territory, saying
Aboriginal groups with traditional territories within the vicinity of the Kitimat River hypothetical spill scenario site include the Haisla Nation, Kitselas First Nation, Kitsumkalum First Nation, Lax-Kw’alaams First Nation and Metlakatla First Nation.
It also acknowledges:
Oral testimony provided by Gitga’at First Nation and Gitxaala Nation was also reviewed in relation to this hypothetical spill scenario, although the traditional territories of these nations are well-removed from the hypothetical spill site.
The report then goes on to list “the continued importance of traditional resources” for the aboriginal people of northwestern BC.
especially marine resources. People hunt, fish, trap and gather foods and plants throughout the area and traditional foods are central to feasting and ceremonial systems. Food is often distributed to Elders or others in the community. Written evidence and oral testimony reported that Coho, sockeye, pink, and spring salmon remain staples for community members. Halibut, eulachon, herring and herring roe,
various species of cod, shellfish, seaweed, and other marine life are also regularly harvested and consumed, as are terrestrial resources, including moose, deer, beaver, muskrat and marten. Eulachon remains an important trade item. Written evidence provides some information on seasonality of use and modes of preparation. Seaweed is dried, packed and bundled and preserved for later use. Each species of
salmon has its own season and salmon and other fish are prepared by drying, smoking, freezing or canning. Salmon are highly valued and often distributed throughout the community…
Some areas used traditionally are not depicted geographically. Upper Kitimat River from the Wedeene River to the headwaters has long been used for trapping, hunting, fishing and gathering of various foods. Fishing, hunting and gathering activities take place along the lower Kitimat River and its tributaries. Marine resources are collected in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel, and Gardner Canal. Old village and
harvesting sites are located along the rivers and ocean channels in this vicinity.
Intertidal areas are important and highly sensitive harvesting sites that support a diversity of species. Many intertidal sites are already over harvested and are therefore vulnerable. Conservation of abalone has been undertaken to help the species recover. Some concern was expressed in oral testimony regarding the
potential for archaeological sites and the lack of site inventory in the area. Oral testimony made reference to the Queen of the North sinking and the potential for a similar accident to result in human health and environmental effects.
A spill at Hunter Creek
The model says that all three types of floating oil in Kitimat River under high-flow conditions would reach approximately 40 kilometres downstream from Hunter Creek while low-flow conditions showed variation.
Under what the study calls low flow conditions, most condensate would evaporate. The bitumen would cause “heavy shore-oiling” for the first 10 kilometres, with some oiling up to 40 kilometres downstream.
The most sedimentation would occur for synthetic oil, and the least for condensate. Synthetic oil under both flow conditions would have the largest amounts deposited to the sediments. This is because of the low viscosity of synthetic oil, which allows it to be readily entrained into the water where it may combine with suspended sediments and subsequently settle. Synthetic oil under high-flow conditions would result in the most entrained oil and so the most extensive deposition to the sediment. Diluted bitumen, for both flow conditions, would result in the most deposited on shorelines, with the remainder (except that which evaporated or degraded) depositing to the sediments.
The condensate also would also have significant entrainment, but higher winds prevailing in under low flow conditions would enhance evaporation and rapidly lower concentrations in the water as compared to high-flow conditions. In all scenarios, a large amount of entrained oil and high concentrations of dissolved aromatics would move down the entire stretch of Kitimat River and into Kitimat River estuary.
Long term scenario
The modelling appears to be extremely optimistic when it reaches four to six weeks after the pipeline breach, especially in light of the continued cleanup efforts in Michigan, estimating that the “fast-flowing” nature of the Kitimat River would disipate all the different forms of hydrocarbon in the study saying
a fast-flowing coastal river like Kitimat River, with gravel or cobble bottom would be affected by a large volume of crude oil released in a short period of time.
Oiling of shoreline soils is heavy in the reaches between the release point and 10 km downstream, becoming lighter to negligible beyond 10 km. Deposition of hydrocarbons to river sediment is greatest for the synthetic oil and diluted bitumen (high flow) scenarios extending up to 40 kilometres downriver, with predicted hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment approaching 1,000 mg/kg dry weight. Deposition of hydrocarbons to river sediment is considerably lighter for the diluted bitumen (low flow) and condensate scenarios. In these scenarios, oiling of river sediment is negligible….
It says that within four weeks of the end of the acute phase of the spill scenarios, concentrations in river sediments and river water would decline becoming quite low at the end of two years.
As for the affects on plants and invertebrates:
Oiling of shorelines would be extensive, particularly at assessment locations within 10 kilometres of the pipeline break location, under both the high and low flow scenarios, for synthetic oil and condensate. High loadings occur as far as 25 kilometres downstream, again asusming that damage would begin to disipate after four weeks declining over the next one to two years. Predicted effects are generally less severe for the diluted bitumen spill scenarios, due to lower expected loading of oil onto shorelines. Low to negligible shoreline oiling would occur for Kitimat River under most of the scenarios at the 40 kilometres assessment location and points downstream. Based on this assessment, very little oiling of shorelines would extend to the estuary and the environmental effects would be minimal.
The study goes on to say that the “model suggests that there would be no significant risk to fish health based upon chronic exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons for the oil spill scenarios in Kitimat River or the potentially affected areas within the estuary, either at four weeks or one to two years following the hypothetical spill events. Risk to developing fish eggs in Kitimat River and estuary at four weeks and one to two years again indicate no significant risk to developing fish eggs in spawning gravels.”
It also claims that “chronic risks” to wildlife would be minimal, with some elevated risk for “muskrat, belted kingfisher, mallard duck, spotted sandpiper and tree swallow,” if they were exposed to synthetic oil. The muskrat, mallard duck and spotted sandpiper
could be vulnerable to bitumen and diluted bitumen.
It then claims that “no significant effects of chronic exposure (to all hydrocarbons) would occur for grizzly bear, mink, moose, river otter, bald eagle, Canada goose, herring gull or great blue heron for the Kitimat River hydrocarbon spill scenarios.”
Again, it appears from the sutdy that the spotted sandpiper would be most vulnerable to “bulk weathered crude oil exposure” includingcondensate, diluted bitumen and synthetic oil.
For the Kitimat section it concludes:
In the unlikely event of an oil spill, recovery and mitigation as well as the physical
disturbance of habitat along the watercourse would be likely to substantially reduce the exposure of wildlife receptors to hydrocarbons as compared to the scenarios evaluated here.
Fog and low clouds shroud Kitimat harbour on the morning of June 27, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
If there is a major disconnect between the people who live in the Kitimat region and the rest of Canada, it is the question of vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel, with Enbridge spinning that there is already major tanker traffic on the Channel.
This section from the Northern Gateway website, is often quoted by Enbridge supporters, the vast majority of whom live in Alberta, thousands of kilometres away, have never been to Kitimat, but, somehow from Calgary or Fort McMurray, claim to know more about the Douglas Channel than people who live in Kitimat, including those who have sailed Douglas Channel for decades.
According to numbers from the Port of Kitimat, not only have vessels carrying industrial products been travelling the channels safely for some 35 years, but so too have ships carrying petroleum products—like the one featured arriving in the Port of Kitimat through the Douglas Channel in the picture above.
In fact, some 1,560 vessels carrying methanol and condensate called on Kitimat port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s over 3,100 transits of vessels dedicated to the transport of petroleum products.
When you add vessel traffic of all industrial activity into Kitimat port, the number jumps to 6,112.
To be clear…the number of ships servicing industry arriving at Kitimat port between 1978 and 2009 is 6,112. That’s 12,224 transits!
So in its questions to the Haisla, Enbridge asked:
c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is aware of existing and proposed
marine vessel activity within its Traditional Territory, including:
(i) fuel barges
(ii) cargo/container ships
(iii) commercial fishing vessels
(iv) condensate tankers
(v) liquefied natural gas tankers
Enbridge’s question was an obvious attempt to enhance their spin on vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel, by fishing for an admission that large vessels already ply the Channel, something the residents of the Kitimat, both First Nations and non-aboriginal already know well.
In its response, the Haisla Nation replies:
The Haisla Nation is aware of the existing and proposed marine vessel activity within its Territory, including fuel barges, cargo/container ships, commercial fishing vessels, condensate tankers, and liquefied natural gas tankers.
The Haisla Nation is also aware of the increased cumulative effect of additional marine vessel activity as projects are approved. The presence of this shipping increases the significance of the potential impacts of the project on Haisla Nation aboriginal title and rights, through cumulative impacts.
The Haisla Nation is responsible for some of the vessel traffic within its Territory, with modern forms of transportation having replaced canoes. Until legal developments in the early 2000s which have defined the content of the honour of the Crown with respect resource decisions and potential impacts on First Nations, the Haisla Nation had little say about the projects with associated vessel traffic in its Territory.
While standard petroleum product tankers, many carrying condensate, a natural gas product, have been visiting Kitimat for years, there have. so far, been no supertankers, much less Very Large Crude Carriers. No bitumen carrying tankers have visited Kitimat, a fact always ignored by the region’s critics in Alberta and by Enbridge on its website.
Not only the filing by the Haisla Nation but most of the testimony at the recent public comment hearings in at Kitamaat Village, were about the fear of the growing cumulative effect of greatly increased tanker traffic on the Channel.
The Haisla Nation, in its response to a series of questions about funding posed by Enbridge through the Joint Review process, has replied that it “ takes offence at the implication that its participation in the Joint Review Panel process is strictly to oppose the Northern Gateway Project.”
In its response to Enbridge, the Haisla Nation says it has received no funding from Tides Canada.
The Haisla Nation, however, does detail what funding it has received, including some from Enbridge, and then counters that with details of just how expensive it is to participate in the Joint Review Process.
The Haisla say that in December, 2009, the First Nation asked the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for $1,593,900 for participating in the Joint Review Panel process over the next two years.
According to the document filed with the JRP, the Haisla Nation says the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency offered $371,500, leaving a shortfall of $1,222,400.
The Haisla say that they have now reviewed that original application and the First Nation “notes that even the $1,593,900 sought in the original application for participant funding would not be enough to cover these costs.”
The Haisla acknowledge that they did receive funding from Enbridge Northern Gateway The Haisla Nation has received funding from the Northern Gateway “to prepare and provide a traditional use study in relation to the proposed project,” without stating the actual amount, adding that participating in the JRP has created a deficit “costing the Haisla Nation funds that will need to be diverted from other pressing projects and issues.”
Enbridge’s next question asked if the Haisla Nation was a member of the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative and therefore had received funding for “opposing the Northern Gateway Project?”
The Haisla reply that:
The Haisla Nation takes offence at the implication that its participation in the Joint Review Panel process is strictly to oppose the Northern Gateway Project. As set out above, the Haisla Nation is participating in the Joint Review Panel process as it is currently the only process for assessing the proposed project. This process has been imposed without meaningful consideration of Haisla Nation concerns, and the Haisla Nation is participating despite an unlevel playing field.
The Haisla Nation has not received funding from the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The Haisla then emphasize:
The Haisla Nation has not received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations, either directly or indirectly, to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The next question from Enbridge not only asked about the personal finances of members of the Haisla Nation council, but also showed that even after years of involvement with First Nations, Enbridge still hasn’t done its homework and can’t even spell “Kitamaat.”
Enbridge asked:
Have any members of the Kitimaat Village Council received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations to participate in this proceeding or to otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project, either directly or indirectly? If so, how much funding was received and by whom?
The Haisla reply by saying
This question is beyond the scope of matters currently before the Joint Review
Panel. Nevertheless, the Haisla Nation offers the following information:
“Kitimaat Village Council” is a misspelling of the former name of the Haisla
Nation Council. The Haisla Nation Council is the elected government of the
Haisla Nation.
The Haisla Nation Council is governed by rules and a code of ethics that require disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest. If any member of Haisla Nation Council had received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations in their personal capacity, they would have had to disclose this to Council.
None of these members have received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations, either directly or indirectly, to participate in the Joint Review Panel proceedings, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project, or for any other purpose regarding the Northern Gateway Project.
The final question from Enbridge asked the Haisla, in the financial disclosure to
“include funding received by the Headwaters Initiative.”
The Haisla reply:
Headwaters Initiative has no affiliation with the Haisla Nation Council. The Haisla Nation Council has no information about funding received by Headwaters Initiative.
That question again shows again that despite years of involvement in northwestern British Columbia, Enbridge hasn’t done its homework, since the Headwaters Initiative is an environmental organization with members from not only the Haisla Nation but also non-aboriginal residents of both Kitimat and Terrace.
It appears that Enbridge was asking those questions as part of a preparation for a “follow the money” spin campaign building on the work of blogger Vivian Krause and her right-wing supporters in the business media. If so, so far, it hasn’t worked out very well for Enbridge. Haisla Nation Response to NGP Information Request (pdf)
In their filing with the Joint Review Panel, the Haisla Nation point to what they say is inadequate information provided by Enbridge on the Northern Gateway project, including:
To date the material provided by Northern Gateway does not adequately explain the known risks inherent to the proposed project and lacks significant detail with respect to the extent and degree of potential effects. The material provided by Northern Gateway does not provide sufficient information to determine how the risks inherent to the proposed project will be minimized, nor how the potential for significant adverse effects will be avoided.
There are a number of areas where the Haisla Nation has identified inadequateinformation, including but not limited to:
.
Design: there is a lack of information about detailed design considerations and monitoring procedures for pipeline integrity to avoid accidents and malfunctions due to corrosion, seismic events, and terrain instability. A notable example of this problem is in the Kitimat River Valley, where Northern Gateway has identified a high level of risk but has not offered any solutions. Another is the concern about the corrosive nature of the material to be transported. Northern Gateway denies that this is a problem, yet the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and
Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) has commissioned a major study to investigate the corrosive nature of diluted bitumen in pipelines.
Materials to be transported: there is a lack of information about the fate, behaviour and effects of diluted bitumen, synthetic crude and condensate in the cold water marine and freshwater environment. This concern has been identified by federal government participants as well as by numerous intervenors, and Northern Gateway has acknowledged the need for more research and information. Yet, Northern Gateway has not agreed to undertake this work so that it is available for review in this process.
Volume of material to be transported: Northern Gateway’s application is for a pipeline that will transport 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day. Yet the pipeline will be built to have a capacity of up to 850,000 barrels per day, and Northern Gateway’s application materials identifies future phases with increased volumes up to this amount. The risk assessments conducted by Northern Gateway are premised on 525,000 barrels per day, and fail to contemplate higher volumes which would affect a number of matters, including but not limited to: pipeline risk; volume of potential spills; and tanker traffic volume. The risk assessment needs to be revised, to address the risks associated with the pipeline transporting 850,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day. Without this revision, Northern Gateway is asking the JRP to conduct its assessment on incomplete information that, by definition, understates the true potential risk of the proposed project.
.Baseline information: Northern Gateway has not undertaken the studies necessary to generate baseline ecosystem assessments for the Kitimat River drainage and Kitimat Arm, including seasonal habitat utilization by species and life stages throughout the watershed. This information is necessary to determine both stream crossing construction strategy and to assess the potential impacts of a spill, as well as to determine how to respond to a spill and when. A ‘one-size fits all’ approach to stream crossings during construction and spill response, when adequateinformation about seasonal habitat utilization by species and life stages throughout the watershed is lacking, is not adequate. This information is needed to determine when construction can proceed and what timeframe limitations there are for activities, to ensure that adverse effects to fish and wildlife are avoided. This information is also required, should a spill occur, to enable a proper assessment of the extent and degree of adverse effects as well as to provide a proper basis for restoration of affected habitat.
Past spills: there is a lack of information about the cause, effects, emerging information and lessons learned as a result of Enbridge’s large diluted bitumen spill into the Kalamazoo River. We know that 3,785,400 liters of diluted bitumen were pumped out of the pipeline, with a largeportion of that ending up in to the Kalamazoo River. We know the large volume of the spill was the result of numerous attempts to re-pressurize the pipeline despite repeated spill alarms being triggered. We know that government agencies stepped in to manage the spill because Enbridge’s response was not swift enough. We know that Enbridge’s clean-up costs to date exceed insurance coverage. We know that two years later Enbridge is still under a clean-up mandate from the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and that portions of the Kalamazoo River are still closed to recreational use. What we do not know, however, is what the cause of the pipeline rupture was, what Enbridge has learned about how diluted bitumen behaves once it is released into the environment, or how a local population that relies on the river for fishing, for traditional harvesting and gathering of foods and medicines would have been affected.
Oil spill response: there is a lack of information about oil spill response and planning, including best practices, best available technology and the local on-site equipment and personnel required full-time to respond properly to a spill. This is largely due to the lack of adequate baseline information on which to base response planning. Further, Northern Gateway has demonstrated an unwillingness to fully consider how spill response would be carried out until it receives a certificate for its project.
Yet Northern Gateway seeks to rely on spill response as a mitigation strategy. If Northern Gateway seeks to rely on spill response as a mitigation strategy, it should provide in detail, prior to project approval, what its oil spill response would include and demonstrate that it is logistically, technologically and economically feasible. Northern Gateway has not done this.
.Mitigation measures: there is a lack of information about existing proven mitigation measures and their effectiveness in cleaning up an oil spill, restoring habitat and regenerating the species dependent on the affected habitat. This should be evaluated as part of project review, prior to project approval. Where Northern Gateway seeks to rely on a mitigation measure as a basis for project approval, it must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will actually work.
Avoidance of any significant adverse effects must be the primary goal and dictate the design and location of the proposed project. Mitigation (e.g. complete resolution) of any potential environmental effects should be the preferred option, when all efforts to avoid such effects fail. Compensation for environmental effects must be a last resort and relied on only when best efforts have been made to avoid or mitigate effects. Unfortunately, the material submitted by Northern Gateway suggests that compensation is the primary option and lack of evidence on project design and procedures makes it impossible to evaluate how potential effects could be avoided or mitigated.
For example, Northern Gateway proposes to have spill interception points (river control points) along the Kitimat River Valley as part of its mitigation, but has no realistic plan in place that takes into consideration response delay times, rates of transportation, access issues or baseline ecosystem, fish and wildlife information for the receiving environment.
The Haisla Nation has confirmed in a filing with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel that it opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.
The document, filed June 29, 2012, is one of the most significant filed with the JRP during all the years of the debate over the controversial Northern Gateway, setting out a three stage process that will govern, whether Enbridge or the federal government like it or not, the future of the Northern Gateway pipeline project.
First, the Haisla Nation affirms that it opposes the Northern Gateway project
Second, the Haisla Nation is demanding that the federal government, in recognition of aboriginal rights and title, reject the Northern Gateway project on Haisla traditional territory.
Third, probably anticipating that Stephen Harper and his government will attempt to force the Northern Gateway on British Columbia, the Haisla are demanding meaningful consultation and set out a stringent set of minimum conditions for the project on Haisla traditional territory.
The Haisla also say that there already projects that are better suited to their traditional territory, the liquified natural gas projects.
The Haisla position that Ottawa must reject the pipeline if First Nations oppose it is the opening round in the constitutional battle over not just the pipeline, but entire question of aboriginal rights and title. So far the government of Stephen Harper has said that First Nations do not have a “veto” on the pipeline and terminal project.
In the filing with the Joint Review panel, the Haisla outline nine reasons for opposition to the Northern Gateway project:
1. Northern Gateway is proposing to site its project in a location that places at risk the ecological integrity of a large portion and significant aspects of Haisla Nation Territory and resources.
2. All three aspects of the proposed project – the pipelines, the marine terminal and tankers – have the potential to impact Haisla Nation lands, waters and resources.
3. Northern Gateway has neither conducted sufficient due diligence nor provided sufficient information with respect to the assessment of a number of critical aspects of the proposed project, including but not limited to project design, impacts, risks, accidents and malfunctions, spill response, potential spill consequences and the extent, degree and duration of any significant adverse environmental effects.
4. There are significant risks of spills of diluted bitumen, synthetic crude, and condensate from corrosion, landslide hazards, seismic events along the pipeline route and at the terminal site; as well asloss of cargo or service fuels from tanker accidents, with no realistic plan provided for spill containment, cleanup, habitat restoration or regeneration of species dependent on the affected habitat.
5. Diluted bitumen, synthetic crude and condensate are all highly toxic to the environment and living systems and the consequences and effects of a spill could be devastating on the resources that support the Haisla Nation way of life, and would therefore have significant adverse effects on Haisla Nation culture and cultural heritage and aboriginal rights.
6. Risk assessments and technology have not overcome the potential for human error, wherein it is well established that 80% of oil tanker accidents that cause oil spills at sea are a result of human errors: badly handled manoeuvres, neglected maintenance, insufficient checking of systems, lack of communication between crew members, fatigue, or an inadequate response to a minor incident
causing it to escalate into a major accident often resulting in groundings and collisions (http://www.black-tides.com/uk/source/oil-tanker-accidents/causes-accidents.php). It has also become increasingly obvious that maintenance of pipeline integrity and the remote detection of pipeline ruptures is inadequate as exemplified by major environmental damage from recent pipeline ruptures in Michigan and Alberta.
7. The proposed project requires the alienation of Haisla Nation aboriginal title land, and the federal government has refused to engage in consultation with the Haisla Nation about the potential impacts of the proposed project on Haisla Nation aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title.
8. The proposed project would require the use of Haisla Nation aboriginal title land for a purpose that is inconsistent with Haisla Nation stewardship principles and with the Haisla Nation’s own aspirations for this land.
9. For the reasons set out above, the proposed project would constitute an unjustified infringement of Haisla Nation aboriginal title and rights. It would therefore be illegal for the Crown to authorize the project.
Canada is obliged to decline approval of the project
Up until now, the federal government has refused to engage First Nations in the northwestern region over the issue of the Northern Gateway pipeline and terminal, saying that the constitutionally mandated consultation will take place after the Joint Review Panel has released its report. However, the government’s Bill C-38, which gives the federal cabinet (actually the prime minister) the power to decide the pipeline means that the JRP report will be less significant than it would have been before the Conservatives gained a majority government in May, 2010.
The Haisla say the nation has “repeatedly requested early engagement by federal government decision-makers to develop, together with the Haisla Nation, a meaningful process for consultation and accommodation in relation to the proposed project.”
The filing says JRP and “the federal government’s ‘Aboriginal Consultation Framework’ have been imposed on the Haisla Nation and other First Nations, with significant aspects of the concerns expressed by the Haisla Nation about this approach being ignored.”
The Haisla says it “continues to seek a commitment from the federal government to the joint development of a meaningful process to assess the proposed project and its potential impacts on Haisla Nation aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title.”
Later in the filing the Haisla say:
The Haisla Nation has… repeatedly asked federal decision-makers to commit to the joint development of a meaningful consultation process with the Haisla Nation. The federal Crown decision-makers have made it very clear that they have no intention of meeting with the Haisla Nation until the Joint Review Panel’s review of the proposed project is complete…
The federal Crown has failed to provide any clarity, however, about what procedural aspects of consultation it has delegated to Northern Gateway. Northern Gateway has not consulted with the Haisla Nation and has not advised the Haisla Nation that Canada has delegated any aspects of the consultation process.
The Haisla then go on to say:
Canada is legally required to work with the Haisla Nation to develop and follow such a process. If the process establishes that the approval of the proposed project would constitute an unjustified infringement of Haisla Nation aboriginal rights or aboriginal title, then Canada would be legally obliged to decline approval.
Deficiencies and Conditions
Enbridge asked the Haisla that if there are conditions of approval that would nonetheless
address, in whole or in part, the Nation’s concerns; and then asked for details “on the nature of any conditions that the Haisla Nation would suggest be imposed on the Project, should it be approved.”
The Haisla reply that because there are “significant deficiencies in the evidence provided by Northern Gateway to date.” The nation goes on to say that “the acknowledged risks that have not been adequately addressed in the proposed project.” The Haisla Nation then says it “does not foresee any conditions that could be attached to the project as currently conceived and presented that would eliminate the Haisla Nation’s concerns.”
The Haisla then repeat that Enbridge has not provided sufficient information so that
it is difficult for the Haisla Nation to identify conditions to attach to the proposed project as it is still trying to fully understand the potential impacts of the project and the proposed mitigation. This is primarily because there is insufficient information provided by Northern Gateway in its application material.
Although we have attempted to elicit additional information through the JRP’s information request process, Northern Gateway has not provide adequate and complete answers to the questions posed.
The Haisla then anticipate that Stephen Harper will force the pipeline and terminal on British Columbia and say:
Nevertheless, if the project were to be approved AFTER the Crown meaningfully
consulted and accommodated the Haisla Nation with respect to the impacts of
the proposed project on its aboriginal title and rights, and if that consultation were
meaningful yet did not result in changes to the proposed project, the following
conditions would, at a minimum, have to be attached to the project.
The emphasis of the word “after” is in the original document.
The document that then goes on to present an extensive list of list of conditions the Haisla believe should be imposed on the Enbridge Northern Gateway if the project goes ahead.
The conditions include comprehensive monitoring of water quality, fisheries, wildlife and birds, vegetation throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel; development of comprehensive spill response capability throughout the Kitimat River Valley, Kitmat Arm and Douglas Channel.
The Haisla also want soil and erosion control plans; water management plans; control and storage plans for fuels, lubricants and other potential contaminants; detailed plans for equipment deployment and habitat reclamation of disturbed or cleared areas.
The Haisla also want much more detailed studies before any construction, including analysis of terrain stability and slide potential throughout the pipeline corridor and at the storage tank and terminal site; engineering designs to mitigate seismic risk and local weather extremes; development of pipeline integrity specifications and procedures including best practices for leak detection; storage tank integrity specifications, maintenance and monitoring; assessment of spill containment, spill response and spill capacity requirements throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel.
On tankers the Haisla want more details beyond the plans already filed by Enbridge including
detailed tanker specifications, detailed tanker and tug traffic management procedures; detailed port management specifications and procedures including operating limits for tanker operation, movement and docking.
The Haisla are also demanding “on going consultation” on all issues involved by the National Energy Board prior to any decision on any changes to or sign off on conditions and commitments to any certificate that is issued.
The Haisla want an independent third party be part of a committee to oversee the construction proecess to monitor certificate compliance during construction of the marine terminal and the pipeline.
Once the pipeline and terminal operational, the Haisla want conditions imposed on the project that include ongoing monitoring of the terrain along the pipeline, a system that would automatically shut down the pipeline shutdown whenever a leak detection alarm occurs.
The Hasila want conditions “on the disposal of any contamination that must be removed as
a result of an accident or malfunction resulting in a spill that will minimize additional habitat destruction and maximize the potential for regeneration of habitat and resources damaged by the spill.”
As well as more detailed parameters for the tankers, tugs, and pilotage procedures, the Haisla want approval of any future changes in those procedures.
The Haisla are also concerned about the “alienation” of a large area of their traditional territory by the construction of the Northern Gateway project as well as the “additional infrastructure” required by adequate spill response capability and spill response equipment cache sites.
The Haisla say “all of the land alienations required for the proposed project would profoundly
infringe Haisla Nation aboriginal title which is, in effect, a constitutionally protected ownership right” and goes on to say “proposed project would use Haisla Nation aboriginal title land in a way that is inconsistent with Haisla Nation stewardship of its lands, waters and resources and with the Haisla Nation’s own aspirations for the use of this land.”
The Haisla filing then goes on to say:
Since aboriginal title is a constitutionally protected right to use the aboriginal title land for the purposes the Haisla Nation sees fit, this adverse use would fundamentally infringe the aboriginal title of the Haisla Nation.
The report also expresses concerns about the ongoing socio-economic affects of such a large project.
It concludes by saying:
These issues are important. They go to the very heart of Haisla Nation culture.
They go to the Haisla Nation relationship with the lands, waters, and resources of
its Territory. A major spill from the pipeline at the marine terminal or from a
tanker threatens to sever us from or damage our lifestyle built on harvesting and
gathering seafood and resources throughout our Territory.
Northern Gateway proposes a pipeline across numerous tributaries to the Kitimat
River. A spill into these watercourses is likely to eventually occur. The evidence
before the Panel shows that pipeline leaks or spills occur with depressing
regularity.
One of Enbridge’s own experiences, when it dumped 3,785,400 liters of diluted
bitumen into the Kalamazoo River, shows that the concern of a spill is real and
not hypothetical. A thorough understanding of this incident is critical to the
current environmental assessment since diluted bitumen is what Northern
Gateway proposes to transport. However, nothing was provided in the application
materials to address the scope of impact, the level of effort required for cleanup
and the prolonged effort required to restore the river. An analysis of this incident
would provide a basis for determining what should be in place to maintain
pipeline integrity as well as what should be in place locally to respond to any spill.
The Kalamazoo spill was aggravated by an inability to detect the spill, by an
inability to respond quickly and effectively, and by an inability to predict the fate
of the diluted bitumen in the environment. As a result, the Kalamazoo River has
suffered significant environmental damage. The long-term cumulative
environmental damage from this spill is yet to be determined.
Looking to the future, the Haisla are also asking for a plan for the eventual decommissioning of the project, pointing out that “ Northern Gateway has not provided information on decommissioning that is
detailed enough to allow the Haisla Nation to set out all its concerns about the
potential impacts from decommissioning at this point in time.”
Haisla leaders have already expressed concern about the legacy of the Eurocan paper plant. Now it tells Enbridge
This is not good enough. The Haisla Nation needs to know how Northern Gateway proposes to undertake decommissioning, what the impacts will be, and that there will be financial security in place to ensure this is done properly.
Asserts aboriginal title
The section of the report concludes by saying:
The Haisla Nation asserts aboriginal title to its Territory. Since the essence of
aboriginal title is the right of the aboriginal title holder to use land according to its
own discretion, Haisla Nation aboriginal title entails a constitutionally protected
ability of the Haisla Nation to make decisions concerning land and resource use
within Haisla Nation Territory. Any government decision concerning lands,
waters, and resource use within Haisla Nation Territory that conflicts with a
Haisla lands, waters or resources use decision is only valid to the extent that the
government can justify this infringement of Haisla Nation aboriginal title.
The Supreme Court of Canada has established that infringements of aboriginal
title can only be justified if there has been, in the case of relatively minor
infringements, consultation with the First Nation. Most infringements will require
something much deeper than consultation if the infringement is to be justified.
The Supreme Court has noted that in certain circumstances the consent of the
aboriginal nation may be required. Further, compensation will ordinarily be
required if an infringement of aboriginal title is to be justified [Delgamuukw].
The Haisla then go on to say that the preferred use of the land in question is for the liquified natural gas projects:
The Haisla Nation has a chosen use for the proposed terminal site. This land
was selected in the Haisla Nation’s treaty land offer submitted to British Columbia
and Canada in 2005, as part of the BC Treaty Negotiation process, as lands
earmarked for Haisla Nation economic development.
The Haisla Nation has had discussions with the provincial Crown seeking to
acquire these lands for economic development purposes for a liquefied natural
gas project. The Haisla Nation has had discussions with potential partners about
locating a liquefied natural gas facility on the site that Northern Gateway
proposes to acquire for the marine terminal. The Haisla Nation sees these lands
as appropriate for a liquefied natural gas project as such a project is not nearly
as detrimental to the environment as a diluted bitumen export project.
Northwest Coast Energy News is attempting to contact Enbridge Northern Gateway for comment on the Haisla filing. Response may be delayed by the Canada Day holiday.
The Kitamaat Village dock seen on June 27, 2012. Enbridge has filed questions asking the Haisla what they know about current vessel traffic on Douglas Channel. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
A series of questions filed by Enbridge Northern Gateway with the Joint Review Panel appear to be a “fishing expedition” to find out not only what the Haisla Nation feel about the Northern Gateway project but also seeks details of Haisla agreements with the various Kitimat liquified natural gas projects.
In its May filing, Enbridge asks the Haisla Nation 28 pages of questions, many of them political, and also try to find out the sources of funding the Haisla Nation is using for its participation in the Northern Gateway Joint Review process, questioning the credentials of the experts hired by the Haisla and are likely setting up the First Nation for Enbridge’s propaganda campaigns about current vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel.
On May 11, Enbridge filed a series of questions with 24 intervenors and First Nations asking detailed questions not only about the technical issues raised by those groups but also their funding sources and their political actvity.
In its questions to the Haisla Nation, Enbridge asks a series of technical questions around the questions of “acceptable risk” and it appears, despite the fact Enbridge officials have listened to the Haisla official presentation at Kitamaat Village last January (and the speeches of Haisla members this week at the pubic comment hearings) that Enbridge is preparing to use a paper-based or Alberta-based concept of “acceptable risk,” as opposed to listening to the First Nation that will be most directly affected by any disaster in the Kitimat harbour or estuary.
The first questions Enbridge asks the Haisla Nation are blunt, and again, appear to contradict what Enbridge has been saying about First Nations agreeing to back the pipeline.
(a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation opposes the approval of Northern Gateway’s Application for the Project.(b) If the Haisla Nation opposes the approval of the Application, please advise as to whether there are conditions of approval that would nonetheless address, in whole or in part, the Nation’s concerns.
(c) If so, please elaborate on the nature of any conditions that the Haisla Nation would suggest be imposed on the Project, should it be approved.
(d) Please summarize the effects that the Haisla Nation considers would be created by the Project, should it be approved and constructed. Include both positive and negative effects.
(e) Please describe the mitigation measures proposed by the Haisla Nation (if any) to reduce potentially adverse Project effects on the Haisla Nation’s rights and interests.
Another section of questions asks about the funding Haisla may or not be receiving.
The Haisla Nation has expressed the view that inadequate funding has been provided to participate in this proceeding.
Request:
(a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation has received participant funding from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to participate in this proceeding.
(b) Please advise as to the amount of participant funding received to date from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
(c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation has received significant funding from the Northern Gateway Project for the purpose of preparing traditional use studies in relation to this Project.
(d) Please advise as to the amount of funding received by the Haisla Nation from any other external sources to participate in this proceeding, or otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project.
(e) Is the Haisla Nation a member of the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative?
(f) Has the Haisla Nation received funding, directly or indirectly, from the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative for the purpose of participating in this proceeding, or otherwise opposing the Northern Gateway Project? If so, how much funding was received?
(g) Has the Haisla Nation received funding from Tides Canada or any similar organization for the purpose of participating in this proceeding or otherwise opposing the Northern Gateway Project? If so, how much funding was received and from whom?
(h)Have any members of the Kitimaat Village Council received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations to participate in this proceeding or to otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project, either directly or indirectly? If so, how much funding was received and by whom? Please include funding received by the Headwaters Initiative in this response.
(i) Are there agreements or understandings in place as between coastal First Nations whereby no
coastal First Nation will oppose LNG development supported by the Haisla First Nation, and no coastal First Nation, including the Haisla First Nation, will support the Northern Gateway Project?
Enbridge then goes on a fishing expedition to find out more about their agreements with the LNG projects.
Position Regarding LNG Projects 1.5
Reference:
(i)
Kitimat LNG, News Release, “Canada, BC, Join Haisla Nation and Kitimat LNG Partners in Marking
Project Go-Ahead; ‘A Very Big Day for Our People’ Says Chief Councillor Pollard” (9 March
2011)
online: Kitimat LNG
<http://mediacenter.kitimatlngfacility.com/Mediacenter/view_press_release.as
px?PressRelease.ItemID=2807>.
(ii) Dina O’Meara, “National regulator approves BC LNG export licence Co-operative
a partnership with Haisla First Nation”, The Calgary Herald (3 February 2012) online The Calgary Herald <http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/National+regulator+approves+export+
licence/6093310/story.html>.
Preamble:
Northern Gateway would like to confirm the Haisla Nation’s position with respect to certain liquefied
natural gas (“LNG”) projects.
Request: (a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation supports construction and operation of the Kitimat LNG Project (also known as the KM LNG Project).
(b) Please confirm that Kitimat LNG holds an export licence to ship 200 million tonnes of LNG over 20 years from the Kitimat LNG Terminal, to be located at Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat, BC, to Pacific Rim markets by marine vessel.
(Note since the National Energy Board approved the export licence, and that is available on the NEB site, why is Enbridge asking the Haisla and the NEB to provide information that is so readily available?)
(c)Please provide copies of all environmental assessment studies, risk assessments, TERMPOL review studies and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (“ATK”) studies pertaining to the Kitimat LNG Project. If such studies do not currently exist, please advise when they will be completed and provided. If confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the ATK study, please indicate whether the Haisla Nation is prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.
(d) Please provide copies of all agreements that the Haisla Nation has entered into with Kitimat LNG including, impact benefit agreements and lease agreements.
(e) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation supports construction and operation of the BC LNG Export Cooperative Project.
(f) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is a joint venturer or partner with LNG Partners of Houston, in the BC LNG Export Cooperative.
(g) Please confirm that the BC LNG Export Cooperative holds an export licence to ship 36 million
tonnes of supercooled natural gas over 20 years from floating terminal off Kitimat, BC to
Pacific Rim markets by marine vessel. (Again this information is publicly available on the NEB website, so why is Enbridge asking the question?)
(h) Please provide copies of all environmental assessment studies, risk assessments, TERMPOL review studies and ATK studies pertaining to the BC LNG Export Cooperative Project. If such studies do not currently exist, please advise when they will be completed and provided. If confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the ATK study, please indicate whether the Haisla Nation is prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.
Position Regarding Kitimat – Summit Lake Pipeline Looping Project
1.6 Reference: (i) BC Environmental Assessment Office, “Kitimat
–
Summit Lake Pipeline Looping Project Assessment Report With Respect to Review of the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43” (12 May 2008) at page 7, online: BC Environmental Assessment Office
<http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p270/1214599791218_8e248
a8d30d995f6590f6f694d7789f6e20e141ef52b.pdf>.
(i) states: “The Haisla Nation wrote to the EAO indicating that they support the Project receiving a Provincial EA Certificate, subject to certain conditions (which are being
met).” Reference (ii) provides a First Nations Consultation Report in respect of the Haisla Nation.
Request:
(a) Please confirm that the Haisla First Nation supports the construction and operation of the Pacific Trails Pipeline Project (also known as the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project).
(b)
Please confirm that Reference (ii) accurately describes the nature and strength of claim by the Haisla First Nation in respect of those portions of the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project that will traverse Haisla traditional territory.
(c) Please confirm that
(ci) Reference (ii) lists the mitigation measures proposed by the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project to address construction-related impacts on Haisla First Nation traditional territory, and that such measures are acceptable to the Haisla First Nation. If any such measures are not acceptable, please identify them and advise as to modifications considered appropriate by the Haisla First Nation.
(d) Please advise as to whether similar measures would be requested by the Haisla First Nation to deal with construction-related impacts of the Northern Gateway Project.
(e) Please file a copy of the report entitled Haisla Traditional Use and Occupancy of the Proposed PNG Pipeline Corridor through the lower Kitimat River Valley cited on page 124 of Reference
(ii).] If confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the study, please indicate whether the Haisla are prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.
Enbridge also asks the Haisla to provide examples of how the Haisla Nation currently regulates,
or purports to regulate, vessel movements within its Traditional Territory.
(c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is aware of existing and proposed marine vessel activity within its Traditional Territory, including:
(i) fuel barges
(ii) cargo/container ships
(iii) commercial fishing vessels
(iv) condensate tankers
(v) liquefied natural gas tankers
According to numbers from the Port of Kitimat, not only have vessels carrying industrial products been travelling the channels safely for some 35 years, but so too have ships carrying petroleum products—like the one featured arriving in the Port of Kitimat through the Douglas Channel in the picture above.
In fact, some 1,560 vessels carrying methanol and condensate called on Kitimat port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s over 3,100 transits of vessels dedicated to the transport of petroleum products.
When you add vessel traffic of all industrial activity into Kitimat port, the number jumps to 6,112.
To be clear…the number of ships servicing industry arriving at Kitimat port between 1978 and 2009 is 6,112. That’s 12,224 transits!
This Enbridge propaganda campaign has been quite successful in Alberta, leading to constant tweets over the past year, mostly from Albertans such as this one from
@jeffreylowes “Tanker traffic in Kitimat today” So I wonder what the problem is? #northerngateway #cdnpoli http://t.co/w38dt7KA
(Lowes’ Twitter profile describes him as Director of Government & Industrial Relations at MREP Communications A Social Conservative, Opinions are my own. RTs not necessarily endorsements.)
That page is frequently cited on Twitter, again mostly by tweeters from Alberta and Saskatchewan who have never been within 1,000 kilometres of the the BC coast as justification for the increased tanker traffic.
Haisla Nation Chief Counselor Ellis Ross testifies before the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel at Kitamaat Village, January 10, 2012 (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
In addition, many of those who testified at this week’s public comment hearings, noted the difference between the current vessel traffic—no supertankers or Very Large Crude Carriers have yet sailed Douglas Channel and the fears of the vast increase in tanker traffic that will happen if all the various projects including LNG and Enbridge go ahead.
Many of the remaining questions to the Haisla are highly technical responses to their questions or filings with the Joint Review Panel.
Members of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, left to right, Kenneth Bateman, chair Sheila Leggett and Hans Matthews make notes at the June 25, 2012 hearings at the Haisla Recreation Centre, Kitamaat Village. A map of Douglas Channel can be seen behind the panel. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
“This will be the first project in Canadian history to have First Nations, environmentalists and, for a lack of a better term, rednecks standing together in protest,” that sentence from Katherina Ouwehand summed up the first day of public comment testimony Monday, June 25, 2012, as the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel returned to the Haisla Recreation Centre at Kitamaat Village.
Ten minutes isn’t that long. Ten minutes is the time that the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel gives a member of the public to express their opinion on the controversial Enbridge project that would pipe oil sands bitumen from Alberta through the port of Kitimat to Asia.
Ten minutes is sufficient if you know what you’re talking about, if you’ve done your homework and rehearsed presentation so it can comes in right on time.
Ten minutes can be eternity if you’re an Enbridge official sitting silently at a nearby table as people who do know what they’re saying tear apart your public presentations, your multi-million dollar ads and the thousands of pages the company has filed with the Joint Review Panel. Or perhaps, as some at the public comment hearings pointed out, those ten minutes mean little if Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already decided the pipeline will go ahead no matter what, and thus any recommendation from the JRP has little credibility.
The first witness to appear before the public comment hearings on Monday afternoon was someone who knows all about the role of human error in accidents, Manny Aruda, an Emergency Response Team leader at the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter.
Aruda began by commenting, “To be clear, I do not belong to any environmental or radical organization, although I do recycle and occasionally I do eat granola.” His responsibilities at RTA include overseeing anything related to an emergency response, including dealing with spills and reporting the spills. Before that he worked at Methanex first in operations as a field operator and then as an ammonia control room operator. He also volunteers as a Search Manager for Kitimat Search and Rescue.
Talking about his time in the control room at Methanex, Aruda said, “I worked in the state-of-the-art chemical plant which is constantly being updated with the newest instrumentation. No matter how many safety features are in place, human error could supersede. Incorrect wires were cut causing plants to shut down; drain lines were left open during start-up causing methanol to go into the effluent system and eventually into the ocean; pigs [robots that operate inside pipes] are used to clean pipelines that were supposed to be collected at the end of a line at the wharf, and over-pressurizing of the line and mental error, leaving a valve open and the next thing you know pigs really do fly right into the ocean.
“Enbridge has spoken many times about how they’ll use smart pigs. Perhaps their smart pigs will know when to put the brakes on and stop.
Humans weak link
“The bottom line is that no matter what state-of-the-art infrastructure, instrumentation, safety
Manny Aruda takes some water after testifying before the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel at Kitamaat Village, June 25, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
measures are in place human decisions or lack of decisions will affect the outcome. Humans are the weak link.
“There is an enormous pressure from management to keep plants and pipelines running. Control room operators are most at risk on start-ups and shutdowns, when conditions are changing rapidly. When a suspected issue arises it requires interpretation and analytical skills. These skills are relative to the amount of knowledge and experience of the individual.
“When in the control room you can’t see, hear or smell what’s going on outside, this is why the field operator is so valuable and utilized to go out in the field to verify a level, check a pump status, a pressure reading, identify leaks, et cetera.
Despite what some people may believe, it’s not black and white. There’s not a red Staples easy button flashing indicating that a spill is happening.
“When in the control room you can’t see, hear or smell what’s going on outside, this is why the field operator is so valuable and utilized to go out in the field to verify a level, check a pump status, a pressure reading, identify leaks… Despite what some people may believe, it’s not black and white. There’s not a red Staples easy button flashing indicating that a spill is happening.”
Any deviation from normal operations is subject to interpretation by the control room operator, “a human, the weak link,” Aruda said. He added: “Industry can continue to make improvements and make things more and more idiot-proof. History has shown that better idiots will come along.”
He told the JRP that the long Northern Gateway pipeline through remote mountain passes would have no field operators available to check every kilometre of the line to verify what the control room operator thinks is happening.
Like other witnesses, Aruda pointed to the Enbridge spill at Marshall, Michigan, where four million litres were spilled into a river in a populated area. “The spill went unnoticed due to human error,
the weak link.”
He testified that he has spent “hundreds of hours looking at Enbridge’s risk assessment,
management of spills, emergency response,” and then he said from the point of view of an
emergency response team leader, “reading these documents has flabbergasted me.” He said Enbridge’s risk management was “seriously deficient and woefully lacking in substance. They do not take into consideration the rugged terrain, the climatic conditions and dangers of fast flowing moving water.”
He said Talmadge Creek that feeds the Kalamazoo River, the location of the spill in Michigan, flows at much slower rate than the Kitimat River. At Kalamazoo, he said, four million litre oil spill moved 39 miles downstream contaminating everything in its path and it was contained two days later.
“It took Enbridge two days to deal with a meandering Kalamazoo River spill. Enbridge has stated in their risk assessment and management of spills they can contain a spill in the Kitimat River within two to four hours. This is irresponsible and inaccurate statement with no associated details.
It rains a lot in Kitimat
“To be fair, the Marshall spill happened at the worst possible time when the Kalamazoo River flows were at flood stage, causing oil to be deposited high on marshes and banks. This caused widespread contamination in the area. The Kitimat area also has high periods of flows and flood stages. It’s called, May, June, September, October and November. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but it rains here, a lot.
“In a worst-case scenario for the Kitimat River, Aruda said, based on events of September 2011, “heavy rain caused a dramatic increase in river levels within 24 hours. This is a normal occurrence. And the river widens by 75 yards in some locations. I have personally witnessed tree after tree, including 100 foot trees with full root balls 20-feet in diameter barrelling down this river. The Kitimat River flow at that time, 72,000 cubic feet a second, [was] some 18 times more than the Kalamazoo River. There’s not one qualified incident commander that would even consider sending out emergency responders into that raging river.”
He said that even during a moderate rise of the river, booms are not effective because of all the debris floating down the river.
Aruda said, “I invite anyone who thinks this oil spill can be cleaned up effectively to drift down the river with me to see for themselves how impossible a task that would be.” He noted that Enbridge has spent $765 million in clean-up costs, and while some parts of the Kalamazoo River have recently been opend for recreational use, other parts remain closed for clean-up.
He repeated his belief that Enbridge’s response plans are insufficient and concluded by saying, “Other pipelines and transmission lines have succumbed to the forces of nature in this area without any long-term environmental impacts. Sadly, this will not be the case if oil spills here.”
A later witness was Terry Brown, a former project engineer at Eurocan. Brown began by describing his love for sailing the Douglas Channel for the past 28 years. In one instance, Brown said, “ One extra-special night was when the ocean waters were disturbed and the phosphorescence was a glow like fireworks. We were seldom alone on the water as we often saw, heard and smelled seals, sea lions, orcas, and humpback whales, just like a huge aquarium but all to our own and so secluded.
“We not only stayed on the surface but some of our family engaged in scuba diving. What a joy to see so much life, crabs, fish, and shrimp, sea anemones, sea lions and much more. What a gorgeous dive it was as our daughter Stacy and I went down deep on the wall at Coste Rocks to see many different life forms hanging in our view. Later, we circumnavigated the rock and were amazed to see the pure white forms of a large sea anemone.”
Katherina Ouwehand testifies at the Northern Gateway Joint Review hearings as Murray Minchin, the next witness listens, at the Haisla Recreation Centre, Kitamaat Village, June 25, 2012 (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Things failed
Like Aruda, he then turned to how things can go wrong. “No matter how hard we tried to do our best, things failed or as they often said, ‘shit happens’. Pipes, gaskets would fail; tanks would collapse; equipment would break. We even had SRBs in our stainless tanks. Many items would fail with such power that it would resemble an explosion.
“Lately, I have heard comments on how new gaskets are much better than old. Our experience was the opposite, as old gaskets contained asbestos they had a much better life span than the new synthetic ones.
“My largest project at Eurocan, a 300-tonne per day CMP pulp mill, actually had 10 — that’s it, 10 major failures within the first one to two years after start-up. During my working time, I was also involved in some of the projects to reduce the tainting of the local oohlican fish. This involves a highly cultural activity that the Haisla engaged in up until Eurocan start up in 1970.
“Over the 10 to 15 years spent looking for a solution, some $100 million was spent on related activities. If this much was spent with no success on a minor issue, if you call it that, how can anyone expect to clean up the beaches of a real nasty oil like dilbit?”
There was a third, highly technical presentation from Kelly Marsh, a millwright with the District of Kitimat (as well as Kitimat Search and Rescue volunteer) who presented his mathematical evidence, based on what he said we standard and accepted models that he said showed that Enbridge has vastly underestimated the chances of spill.
For the first time in public, some voiced in public what many in Kitimat have been saying in private, that if Stephen Harper pushes the project, there will be resistance from the residents of Northwestern British Columbia.
Katherina Ouwehand testified, “I am not a bully and I don’t lose my temper easily, but if this project is given the go-ahead by our Prime Minister, they had better be prepared for a huge fight. My thousands of like-minded friends and I will unite in force and do more than
speak up peacefully. There will be many blockades on the pathways of the pipeline and marine blockades in the channel.”
Murray Minchin, a member of Douglas Channel Watch (although everyone at the public comment hearings are testifying on their own behalf) said, “The original organizers of the Clayoquot Sound clear-cut logging blockades hoped that 500 to 600 people would turn out and help them protest. Over 10,000 showed up and almost 1,000 were arrested. Those numbers will be shattered if this project gets steamrolled through the regulatory process.”
Bill C-38
Many of the witnesses voiced their concerns about the Conservative omnibus Bill C-38 which they said would destroy many of the environmental safeguards in the Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts.
Margaret Ouwehand said. “I have a great fear. I am afraid of Enbridge because it represents much more than a pipeline; Enbridge is an enabler of all the things that make us ashamed to be Canadian. Do we want a Canada that endangers the whole world by contributing to global warming?
Do we want a Canada that muzzles scientists who don’t say what the oil companies want them to say? Do we feel proud when Canada puts up roadblocks to treaties with other countries so that oil companies can continue to pollute? Do we really want a Canada that prefers temporary foreign workers to be used and, in many cases, abused, just to provide oil companies with cheap labour? Wouldn’t it be more ethical to encourage immigrants to come to Canada to make permanent homes and actually contribute to the country?
“Once we were proud of Canada’s leadership in protecting the environment, both in Canada and world-wide. Now we have sold out to the highest bidders and by so doing we are jeopardizing our very sovereignty. We cannot enter into agreements to limit pollution because the big oil companies who own our resources won’t allow it.
“Once we were the world’s good guys, the peacekeepers, the ones who were caretakers of the environment and of endangered species. Now it’s all about money. Now we are at the bottom of the heap, along with other money-grubbers of the world.”
Mike Langegger, who has testified at previous National Energy Board and JRP hearings on behalf of the Kitimat Rod and Gun, testified, “Today I wish to speak to the implications of the Northern Gateway Project will have on my and many coastal families who call British Columbia home and the threat it poses to a generations of culture, lifestyle, relying on healthy and productive environment and ecosystems we currently have.
“My family, along with many resident British Columbians have a strong connection to our natural environment and is as much part of us as we are of it. By nature we are hunters and gatherers who have sustainable harvest from our natural environment over the generations providing for our families. Abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations in environment that sustained their existence is critical and must be guaranteed.
“Unfortunately, over my lifetime I’ve witnessed commercial and industrial exploitation come and go, each diminishing our areas natural environment and its ability to support wildlife and the many associated values. It is critical that not only negative implications of the Northern Gateway Project be considered but also the cumulative effects of current, proposed, and past exploitation that has or is likely to occur in our area. Often a single negative impact can be mitigated. However, when a series of impacts are allowed to compile, the end result has proven to be devastating.
“Today the Dungeness crab and our local estuary area are deemed as contaminated and not recommended for consumption. The oohlican populations have been wiped out on most of our local area streams. The Kitimat River has been negatively impacted by resource extractions rendering it reliant on hatchery augmentation. Trees on the west side of the valley have died off suspect to pollution; wildlife populations have been impacted and the list goes on.
“We have seen industries come and exploit our area and its resources, profit substantially and leave, only to pass on a legacy of toxic sites and compromised environment. What they have not left behind is any established fund for impacted First Nation’s area residents and stakeholders to manage and reinvest back into our environment for the benefit of habitat, fish, wildlife that has been impacted.
“Ultimately, industry in general has been allowed to exploit, profit, and leave without being held accountable for our forest to correct damage. That’s the history we currently witness here.
“For those of us that call coastal British Columbia home, the existing environment, fish, wildlife, and associated values are the foundation of who we are. It is those values that foster and nurture many family bonds and are the result of cherished memories with loved ones and friends. It is those values that provide a healthy lifestyle and food source. It is those values that support numerous traditions and are the base of revered culture. It is those values that the Northern Gateway Project ultimately threatens to extinguish.” Transcript Vol.58-Mon June 25, 2012 (pdf)
Kitimat is getting ready for the next round of Joint Review hearings in the district on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.
The JRP is scheduled to hold the ten minute comment hearings at the Haisla Recreation Centre on the afternoon of June 25 and 26. The hearings scheduled for June 27 have been cancelled because, the JPR says: “The number of registered participants does not require the hearing session on 27 June.” As with other locations, it appears that many people are dropping out of the hearings because given Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s determination to push through the pipeline no matter what and they feel their voices will not matter.
On Monday night, June 18, the District of Kitimat Council approved a request from Douglas Channel Watch for a protest rally to be held Sunday, June 24, at 2 p.m. in the lower parking lot at City Centre Mall. The application to the council said that a number of speakers will also address the issue of the government’s omnibus Bill C-38.
Margaret Ouwehand of Douglas Channel Watch, also noted in her application, “we wish to have a short march where participants would walk on sidewalks and obey all traffic signals.” In the report on the application, District staff noted that under the BC Municipal Code, a march of more than 30 people is considered a parade and in the case of Kitimat would also require the permssion of the local RCMP. The protest rally is being heavily promoted on Twitter and Facebook as well as more traditional media, so it is likely that there will be more than 30 people participating in the rally and march.
At the same time, some members of the federal NDP caucus will be in Kitimat for the second day of the hearings. A release from the NDP says Deputy Leader and Environment Critic Megan Leslie will lead the delegation to the northwest.
“Our caucus feels so strongly about the risks of Enbridge that many MPs are joining Megan to stand up to heavy-handed Conservative tactics,” said Skeena-Bulkley MP and House Leader Nathan Cullen. “The government has gutted environmental assessments and is trying to ram this project through and we’re not going to let that happen.”
The NDP Enbridge tour begins on Monday, June 25 with events and a public forum in Vancouver, a clear attempt to gain major media attention there, especially in an era where budget-strapped news organizations are always reluctant to send people to Kitimat.
Leslie and Cullen will then lead a smaller delegation to meet with Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross and will tour a portion of the proposed marine route that oil supertankers would take to transport raw bitumen to Asia from Kitimat.
As well as attending the JRP hearings at Kitamaat Village, the NDP caucus plan to meet with local muncipal leaders in Kitimat as well as municipal officials and First Nations leaders from other communities.
“I’m really looking forward to key members of our Opposition caucus meeting with people who are directly affected by Enbridge,” Cullen said in his news release.
“Having taken part in dozens of Enbridge rallies and meetings over the years, I know there will be many very powerful moments. It’ll be pretty up front and personal.
“Megan and our caucus are here to stand in solidarity with residents of the Northwest in opposing a dangerous project that brings us so many risks and really only benefits Enbridge shareholders.”
In the evening after the JRP hearings, the NDP will then hold a public forum at the Best Western Inn in Terrace, starting about 6:30 p.m. (depending on the length of the afternoon JRP hearings)
Terrace mayor Dave Pernarowski and perhaps members of other local councils will make a welcoming statement, followed by an address from MEgan and then an information session with presentations from individuals & organizations, followed by a question and answer session and break-out groups for those interested.
With the June 27 JRP hearings now cancelled, there may be a second public meeting in Kitimat that afternoon starting at 12:30 p.m. but that is yet to be confirmed.
(Typo fixed, correcting day of rally from Monday to Sunday)
